Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Workshop

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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Checkuser request Molobo and Koretek

1) I'm urging you to perform a CU under this rationale on Molobo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in connection with Koretek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). For more data to check against: [1] [2] [3]. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Checkuser shows nothing interesting, useful, or helpful. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Koterek has not been doing any puppetry, right? Has Molobo been asked to discuss his connection to Koterek? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Creating a new account only to help you with an ad hominem attack against Deacon in the light of his RfAr and, furthermore, defaming Deacon while being under remedy against personal attacks with the main account,[4] is a textbook example of abusive puppetry. Although I didn't need to, I did inform Molobo the moment I gave evidence some days ago and he did not reply while going on editing. You'd officially deny anything other than CU as evidence against him anyway.[5] That's all I have to say to this. If you want him to make a confession, talk to him yourself. Sciurinæ (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is obvious Koterek is somebody's sock, it has not done anything disruptive. Providing evidence is not a personal attack.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacking Deacon's argument as "an old grudge attack by polonophobic" rather than the content of his message is a personal attack. WP:PA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A noble sentiment - one, however, that is already dead by the time people get to ArbCom, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion to recognize more parties and rename this case

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. First, it is obvious that I and Deacon are not the only parties. I believe that all editors who have presented extensive evidence sections or started their own workshop proposals (other than arbcom members) should be recognized as parties. Second, the focus of this case is not only my person, but quite a few other editors (this was also the case with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. However, framing it as "Piotrus arbcom" is misleading, as it gives uninvolved bystanders an impression that it's "all about Piotrus and nobody else". This ArbCom started as "Piotrus-Deacon" but have obviously outgrown that, and should be renamed to something more general and less fingering individuals, such as "Eastern Europe". Let me stress: this is not a technicality, naming is important (see framing (social sciences).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Regrettably support. As I have become a target of one of Piotrus' antagonists with whom I had no dealings with prior to this sordid affair and have been labeled a member of Piotrus' personal cabal. —PētersV (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. I thought the last case was misnamed. No difference here. It's inherently prejudicial in such a multisided dispute to name it after a single Wikipedian. Propose renaming to Eastern European disputes. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is a significant escalation of Digwuren case, just looking at the number of participants and the amount of evidence. This case is about the tag teams and people being evicted from WP by the tag teams. Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars was created to consider such problems. We should use recommendations by this working group. The case should be renamed as "Eastern Europe" or something like that. As about other official parties, I do not know how this can be determined.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons stated above. Of all parties to this proceeding, recognized and unrecognized, the last that might, by any stretch of a deluded imagination, deserve this kind of treatment is Piotrus. The title of this proceeding should not be inculpatory of one individual—the individual least culpable of anything. "Central and Eastern Europe" would be an apt title. Nihil novi (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don′t care. How case is named is of little importance to me. The list of parties is even more meaningless since ArbCom routinely applies sanctions to editors who were not parties of the case. Some forms of conduct practiced by Piotrus should stop including seeking sanctions as a method of content dispute resolutions, off-line coordinated revert wars and off-line lobbying for such sanctions. I happen to see evidence that Pitorus have done it. If others disagree, this is what the evidence page for, to judge how strong it is. The remedies should make doing such things impossible to anyone regardless of who engaged in them in the past. Thus, whatever remedies I am going to propose that would address this activity, I pledge to abide by them anyway (since I always did so anyway.) If ArbCom wants to formulate the remedies in a way that they apply to all, regardless of whether others engaged in such conduct, I am fine with it either way. --Irpen 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some questions to the Committee

3) Irpen was on Wiki-break when he claims he received an unsolicited invitation to join Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars via an email from an Arbcom member. I have the following questions:

• Whose idea was it to extend this unsolicited invitation to him?
• Why was he invited, rather than say for example, Piotrus?
• Does this indicate Irpen enjoys a degree of support by some members of ArbCom and his views are given more weight?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some questions. As it happened, Irpen apparently walked out of the workgroup after another participant removed one of Irpen's critical comments to a proposal, all of which unfortunately validates my original concerns in regard to the workshop's membership guideline: "A record of conduct or activity that suggests an ability to work well and constructively with others as part of such a group." Martintg (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever invited him, Irpen was finally very disappointed. He said: "Arbcom completely discrediting itself by arbitrators' glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics" [6]. What did he mean? I have no idea, just like you.Biophys (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A common characteristic of true believers is that if a person/group/community does not agree with them, they tend to describe them as, in, well, rather negative terms.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

• Martin, I cannot answer the questions for the ArbCom but I don't mind these questions answered by those to who they are addressed. I never play games under the carpet. In fact, I am trying to promote at this very page a measure aimed at a greater transparency of interactions between the ArbCom and the case' parties. Strangely, it was met without enthusiasm by Piotrus and his supporters
• Biophys, I was never a fan of this ArbCom and you can see my many comments to that degree for a very long time. The particular comment you quote (how nice to feel being followed so closely!) was about a case that not just me, but the whole community, saw as completely outrageous. It was a matter not in any way related to the workgroup or even EE.
• Piotrus, you better tone down this "true believers" stuff. You are viewed a true believer by a lot of people. And, besides, your remark is totally off. My comment was about the ArbCom, particularly, about a particular secret trial that outraged the community so much. ArbCom took no part in the workgroup's development. Not a single ArbCom member was a part of it. And only one made some comments in the observer's status. Those were very few and only in the earliers stage of the workgroup (the first month or so.) The reason why I "walked away" is explained very clearly in my post found by Biophys. Where do you find an ArbCom in this issue? --Irpen 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bare facts

1. Irpen blames ArbCom of "glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics" [7].
2. Irpen and Alex Bakharev requested "Ethical conduct" from ArbCom - see above, which prevents effective communication of ArbCom and WP community during this case
3. Irpen and Alex Bakharev insist that collection of evidence is "malicious" (see below)
4. Irpen announced that he received an unsolicitated email to work in "Ethnic conflicts" commission and then denounced conclusions of that commission.
5. Irpen did his best to promote Giano to ArbCom [8]

All of that in fact serves only one purpose: to prevent productive work of ArbCom, even if Irpen does not mean it. And Irpen in fact successfully prevented the productive work of Piotrus and others, as I tried to explain in Evidence.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason for Irpen to single out my evidence for removal [9]? And what was the reason for his team to attack me during this case [10] [11]? Because I know what he and others are doing, and he knows that I know.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Response: this comment above is just another demonstration of the outright crankery that is going on and something needs to be done to prevent the case' pages from becoming unusable. Some of the stuff is too obvious for even those who don't know full context. As for the rest:

• I invite anyone interested to read my thoughts on the matters that prompted that outrage over an ArbCom action by clicking on these links: [12] [13] [14], as well as some earlier diffs for the context: earlier: [15] and [16].
• Accusations like: "Irpen did his best to promote Giano to ArbCom [referenced to a diff of me offering Jimbo a bottle of Brandy]" should send some to do some real head-scratching.

Is this stuff going to be tolerated at the arbitration pages. --Irpen 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We are all aware of you outrage against ArbCom, but why cite it as a reason for walking out of the ethnic conflict workgroup? Martintg (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My walking out of the workgroup did not have anything to do with the ArbCom or my attitude towards it. You should really read the diffs, Martin. --Irpen 20:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Two interesting trivia about wisdom of selection of people to the group (which otherwise dead a decent job, if not significantly better than open community work done by Folantin and simply led to the creation of short lived oligrachy): 1) one invited member of the workgroup (not Irpen) formerly involved in a RfC with me which was resolved to my satisfaction (that person apologized to me) told me that they would veto my application, and I would join the group after their dead body. 2) Near the end of the workforce discussion, a member told me that "the work would be going much more smoothly if Irpen, predictably, wouldn't be objecting to any enforceable remedy" (please note I am not attesting to the truth of that statement, just quoting it; that said it does otherwise fall within my experience of Irpen desire to torpedo any avenue that would allow dealing with incivility and harassment (WP:PAIN and so on)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you said enough that I can tell who your source is. Let me also share with you a piece of "interesting trivia about wisdom", as you call it. Be wary of placing your trust with anyone who breaches the confidentiality trust towards others. That said, I will add that I have nothing to hide, Piotrus. You see, I never ever say things in private that would embarrass me if they become known publicly. Never! You may find it acceptable to laud yourself on-wiki as a pillar of civility, while gossiping about people behind their backs, just as you did at #admins about Lokyz, M.K., Boodles, etc. I do not do such thing. In fact, I called for the group's openness from the earliest stages [17] and about the same time I posted to the group's wiki a complete waiver of any expectation of privacy freeing anyone to repeat anything I am saying within the group. However, I did not impose my preferences on other members. Precisely because the group was supposed to function confidentially and other members were entitled to the expectation of privacy, I never posted anything throughout the entire period of group's operation, despite I thought that this secrecy is counterproductive. Again, please read this comment from one of the group's members. As for the specific issue, Piotrus, I let this comment, also not by me, speak for itself. Now, your source may pass to you anything I said in the group. I don't mind. If someone wants to continue this discussion, please do so outside of the workshop's page which is too cluttered as is. Event the workshop's talk is fine with me. --Irpen 05:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Ethical conduct

1) To preserve the integrity and fair-handedness all parties cease and desist from contacting arbitrators or non-recused clerks privately or semi-privately (that is outside of the case pages) in relation to this case. Leaving a note at the arbitrator's talk page pointing to a new case development is acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would contradict Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, which specifically notes that while public evidence and discussion is preferred, private is acceptable and in minority of cases, even preferable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Irpen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Ethical conduct. I think contacting arbitrators off the case pages is unethical as it gives one side of the story an undue weight since all sides of the case are unlikely to watchlist pages of all arbitrators to present their side of the story to counter the arguments presented by the initial contact. This applies even more to the off-wiki communication. The Arbitration pages exist specifically to present the evidence and make statements. Unless there is some info that is private by its nature (like checkuser results) I think very strongly that it has to be presented in the conspicuous place accessible to everyone. In RL parties of the case are not allowed to go in and out the judge's chambers and juror's deliberation rooms to kibitz about the case in private. Of course it is permissible to post a note like "Please see [workshop_page here] for the new development of the stalled case." Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would be obviously exempted but this case does not include any sensitive issues that I can see. --Irpen 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no such policy and never was. I belive in integrity and fairness of all ArbCom members. To the contrary, free exchange of information and opinions would be very helpful. This proposal by Irpen is consistent with his way of thinking that presenting and discussing the evidence can be somehow harmful for the project. He indeed accuses Piotrus of ... preparing a "malicious" evidence for ArbCom [18]. There are also some other questionable activities, perhaps to suppress free expression of views about this casee [19][20] Biophys (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Should be a routine ethical constraint anyway. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a juctice system, but one can use some analogies. There are no such requirements even for courts in real life. That kind of constraints would normally apply to jurors, but ArbCom members are more like judges. The judges are free to contact with the both sides during due process to ensure the justice.Biophys (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, a question to this. What issues in this case require privacy so that necessitate private evidence? Let's simplify it. During this and last case I refrained from any off-line discussion of the ongoing cases with arbitrators while you were indeed emailing rabidly. Could you just not do it this time? --Irpen 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of certain emails requires privacy, for example, if the parties that send them did not make them public. In any case, rest peacefully - I have not been discussing you with any arbitrators recently.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose As in real life, private diplomacy is often more effective than public diplomacy--where editors may well feel they are "locked" into a (public) position. There should be no impediment to communication, public or private, regardless of originator. Nor should we codify communications in a way that some are viewed as "good" while some are viewed as "bad." —PētersV (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. All diplomatic channels must remain open especially for a case as complex as this. There are also occasional instances of smear campaigns waged by individual users that do not need to be addressed publicly and on equal footing. --Poeticbent talk 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, many arbitration cases suffers from the lack of appropriate feedback between the ArbCom and community. Someone provided an evidence of something. Is this a good or an insufficient evidence? Maybe some additional diffs are needed? A provider of an evidence (like me) often has no idea. It is entirely appropriate for anyone including members of ArbCom to ask for an additional evidence if needed.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. In all my dealings with arbcom, including this one, I was very disappointed by the near complete lack of interaction of the committee members with the parties. We don't know if our evidence is sufficient or clear, we don't know what needs to be clarified (if anything), we often need moderation... and we get none of that. Over time, I've asked the committee members for such clarifications or moderation several times, every time I got either an inconclusive, general reply or no reply at all. I'd certainly agree that the problem is not too much of communication between the committee and the parties, but not enough of it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. As far as I can tell, we're relieving ourselves in the windward direction, and not much more. I expect we'll have another "unbridgeable gap" dispute ruling with admonitions to all to assume good faith. At this point, assume good faith "despite 'evidence' to the contrary" would be a marked improvement. Let's start off with assume good faith WITH NO MODIFIERS FOR WHEN IT DOES NOT APPLY. Otherwise it's just an open invitation to contentious editors to be judge and jury. Oh, wait, isn't that what we have here? I highlight Irpen's because of his emphasis on evidence to the contrary. I submit that this whole proceeding is yet another attempt to fabricate a narrative to construe Piotrus as being the "evidence to the contrary" WP:POSTERBOY. —PētersV (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Sam Blacketer

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Standard wording. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Aye, of course. Be great if it were enforced! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per above and below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - absolutely Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per Alex Bakharev. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support It's a commentary on these proceedings that it's felt this statement needs to be made. —PētersV (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Naturally. --Poeticbent talk 19:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. But as evidence of this and many other cases shows, there is in fact an enormous "ideological struggle" in wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another standard finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Don't you mean principle, not finding? In any case, this is a very important principle, key to this ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - seems reasonable Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. A noble thought. --Poeticbent talk 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. And we should add the trailer, "... nor should editors leap to such accusations." 99.9% of the time accusations are driven by perceptions fueled of past conflicts. —PētersV (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Another standard finding from which the latter point going into more detail on revert-warring has been dropped as not especially relevant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Key points: consensus is build in a polite discussion, not when one party refuses to compromise and/or accuses the other of various violations (from antisemitism to academic dishonesty and so on). One certain editors prove that no constructive discussion with them is possible, two things are likely to occur in their area of editing (which become the proverbial wiki-battlegrounds): flaming on talk and edit warring in article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I certainly agree. But in fact, this rule is most frequently violated by thousands of WP users. As a practical matter, when dealing with such issues, WP administrators usually punish only most disruptive users: those with a long history of blocks. To objectively use such sanctions, one need to use some formal criteria. For example, any users with more than N 3RR blocks could be automatically placed on 1RR restriction. Punishing a user only for making a long series of reverts (as in example I provided in evidence) would be unfair. This is not to justify edit warring of course.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem I've noticed recently with how 3RR and edit warring is dealt with. It is interesting enough I've decided to write an essay on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - obvious standard for users in good standing Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per above. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[Comment:] I see several problems with this as stated:

1. First, tagging is not explicitly included as another type of content edit. Therefore, articles may be tagged without citing anything other than personal opinion. Yet a reputable revert of a tag in response is edit warring.
2. Second, it does not differentiate between reverts based on reputable sources as supported by the vast majority of editors participating in working on an article versus reverts based on personal interpretations/conclusions not supported by citing reputable sources at the time of revert.
3. Third, it does nothing to discourage WP:IDONTLIKEIT reverts done under the guise of calling a reputably sourced edit "vandalism."
4. Fourth, and finally, it does not recognize who it is that started the edit war. We've already proven in these affairs that adopting language that essentially calls for punishing both sides provides a window for abuse. —PētersV (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, with one additional expectation. Under no circumstances should the 3RR rule be ever allowed to be broken with impunity especially amidst a political propaganda war. --Poeticbent talk 19:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This will not be the last word on the disagreements highlighted in the case, but is needed to set the limits on the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Should a "sub-sovereign" institution like the Arbitration Committee really be defining its own role or powers? Or is this merely a repetition of pre-defined policy? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A couple of policy questions. It seems that content disputes are sometimes artificially inflated only to make a targeted user angry by removing his edits. How one can distingush such "bad faith" content edits and "good faith" edits? I know, we should always assume good faith. Do we assume that "bad faith" content edits simply do not exist? And if they exist, how can we identify them? Of course, lying about sources is an example of bad-faith content edits. But would an outright deletion of numbers from scholarly books (e.g. book by Robert Conquest) qualify as a bad faith edit? Biophys (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words: Is it the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle bad-faith content disputes among editors? How to identify bad faith content? The problem here is that ArbCom lacks the manpower/skills to deal with most content edits. It's easy to deal with revert warring, feasible to deal with incivility, but answering your question regarding Conquest would require them to read the book, read the reviews, and spend days familiarizing themselves with just one tiny aspect of one of one million content conflicts out there (since, obviously, we will get editors claiming that Conquest is controversial/etc.). How many of the arbcom members are familiar with the discussion of biases of modern Russian historiography, for example? Just today, I have one discussion (here and section below) were my opponent is accusing two scholars of being fringe/controversial/unreliable/biased/nationalistic/unblanced and so on. It is possible that one of us is attacking/defending them because of bad faith; but to answer this, ArbCom would need to read through their work, compare it to others, read reviews, and so on... and what about a content dispute about global warming, or abortion, or issues somewhat more familiar to arbcom members but also, issues were they are much more likely to have their own biases? Asking them to judge content opens a gigantic can of worms. For that, truly, we would need panels of academic experts. PS. I do think that ArbCom can answer whether editors have biases, and whether their editing pattern is constructive (NPOV) or aims towards a particular POV and/or creating a battleground. But that's not easy. The ArbCom may be able to speak of good- or bad-faith among editors, but not among their sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words: WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability policies can not be enforced. A lot of WP articles are ridiculously biased and collectively owned by teams of nationalistic POV-pushers. If I see those articles, I should not go there to avoid being in your position or much worse.Biophys (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. They can be enforced, by the open source bazaar paradigm. We are assuming that most editors are neutral, respect our policies, can be civil and so on. And in most cases, this is correct (hence Wikipedia works). The problem arises in controversial topics, were you get above average number of uncivil extremists, who are pushing their POV and creating battlegrounds when they are challenged. They chase away other contributors (who wants to play in a mud arena?), and the job of the ArbCom is not to decide which side speaks the truth, but to plonk the uncivil one, since once you get the trolls down, the civil editors from various sides (POVs) should reach a neutral, verifiable version of the article. To give an example: it doesn't matter if a troll is pro-Soviet, or anti-Soviet; as long as he is a troll, we kick him out.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Once you get the trolls down, the civil editors from various sides (POVs) should reach a neutral, verifiable version of the article". Right. That is exactly what you tried to accomplish, and here you are, a subject of several ArbComm proceedings and countless ANI discussions (my apology if this sounds uncivil). To be honest, I do not see that the "open source bazaar" and the "catching trolls" strategies are really working to improve any strongly biased or poor articles I am familiar with, such as Holodomor, 2008 South Ossetian war, Russia, Putin and many others. The articles grow bigger, but they do not improve. Even worse, they promote misinformation. Sorry for "trolling" you. I am not going to argue here any more.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, you never "trolled" me. You are one of many good editors who try to write encyclopedic content in a civil manner, and you know you have my respect. It is always a pleasure to discuss things with you, whether we are discussing content or Wikipedia policies.

You are completely right that Wikipedia is inefficient when it comes to dealing with incivil battleground creators. This is a big problem: it makes valuable editors leave (why should they contribute to project and get flamed in return?) and thus weakens the quality of the articles (which become POVed, when battleground creators win) or are simply not here (the loss potential of articles written by chased away editors). This is the explanation why the Polish community on Wikipedia has not grown in 4 years I've been observing it: we get new recruits, but old ones burn out under flame torrents and leave. So far Wikipedia has more or less worked (the number of editors grows, particularly in non-controversial areas), but if the civility erosion is not stopped, I deeply fear it may go the way Usenet went: from a useful site for quality discussions to a flaming hell. I hope this ArbCom will be the one to put an end to that process, and restrict/ban some prominent battleground creators. I have invested too much to simply give up and leave, even in face of constant harassing I am facing from battleground fans, but IF the ArbCom fails here, I have deep worries about the future of this project. Technically, Wikipedia can scale infinitely. Socially - well, I mentioned Usenet: it was technically infinitely scalable, too... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. It is true that situation in Russian and EE history "sections" is rapidly changing from bad to worse (in contrast to Biology/Chemistry "section" were people are very friendly). It is also true that ArbComm can not deal with all issues. And yes, singling out and punishing most serious and obvious violators at ANI (like in this case) would help to defuse the situation.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Comment: It is indeed not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, "bad-faith" disagreements (if we manage to define them) is the issue of conduct and arbcom can deal with them. The line between good and bad faith is difficult to draw but it is often possible. For example, if opposing parties base their claim on different sources and both sources are reasonable, it may well be a good faith disagreement. If, however, one party in the conflict falsifies sources or references some claims to sources that are difficult to verify but upon verification the claim turn out to be unsupported in these very sources, it is bad faith. Similarly, if one side of the conflict turns to off-site communication to recruit help in revert wars or surveys, this is bad faith. Once (and if) such activity is established with sufficient certainty, it may be used as a basis for ruling. --Irpen 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as blatant nationalistic, chauvinist or fundamentalist POV-pushing is not considered "good faith", which trap ArbCom has fallen into in the past. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. But unfortunately, we do not have any objective criteria to determine if a specific edit can be idenfined as "blatant nationalistic, chauvinist or fundamentalist POV-pushing", as explained by Piotrus above. If we had, that would be great.Biophys (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It is difficult to define the line between the good faith and the bad faith but good faith content disagreements are settled through wide discussed and compromises while bad faith is settled through the user conduct bodies including arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse. Durova^Charge! 06:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. And... don't stuff beans up your nose. --Poeticbent talk 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

5) The term 'meatpuppetry' is defined on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as "a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor". Recruiting other editors to come to Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting one side in a dispute is harmful to dispute resolution procedures and therefore damaging to the encyclopaedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from the meatpuppetry section of WP:SOCK. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Piotrus: That is, of course, where it becomes difficult unless we find a 'smoking gun', and I haven't made my mind up on this case. But since the issue has been raised in the course of the case it might potentially need a principle to lay behind any finding. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, the problem as I see it is determining whether an edit was done "because somebody was asked to" or "because they decided to do it." And one can ask others to do a lot of innocent things, to (asking for copyedit, asking for a reference and so on). Heck, I've asked academics to come and comment on some articles; in some cases I expected them to support some of my arguments (like here - search for "zuroff"), in others I didn't (here's an example) - was I recruiting them as meatpuppets (or in case of Leiman, who was likely to argue against me, "antipuppets"? :D)? What about RfC? If one request RfC, it is likely that one suspects the newcomers will support his side... I've requested dozens of content RfCs over my career :) I think the above may need a clarification that what's harmful is when one is recruiting "edit warriors" only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the term "meatpuppetry" unhelpful except in blatant cases of canvassing, and have recently introduced the gentler and clearer formulation "excessively coordinated editing" ... although I may be deluding myself when I think that adds anything beyond some additional syllables. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It makes it sound more civilized... which has some good, but also some bad sides to it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed, but what about editors who came to Wikipedia for other reasons and thus were not recruited for the site? I don't think editors are commonly "recruited for edit wars" (albeit I may be wrong). Not that I think meatpuppetry is important here in any case (since I don't think anybody involved here is a meatpuppet, even Alden - unless he was recruited to add Polish POV to Harry Potter articles :D).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. This is good definition. But I do not think meat-puppetry is relevant in this case. Such terms as meat-puppets or tag-teams are poorly defined, difficult to prove, and unnecessary. There are simply teams. Teams can be good if they improve WP content, or teams can be bad if they disrupt productive editing or conduct harassment. Do users "A" and "B" form a team or collaborate? This is as simple as WP:DUCK. Good team or bad team? That should be decided by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This does remind me a little of old discussions that equated WikiProject Poland/Poland-related noticeboard to Polish cabal. After all, editors of that wikiproject/board collaborate, nobody's denying that. Alas, WikiProject, regional noticeboards and similar wiki organizations are "teams" - but ones working for the betterment of the project. To argue otherwise simply shows bad faith (I don't recall Polish editors ever criticizing the institution of German/Russian/Lithuanian wikiproject or board, for example). On the contrary, I myself have been to a certain extent involved with the two latter, and I wish them all luck and more members.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Everyone collaborates with everyone. Talking about teams means introducing the collective responsibility. Everyone is accountable only for his own actions - individually, not collectively. So may be we should stop talking about "malicious teams", "tag-teams" and "meat-puppets"?Biophys (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do agree with findings of the ethnic/national conflict workgroup, outlined in WP:TAGTEAM. Sometimes, disruptive editors will band together and create a "bad team". This is a problem that needs to be dealt with. However, it appears that some can confuse a disruptive team with those trying to stop it (again - following the logical fallacy that "it takes two to tango", or simply - equating vandal preventer with a vandal). If a group of military history-interested editors, involved with WikiProject Military History, is policing milhist content, they are not an "evil tag team" - but they may be trying to prevent disruption by one or more of such tag teams. Now, replace the milhist by Polish in the above example, and you'll see the problem. Please also refer to my disclaimer ("most editors are not part of evil tag teams") here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I am beginning to understand what is that all about. ArbCom should make a ruling that confirms the existence of malicious tag-teams and explains what to do with them, in line with findings of the ethnic/national conflict workgroup. Sam refers to meat-puppetry here simply because this is a well known policy. But we do not have any previous rulings about tag-teams.Biophys (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I do hope you're right; it indeed would be good if the word tag team was mentioned more prominently than meatpuppetry, to avoid confusion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In view of the comments about the Poland/Poland-related noticeboard I'd like to highlight a wise observation: "If you post a Poland-German related issue to Polish noticeboard, post it at the German noticeboard too. Those boards are not meant for canvassing support from only one group of editors; consensus can only be reached if all sides are aware of an issue."[21] Good advice. Maybe it should be compulsory.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above. There is a very simple rule of thumb that separates meatpuppetry from legitimate incidents when editors share their positions on something. Meatpuppetting edits are almost always called in by off-site communication, such as email, IRC or Gadu Gadu. The term "excessively coordinated editing" coined by Newyorkbrad aptly reflects this difference. Off-line coordination in edit wars and surveys is always excessive. --Irpen 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This should be a common practice for all noticeboards and similar forums, nobody would disagree with that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Might be something alongside the canvassing rather then meat puppetry should go here? Most of the problems here are rather violation of WP:CANVASS, WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF than WP:SOCK Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Qualified endorse. Too often, the term meatpuppet is misapplied and I have concerns that the current wording is prone to overly broad interpretation. If editors A and B were unknown to each other before they joined Wikipedia, encountered each other for the first time after 4000 edits, and at 12,000 edits consult with each other--there may be subsequent questions about whether those consultations amount to improper collusion but they are definitely not meatpuppets. Those who are inclined to suppose the worst sometimes try to apply meatpuppet to that scenario. It would be best to tighten the syntax and minimize the chance of this proposal being construed that way. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose "Meat-puppetry" is far too open to abuse as an accusation when like-minded editors of good faith and with reputable sources have a content dispute with another editor and the latter (single) editor makes the disagreement into an accusation of bad faith by playing the meat-puppet card against their opposition. —PētersV (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Please mind the following quote from WP:GANG: "It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between inappropriate meatpuppetry and consensus-based editing which is faced with a lone POV pusher claiming that there is a tag team in operation." The actual word meatpuppet is used almost exclusively by flame warriors trying to get back at opposition in propaganda wars. There's usually nothing sinister about the fact that people share information especially when faced with a nutcase. --Poeticbent talk 20:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good principle. I wonder how any disagrees that "Recruiting other editors to come to Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting one side in a dispute is harmful to dispute resolution procedures and therefore damaging to the encyclopaedia." The difficulty may be in proving that as editors may legitimately and independently agree on certain issues. However, there is no doubt that off-line coordinated revert wars constitute the disruption whether you call it "meatpuppetry" or "excessively coordinated editing". However, in such wars we only have the series of on-wiki edits to judge. If same editors who are known to chat off-line show up in different articles which they never edited in the past only to revert to a partner's version, if this becomes a repeated pattern, if these editors also do not do any other actions on the articles later, it is up to the community (and the arbitrators) to judge how likely this is to be a mere coincidence. --Irpen 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered the advice from WP:CABAL that states that a cabal (meatpuppetry) is a self-fulfilling prophecy? Because of your (and others...) constant "crying wolf" and decrying Polish editors as part of the cabal, I've noticed that editors who were once never interested in certain articles or issues are becoming more interested in them, they follow one's another edits, and collaborate to defend against slander and to deal with disruption of articles they were previously not aware of. Radicalization of course is part of this, but it is caused by bad faithed actions on the part of the other party - not the other way around. Finally, a big part is the "assumed bad faith": without proof, some assume that editors are recruited "to support one side" instead of the perfectly acceptable recruiting to "join a discussion without prejudice and support a side of recruited person's choice, not that of a recruiter". For example, I've stated several times that on many occasions I've tried to recruit academics via offwiki communication media (emails) to join our project; I've never however told them which side to support (and I've contacted academics who may reasonably support POV of mine but also those who may reasonably support POV of the other party, too).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, "assuming bad faith", "accusations without proof", etc., is all bad stuff I agree. There is nothing wrong with recruiting academics off-wiki. There is nothing wrong with recruiting non-academics off-wiki. What's wrong is "Hey, could you revert here for me?" I hope the difference is clear. --Irpen 18:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Determination of meatpuppetry

6) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A standard principle used in cases in which sockpuppetry is suspected; it may be relevant here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I am not familiar with the last part: "Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor". How does that work in practice? I would be rather offended, for example, if somebody would treat me and Alden as a single editor, and punished me for his incivility, for example. I'd also oppose treating User:Vlad fedorov (mentored and advised by Irpen) as having anything to do with him (Irpen tried to moderate him, Vlad couldn't be moderated and got banned). While they shared similar POV and there was much communication between them (including edit warring on the same articles), it would be unfair to assume Irpen encouraged him (when publicly, he didn't) or punish him for Vlad's misbehaviors (hence I never thought of brining Vlad into our discussions and evidence, even through he was quite active around Piotrus 1 arbitration...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope the arbs will understand that supporting such a ruling would be extremely consequential, though not by any means do I suggest it would be bad. It will however empower administrators to close votes and other such things with a version of "consensus" significantly different from the current, one based on this principle. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We need some criteria here. For example, the Giovanni33 was indeed an obvious case of sock- and meat-puppetry. The puppets of Giovanni33 satisfied the following criteria: (1) they did almost nothing in WP except supporting edits by their "master" in the periods of time when their "master" was inactive; (2) they were obvious SPAs focusing on a small set of subjects representing a subset of topics edited by their "master". No, I do not think that any participants of this Piotrus-2 case, including Alden Jones fit these criteria. Formation of teams by established WP users may not be always appropriate, but teaming up is not the meat-puppetry. Sure, Vlad was not a puppet of Irpen. Only User:Jo0doe might be identified as a potential meat puppet of Irpen based on the criteria above. This is not to accuse him of anything. I only think if there is a scientific method to identify potential meat puppets. Maybe yes, but this requires at least as serious investigation/evidence as in Giovanni33 case. I did not see such analysis/proofs here. Once again, meat-puppetry is a poorly defined term (see my objections above). We simply do not need it in this case.Biophys (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We should firmly draw the distinction between the alleged leader and the followers (judged by whether the editor in question is a SPA and whether he started the disruptive pattern or joined it later). Only the followers may be subject to this rule, because otherwise it would enable single purpose accounts to frame the alleged leader in 3RR violations and similar things and to get him blocked. Colchicum (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Looking for masterminds and conspiracies is amusing, but pointless (particularly when one considers arguments that even national intelligence services are engaged in editing Wikipedia...). Groundless accusations of being on somebody's payroll (ex. [22]) are only good for a warning or block for bad faith. At one point an IP rambled on my page about cabal-proving telephone transcripts ([23], [24])... I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the lenght some people will go in cabal investigations :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We do not need claims like that.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not going to comment just yet - would like to see some Fofs first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• • A difficult principle to endorse. Makes sense up to a point, as in cases of obvious sockpuppetry, yet a formulation that works around distinguishing factors would be better. For instance, when Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris were accused of being socks I asked Mantanmoreland for examples of occasions where the two accounts had disagreed with each other or approached a discussion from different perspectives. Mantanmoreland wasn't even able to describe one, much less provide diffs for it: the only distinction between them was that they wrote in different social registers. Two conscientious editors who think independently will accumulate patterns of ways in which they act differently that tie into the editors' respective beliefs and approaches. Raw frequency of agreement is not a sufficient metric: what matters more are the situations where they participated in the same discussion and disagreed. Do they never disagree? Occasional one-offs might be generated to deflect suspicion, but patterns of disagreement--even minor or subtle ones--that sustain themselves over months and carry a consistent rationale are good evidence that two people are similarly minded rather than colluding. Established non-single-issue accounts deserve the chance to explain themselves if they can. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose By this logic, a block of editors contending the moon is made of cheese has an "agenda" and an (opposing) block of editors contending the moon is made of rock also has an "agenda." By extension, any group of like-minded editors are meat-puppets. Personally, I already know 99.9% of the time who is going to be on what side of some contentious issue I am involved in. Does that make them meat-puppets? Only if my agenda is to accuse them of bad faith. The use of this term should simply be dropped. —PētersV (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I should mention I've also been accused of "leading" groups when I've only been one editor of many taking a certain position. —PētersV (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, simply because the principle in not enforceable. Uninvolved administrators can never be fully capable of determining what constitutes a disruptive edit versus a rational one in the case of political propaganda campaigns so often plaguing Eastern European history. --Poeticbent talk 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to re-read the original principle because you adding possibilities that are already accounted for. Piotrus: If Alden made an uncivil edit, the only way you two would be concidered the same editor by this finding is if you also made a similar disruptive (uncivil) edit. That's not even the point of the finding. The point is that if editor A and B have a similar agenda, and A reverts editor C without discussion twice, and B reverts the same thing without discussion twice (both disruptive edits of a similar manner) then A and B should be concidered the same user and would have broken 3RR. It is not the point of the finding to lump people of a similar mind into one easily punishable ball.

Editors with the same agenda and make the same disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.

Not - Editors with the same agenda may be treated as a single editor.

Not - Editors with the same agenda making similar nondisruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.198.161.173.180 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Positive principle but needs a little more specifics. If an editing pattern on several articles takes place as a result of the off-line coordination, this is a good rule of thumb to tell the right from the wrong. Determining such off-line coordination is really a crux of the matter because the coordination, if their is any, is taken off-line specifically to avoid its detection. It takes to study the evidence and conclude what it shows. But "off-line factor" is a good clue to determine what is going on. --Irpen 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Irpen

Updates

I am currently having an outside-of-the-arbcom discussion with Piotrus at my talk and I think there is a chance that we can achieve an agreement that might address most of my concerns. As long as I still see a reasonable chance of Piotrus and myself coming to an agreement in that discussion, I am refraining from drafting my own ArbCom proposal. --Irpen 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Since Piotrus stopped contributing to the discussion we were having at my talk as an attempt to resolve our differences in a friendly dialog, I am to finish my evidence section and start posting to the workshop. A couple of more days patience would be appreciated. If Piotrus changes his mind, my talk page is open. --Irpen 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Since your attitude in the talk discussion is that I admit that I am guilty of all that my opponents accuse me of, and you (and they) are innocent victim of me and/or other Polish editors, I am afraid there is little point in continuing this discussion. Almost the entirety of your "argument" is nothing but a loaded question ("Piotrus, admit you are evil, and promise to improve!"). The committee can see from reading Irpen's talk that I tried again to patch things up with him - and again failed. Who is to blame for it - well, it's the committee job to decide.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you plainly miscust our discussion. My attitude is not about guilt but about seeking harmonious editing climate which I view impossible until certain conduct continues to take place. The facts on what was taking place are not even disputed.

• You do not deny (which would be impossible) that you have been collecting "incriminating diffs" for years (and followed your targets around while searching for material) to use at the opportune time in an attempt to expunge or sanction your opponents.
• You did not even deny that on many occasions you resorted to direct off-wiki soliciting of reverts from your IM network friends.
• And you can't deny that you used off-line fora to shop for sanctions of your "enemies", fora where they had no chance to counter your accusations, and that, while preaching the civility vigilance on-wiki, you found it fit to call people with various bad names behind their backs where they cannot see it.

With the facts being beyond dispute, the disagreement is only on whether they amount to a bad practice and on whether we can agree that this should not be done anymore. You refuse to admit your black book is a form of an attack and cast it as defense; you see nothing wrong with your off-line conduct, including insulting people behind their backs, while I see this inappropriate. I offered a forgive and forget approach and simply asked to make a simply pledge to abide by some plain and simple code of conduct. I also offered that once the code of conduct is agreed upon I cosign such pledge (to which I abode anyway) and would encourage all editors active in such conflicts to join. Throughout this discussion you refused to do so in various ways.

This brings us back to the need to get the outside judgment on such conduct and, if possible, a binding rule that would define coordinated revert warring, black booking and block shopping as permissible or harmful. I am mostly done with my evidence and, hopefully, my next workshop proposal would help find the solutions to the problems. --Irpen 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

General remarks

This is my first ever workshop proposal. So, forgive my lack of experience. Please anyone copyedit any statement as you see fit. Also, if you want to modify it (without significantly altering the meaning) please feel free to do so without asking rather than post an alternative below it as this would be more practical. Instead of repeating parts of others' proposals, I will just refer and #link them (example) to consolidate the discussions. --Irpen 06:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning. The malicious and ill fated removal of my earlier comment by User:Irpen will not be accepted. Such blatant misconduct performed before the entire community only proves his malevolent objectives and his gross inability to follow basic rules of conduct. User:Irpen’s editorial record in mainspace can easily confirm similar antisocial attitude stretching over prolonged periods of time. Please stop tampering with comments made by your opponents, such as the one made by myself on October 7, 2008, which you deleted. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Reinstated below:

• Disagree. Presenting diffs going back to early 2007 is clearly not acceptable in these proceedings. --Poeticbent talk 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent, the workshop format encourages comments on each other's proposals but this above is out of place as I did not propose anything above. Could the clerk deal with this instead? --Irpen 17:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If your concern was really genuine, you could’ve moved my comment, I wouldn’t mind, or better yet, have “the clerk deal with this instead” as you say, but to delete my vote of non-confidence against your procedural improprieties was something else. Are you willing to acknowledge that, instead of regressing into lecturing others? --Poeticbent talk 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to engage into threaded discussions at random places. My edit summary was self-explanatory. It is outright silly to suggest that my action was somehow covert. Nothing that leaves a trace in a form of a diff can possibly be covert. If you want to discuss this, as a proposal of anything, please start a discussion as a Finding of Fact or take it to talk and don't disrupt the workshop's format. It is messy as it is. Now, could the clerk please deal with this intrusion? --Irpen 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principles

A. From Sam's proposal

• Purpose of Wikipedia
• Editorial process
• "excessively coordinated editing"

Please discuss there. --Irpen 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

B. From Alex' proposal

1. Representing all views
2. Forgive and forget
3. No black books (with addition that even keeping such books off-line, thus recording incidents for future use instead of trying to solve them counters the spirit of DR)
4. Administrators should have trust of the community with addition of the standard "role model" clause along the Higher standards of administrators by M.K. or #Administrators should lead by example in their project areas by Novickas

C. Also

1. Wikipedia is not a battleground from Piotrus' proposal
2. Discussing editors' backgrounds from Novickas' proposal
3. Acknowledging error by Novickas too

Transparency

1) As the openness is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, transparency is always preferable in Wikipedia actions. With harmless chatter being irrelevant for any Wikipedia proceedings (and thus completely outside of this principle), the mode for deliberations and considerations of the controversial issues should be open by default. This includes both editorial decisions on content and DR proceedings. The Wikipedia procedures should be opaque only when there is a clear need for such which may include checkuser, minor editors and other privacy issues, reigning in the real life harassment of Wikipedians, ArbCom internal deliberations, etc. updated 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Openness is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Privacy of certain Wikipedia mechanism are warranted for certain specific issues, harmless for many other issues and harmful when used to conceal unethical conduct. Former version. Replaced by the one above. --Irpen 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. I am all for openness, both as it encourages good conduct and since it makes Wikipedia more valuable to researchers. However: 1) openness is no guarantee of good conduct (for example, 99.9% of harassment and incivility I and others face has come from public wikipedia posts, not some secret discussions - which might have occurred, but of whom we are blisfully unaware of) and 2) wikis are great tools but are not perfect, and lack features for instant communication; hence usage of tools like IM or IRC is acceptable. Finally 3) sometimes, privacy is important (for example, for evidence collection, as I totally agree with Irpen evidence being compiled against editor A should not be public and google'able as it can be too easily twisted into a defamatory attack page).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. May need reformulation but the idea is like this. Certain issues like Arbcom level discussion, privacy, minors, investigation of real life threats etc. require privacy. There are plenty of issues where off-site discussions between Wikipedians are completely harmless and justified by speed by off-site communication. However, sometimes the private methods are specifically chosen to disguise bad conduct. Seems obvious enough. --Irpen 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I completely understand the statement. Can it be somehow copyedited for clarity. In general I agree there are things that require privacy all other onwiki things should be done above the table. Secrecy breeds suspicions and bad faith and there are to much of those on wiki qualities already (at least in the Eastern European corner of Wiki) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses. To Piotrus: 1) While "openness is no guarantee of good conduct" it is an important safe guard. Bad conduct behind the curtain is much more difficult to deal with and is considered much more unethical. You (like everyone else) are unlikely to "face incivility" in off-line discussions (Boody's inexcusable email to yourself is an exception, he already apologized for it profusely and IMO he should have been punished for it as if he posted that stuff to your talk which he was) but people with ethical lapses are much more likely to engage into (not face) bad conduct when they rely on the secrecy of the communication to have this conduct not exposed. 2) No one is saying that use of tools like IM or IRC are unacceptable per se. It is only about using those tools for illicit purposes I am talking about, such as coordination in revert wars, block shopping and badmouthing people behind their backs. Asking a question from a template expert, English expert, history expert or just innocent chat with a friend are perfectly fine. 3) Privacy is important when dealing with issues that are sensitive such as user-identifiable data, minors, RL threat and harassment of female editors or Poetlister-like abuse.

To Alex: please feel free to copyedit my statement. The idea is simple. Taking the Wikipedia business off-line is warranted (and required) under certain circumstances. When such circumstances are not meat, still taking advantage of off-line communication may be harmless and innocent. However, certain things must be done only in public view and some use of private communication is illicit. Examples are revert war coordination, snowballing surveys, block-shopping (when investigation of wrongdoing does not require checkuser tools or other sensitive information, etc.) Could you rewrite my proposal better? --Irpen 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated at 08:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC). Response: My idea is to have a principle about transparency but not vulnerable to justifiable claims that some off-line chatter is harmless. Some chatter's being harmless is not actually a question at hand. Also, for example harassment and RL threats to female editors must be treated with discretion. Harmless chatter may be taken off-line for the convenience' sake and it's not a problem when one asks technical questions, questions about English, discusses general stuff, cars, family or health issues with other wikipedians. But going off-line to coordinate revert wars, block shop or lay out coordinated attacks on other users would be against this principle. --Irpen 09:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Novickas (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

2) Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith is one of the Wikipedia's core principles. It requires treating actions of other editors based on an assumption that (1) the primary goal of all their actions is to advance the interest of the project (2) unless there is an evidence to the contrary. The first part is crucial but the second part is important too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is it different from my proposal? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please feel free to rephrase retaining the general meaning. --Irpen 06:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Is not the reason we are all here expending our effort (yet again) because of the ease with which one can purport to possess "evidence to the contrary?". To use an old banking metaphor about auditors: "Shoot first, ask questions later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) see [25]

Response: Re Piotrus and Vecrumba. I just wanted to show that AGF, being a two-part principle, is a balancing act. Gaming it assigning too much weight to part 1 is calling for blank-check. Gaming it the other way, overemphasizing part 2 would sanction abuse and effective revocation of the principle. So, this guideline requires applying common sense and reasonable interpretation of the evidence on whether it is "to the contrary" or just innocent stuff. The latter issue is a judgment matter and depends on many things such as sporadic vs repeated occurrence, alternative explanation being plausible or far-fetched, etc. --Irpen 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Response: My dear Irpen, your response here embodies everything that I find distasteful about this proceeding and disappointing about your participation. "Gaming it... Gaming it the other way...". Your combativeness has so infused every cell of your editorial being that you can't help describing everything from a framework of bad faith, even when you are providing a calm and reasoned response. The next time you come back from a Wiki-break, consider not jumping into one of these. If WP really needs to be defended from someone, you're not the only editor available for mustering in its defense. (Just relaying my perception.)—PētersV (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It is my experience that holding a view contrary to that held by a "true believer" is sufficient "evidence to the contrary" for them. Martintg (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse: We only "assume" if there is a lack of information. If an editor comes along coincident in time, effect, and point of view as another, then there is information about the edit, and there is no "assuming" to be done. Furthermore, "AGF" is advice we give to ourselves. It's a reminder to ourselves to be nice to strangers. It's important in that respect, but it is not a "policy" that carries with it punishments or methods, as no one will know what the content of my heart is when I view an edit. I can assume that an edit is done in good faith and still be most impolite about it. AGF cannot be used as a trenchcoat behind which the city park flasher hides. It is not armor. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: re: "Furthermore, "AGF" is advice we give to ourselves. It's a reminder to ourselves to be nice to strangers," I would posit it is, rather more importantly, advice to ourselves to be nice to our (editorial) adversaries. —PētersV (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A big problem with those entire preceedings is formed by giant amounts of bad faith - which is a staple of "true believers" (who have no good faith for anybody who disagrees with their POV).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Would support if it was phrased in terms of action guidelines rather than thought guidelines. Novickas (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that the AGF is a thought guideline rather than an action guideline. The more there are actions , the less is left to assumptions. Actions should be judged based on their merit, and while such explanations should still be based on plausible and reasonable assumptions, if the same 3-4 editors repeatedly appear at the articles they never edited conveniently when one editor exhausts his 3RR-quota, the more often this happens, the lest is left to "assume". If these were isolated incidents, we could still assume that nothing illicit is going on. But when the pattern is repeated, the second clause of AGF kicks in. --Irpen 18:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

3) Certain forms of bad conduct (such as off-line canvassing or coordinated revert warring) by their design do not produce direct evidence. In such cases the best reasonable judgment has to be drawn from circumstantial evidence. While presumption of innocence and assuming good faith should remain in place, reasonable conclusions may be drawn based on convincing circumstantial evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Per Peters - the problem is that some editors look at the same duck and one sees a cow and another, a dragon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When reasonable people disagree on who the creature is, certainly WP:DUCK does not apply. --Irpen 17:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, I hope the idea is clear. If there is a pattern of otherwise mysterious events that points to a specific cause, we may conclude the existence of such cause if an alternative explanation is highly implausible, especially if there is a pattern that is reproduced repeatedly. Sockpuppets with computer skills sufficient to render checkuser useless are banned precisely based on such principle while GRAWP or WoW's reincarnations are identified and banned without waiting for checkuser results. Please rephrase if you see how to say it better. --Irpen 07:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In many cases we have to draw conclusions based on the incomplete information (sockpuppeting and COI are obvious examples) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: This proceeding demonstrates that we have wildly disparate interpretations of incontrovertible events. I see no reason to extend discord and interpretation into the realm of the "maybe it happened, maybe it didn't." —PētersV (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither: WP:DUCK is simply the application of Occam's razor. Given a set of circumstances, one theorizes about cause, and one takes the simplest satisfactory explanation. One needs no fancy law to affirm what is a habit of mind and center point of science. Of course we already use circumstantial evidence in dealing with suspected sockpuppets, vandal accounts, etc., and so, even if we were in the mood to argue, we uphold the principle by desuetude (which is important in any online community). If a circumstantial noose tightens, it's always incumbent upon people to ask for the innocent explanation, but every additional element makes us favor the simplest complete explanation over the most complex series of coincidences. Geogre (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Attitude to problem resolution

4) As a general rule, conflicts should be either let go or addressed within a reasonable period after their occurrence, rather than being "saved up" for future use, with the narrow exception (Poetlister or RL harassment redux). Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action. While, based on the "two wrongs make it right" logic, such log may serve as certain "self defense", such activity in general can only contribute to escalation of the conflicts and would rather impede than help in the dispute resolution process, unless the collector is actively participating in dispute resolution with respect to the specific matters and/or editors in question and records the attempts of resolution along with the incidents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action." Sounds like "assume bad faith" to me. As for the context (since it's obviously about my evidence collection): Q: Have I ever used evidence I collected in "a disruptive action?" A: NO. Q: Is assuming I'd use it in "a disruptive action" good faithed? A: Golly, no? Let me stress again: this entire "Piotrus evidence list is evil" attitude is based on an assumption I was to use it with some nefarious purpose... Case rested.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How you used it will be a finding of fact. This is a proposed principle for now. --Irpen 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One can hardly make a finding of fact out of something that has not happened yet... ArbCom is not a crystal ball :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a crystal ball when facts are in the clear view. You uploaded parts of your black book into Wikipedia verbatim on several occasions. Here are just some of them: Example 1 [26] [27], example 2 [28] [29], example 3 [30] [31]. --Irpen 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As part of normal dispute resolution procedures, including this very arbcom, yes. Nowhere was it done, as you suggest, "as a disruptive action", or to win a content dispute I would be otherwise losing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is on the table. With facts not being in dispute, it is up to arbitrators to decide whether your black book, how it was maintained and used was a proper DR or an improper method of winning content disputes. --Irpen 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think some of the discussion at this page about Piotrus' diffs dump address the issue from the wrong end. The problem is not whether it is accessible or not. The problem is with the mindset of people (in this incident Piotrus) that leads to the approach of addressing conflict via maintaining the logs on each and every action of your opponents. The problem is not even that doing so is a blatant ABF with respect to any unfortunate editor who is honored with inclusion in this dump. The problem is that this list indicates the goals of its keeper being to "resolve" the ordinary disputes via expulsion of opponents and looking for every chance to do so.

This diff-dump was a breaking point for me, a borderline between our once cordial relations and feeling that I, as well as others, are being watched for expulsion. And I believe getting over with this, or showing that such attitude is permissible is one of the key points of this arbcom. The latter may be achieved even by simply skipping it an leaving it out of the final ruling. It is obvious that the supports and opposes would be here unfortunately divided along the usual party lines of the workshop participants. I suggest we discuss this proposal in detail, perhaps at talk? I started a dedicated section at the talk page. Would be helpful if uninvolved users and arbitrators voiced their opinions in this discussion. --Irpen 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposed as initially stated. Maintaining lists of diffs over an extended period indicates that the person is planning a disruptive action. While, based on the "two wrongs make it right" logic et al. posited based on a framework of a bad-faith view of the world. I agree that "Attitude toward problem resolution" is an important topic. Perhaps you or someone else can restate this in a manner devoid of bad-faith-itis. —PētersV (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Faith, good or bad, can only be a basis of the judgment, when there are no facts. When there are facts in plain sight, we should not ignore them and continue to apply faith, unless we are in the church. If an editor claims that there is a problem, his actions are indicative of whether his goals are problem resolution or opponents' ejection. --Irpen 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations and plagiarism

5) It is prohibited to add to Wikipedia any content in a form that infringes the copyright of others as this could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. While the facts and ideas presented in the outside sources are not copyrighted, they should be formulated in author's own words before being submitted to Wikipedia. Following specific outside sources too closely, with and especially without acknowledging them, may be unethical and constitute plagiarism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Irpen 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No questions about this, but is this relevant for the case? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Alex, any reason? I do, for example, believe that HOW sources represent an event should be preserved in addition to WHAT the event was. But there is no impediment to that being done in a fashion which avoids plagiarism. —PētersV (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Dishonest editing. --Irpen 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

6) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia has become one of the most prominent and visited websites in the entire world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking pages to turn up in an Internet search for that individual. The contents of these articles may profoundly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and professional careers. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. All biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial content and any such content should be presented in the proportion with its overall significance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, but beware of gaming. Context 1, Context 2.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Goes without saying. --Irpen 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion. I suggest to expand and incorporate following points (based and on several previuos Arb cases):

• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
• Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles and talk pages must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
• In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm."
• Editors dealing and reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons have immunity over WP:3RR. M.K. (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both Irpen and M.K. Wikipedia is not the place for the hatchet jobs against living people (although it is sometimes very tempting) Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Have biographies of living people fallen under dispute here? Just curious. —PētersV (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Delving into BLP territory in a quest to miscast sources for an answer. --Irpen 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And to quote from a BLP reviewer: "Academic criticism of an academic is not in violation of BLP.".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "BLP reviewer" mean? I am not going to continue this discussion here. Let's just invite everyone to read Talk:Mikhail Meltyukhov for what different editors, including those invited by you, said on the matter. There were several critical comments on that from at least 3 people in addition to myself. --Irpen 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability and accuracy of sourcing

7) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Statements in articles should be verifiable to reliable sources. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed. The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly and special care should be taken when the content is cited to a source that is reasonably difficult to verify. By adding a source, quoting it or citing from it an editor represents that the source exists, that it was consulted by an editor, that quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Sure, but content issues are not the problem here - incivility and harassment pursued by editors who lose content discussions and who attempt to chase their opponents of wiki via such tactis are.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This section at the evidence page describes several instances of misuse or outright manipulation of sources. --Irpen 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. In this proposal I deliberately stuck only to completely undisputable issues that cannot be seriously questioned or interpreted differently. This proposal does not affect any issues of editorial judgment whatsoever and even blatant violations of NPOV, such as WP:UNDUE, are outside of this plainly uncontroversial proposal. I don't want this case marred and derailed by specific content disputes. Even "Star Wars is the greatest movie of all times.<ref to a single review by one critic>" won't violate this principle unless a review does not exist or it says the opposite or it makes such a remark sarcastically or mocks the movie fans thus clearly implying that it is certainly not the greatest movie of all times. The principle may be split into two if desired like was done in original case. --Irpen 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the principle but disagree with its practical implementation by Irpen. This is actually Irpen who constantly uses writings by non-notable Russian propagandists like Mikhail Meltyukhov (see his "BLP" accusations). This is actually Irpen who removes reliable sources by famous Western historians like Robert Conquest: [32], [33], [34], [35]. And this is actually Irpen who argued in favor of self-published sources from the internet to discredit academic books [36] ("Is an email being used to override peer-reviewed literature? Good God!", said uninvolved User:Sarvagnya in this diff). Biophys (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, let's just agree on principles first, OK? If my conduct violates the principles I propose, that would be a factual rather matter rather than a matter of principles. I addressed your accusations on Holodomor and Meltyukhov elsewhere. If you are unsatisfied, please raise them in those discussions or start a new one in the proper place, not in the discussion of the principle you and I seem to both agree on. I am glad you find this proposal agreeable. It is important to agree on principles before discussing facts. --Irpen 21:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I would add something along the lines that this is a particularly sensitive issue when non-EN sources are used, since that hinders a wider evaluation by the community. Also, that when clarification is requested, it should receive a courteous and timely response. Novickas (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NONENG covers that partially, I support adjusting it to reflect your comment which I wholeheartedly support (I've often asked for translations of Lithuanian refs and reviews of them and was often ignored or flamed in return). But again I don't see this as very relevant to this case (remember - the focus of this case is not to fix all that's wrong or inefficient with this project).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The crux of this case, Piotrus, in the opinion of several editors, is not incivility per se but dishonest POV-pushing by methods that violate the spirit and the letter of our policies. Gaming WP:CIV to use it as a weapon in content disputes is one such method (and this is how WP:CIV enters the picture of this arbcom.) But misuse and manipulation of sources (a policy violation in itself) is responsible for much of this mess. --Irpen 18:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions are consensus building

8) The Wikipedia naming conventions are guidelines which are developed and updated by community consensus. Article titles should be compliant with these guidelines. Though interpretations of these guidelines may vary, the choice of optimal titles of the articles should be achieved through consensus building rather than move warring or taking advantage of subtle features of MediaWiki. Editors who dot not agree with consensus names or are unsure of what names meet the consensus should discuss them within the community not disrupt titles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment As on the above proposal: sure, but this (another content issue) is mostly irrelevant to those proceedings.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is related since freezing page moves through salting the redirects is a conduct issue, not a content one. ArbCom addressed this explicitly in AndriyK's case. --Irpen 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Loosely based on AndriyK's case. Seems obvious and straightforward. --Irpen 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Useful, since names are a frequent source of conflict in this part of WP. Novickas (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately this is open to gaming by some combative editors who attempt to claim no consensus exists via meat puppetry to back their misleading claims to ANI. This gaming is particularly obvious when the meat puppetry happens after the move is made and the puppets unwittingly vote on a redundant name proposal, being unaware that the proposed name had evolved to something else, due to their lack of involvement in this discussion before the move. Martintg (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to lead by example

9) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to behave ethically and be respectful in their interactions with others. Sustained conduct in violation of this principle is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Support the principle (is it part of an official policy). The problem is that ideals are in the eye of a beholder. Too often, "good admin" means "uncontroversial admin", one who edits no controversial content and takes no stance regarding disruptive user who have even a little wiki-political clout. See also my essay on the adminship. It is my strong belief that indeed, admins should lead by example - and that means that they should take a stand against disruptive users, as well as that they should enforce NPOV even in face of disapproval of organized POV-pushing tag teams.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you support the principle. As for the "beholder" part, it belongs to FoF section and we'll discuss it there. I am not suggesting a simplified approach in defining what constitutes such trust. --Irpen 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obvious principle stated in many other cases. --Irpen 04:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Some useful findings are already posted by others. I will try to avoid duplication. --Irpen 11:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Alden Jones

1) Alden Jones (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account whose entire contributions to the articles on topics related to Eastern Europe consists on reverts of various editors to Piotrus' versions of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, like supporting my edits in Windows 95, Windows Vista Embedded , 627 in Ireland, Independence Estate (Bydgoszcz), FIFA 08 and Starr (6teen), just to name a few articles I've never edited :D Seriously, it was only in in June and July that Alden's pattern of edits converged with mine, and it appears he finally got my message that his "help" is not needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, did you notice "on topics related to Eastern Europe" in the FoF? --Irpen 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is easy to verify. Whether it is Piotrus' fault or not, this needs to be said to address AJ in a remedy. --Irpen 11:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange revert warring pattern

2) There is a consistent pattern of several users, who are known to chat with Piotrus on Gadu Gadu, an IM network, to appear at articles during revert wars run by Piotrus at the time when Piotrus' "3RR quota" is used up only to revert to the Piotrus' version (often more than once.) These users never edited these articles (or their talk pages) before joining Piotrus' revert wars. They expressed no interest in these articles after briefly joining the revert wars either.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Instead of suspecting cabalism, consider coincidence, as I've explained there. I could ask how come Alex helped Irpen here with reverting (his first and last edit to that article), but I suspect it's just another innocent coincidence, and I am not going to waste time looking for such coincidences (or speculate about unprovable Russian IMs or such).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I just stated an undeniable fact that there is such repeated pattern. Whether the mere coincidence looks a reasonable explanation is a matter of interpretation of facts. It is up to anyone's judgment to conclude how sensible an "mere coincidence" explanation is to the following: 1) we are always talking about same 3-4 editors; 2) They are known to be your Gadu Gadu; 3) They always appear when you "3RR quota" is up; 4) they revert different editors to your versions at all those articles; 5) they never edited the articles in question before that; 6) they never edited these articles after that (showing they are not that much interested in the articles. --Irpen 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you with bad faith imply that there is some "coordinated edit warring" and such in this, where good faith would suggest coincidence, uncoordinated following of one another's edits to find interesting "hot" discussions/topics, and good faithed (no "please revert to me" canvassing) discussion on content issues (off and on Wikipedia) increasing the chance of the above.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Piotrus, facts are on the table. It is up to arbitrators to decide how sensible an alternative explanation of this being a set of mere coincidences is. --Irpen 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Piotrus uses meatpuppetry for edit-wars and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Piotrus and coordinated edit warring as well as other sections. Facts are not disputed. What to make out of them is a matter of individual judgment everyone can make for themselves from the evidence page. --Irpen 11:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of off-wiki channels

3) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) repeatedly used his access to the privileged IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins) to campaign for the blocks of his content opponents. None of the incidents involved any sensitive matters that would have warranted their handling off-wiki

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All such incidents involved cases when I wanted a quick reply. AN(I) can be fickle not only w/ regards to a result (just as IRC anyway) but also w/ regards to time (and if it takes too long, threads are ignored as stale). I did not use those channels to hide something (that IRC channel is logged and editors, like Irpen, can get their hand on their logs, has been common knowledge for years) but to get a quick reply and attract more neural eyes to an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To get "neutral eyes" one calls for them using neutral language, Piotrus. It is clear that you thought you can get away with calling Lokyz and M.K. "POV trolls" and "sock pupeteers", shopping for Lokyz' block in March, accused Boodlsethecat in being a vandal in September or how you pushed for his block in October, all done at IRC. You clearly used your access to a channel to fish for an admin willing to close your complaints your way when you were unsure that these would go your way onwiki. Also, you were clearly uncivil not only by using rude words that you normally don't use on-wiki. Even more uncivil is gossiping about people behind their backs where they can't see or respond to what you say. This is a rule of basic human decency that you failed to uphold. --Irpen 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Improper use of off-wiki channels. No one who have seen the logs or even whatever has spilled to Wikipedia can deny that. --Irpen 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom lacks direct control over #wikipedia-en-admins and its policies

4) The status of the Wikipedia-related Freenode IRC channels, including #wikipedia-en-admins, is kept deliberately ambiguous and neither the Wikipedia community, nor any of its structures, including the ArbCom, have any direct control over the IRC channels. The channels are controlled by the internal hierarchy of sysops with the ultimate control being held personally by James Forrester and Sean Whitton who exercise such control privately (as individuals) rather than officially representing the Wikipedia community, or any Wikipedia or WMF structures. The channel is governed solely by its internal code adopted by its hierarchy in their capacity of the channel members and operators. According to a recent change in the channel policy implemented in August 2008 [37] the access to the channel is contingent with the admin status and cannot be retained in the user gets involuntarily desysopped or resigned under controversial circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. May not in any way be directly related to Piotrus but needs to be stated to define what ArbCom can and can't do to address using access to #admins as a weapon in content disputes. --Irpen 03:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects salting

5) Following his page moves from non-Polish to the Polish titles, Piotrus repeatedly edited the resulting redirects thus effectively freezing the moves. He never edited in a similar way any redirects from the Polish titles to the non-Polish ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I categorize redirects in various cases. In the most problematic cases, articles were moved from previously stable names to new ones, and subject to move warring. In almost no cases the warring party took my suggestion of WP:RM, knowing well that they would fail to push their version through a neutral community (in most of those cases there was even no discussion on talk, just unexplainable move warring I put an end to). In three cases RM took place and confirmed the old name (example1, example2, example3). The single exception in Irpen's diffs is Battle of Annaberg, where User:Olessi, a very helpful editor, intervened in the middle of Matthead move edit warring, mediated the discussion, and convinced me that the original name of the article was indeed not the best. I also have no problems with non-Polish names (ex.). See also Marting comment on that issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether you tried to chain the articles at the locations they ended up in the page moves initiated by you or to put an end to "move warring", salting redirects is not a proper way to get it your way as affirmed by AndriyK's precedent. And, yes, I admit that you sometimes (very rarely) agreed with moving to non-Polish names. Point is that those redirects you never salted only the other way around. --Irpen 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence#Page moves. Facts here are not disputed. --Irpen 11:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to articles on biographies of living people

6) Piotrus' edited articles on the scholars whose work are in some aspects critical of Poland with the primary goal to discredit their works as sources for Wikipedia articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is important to create articles on notable entities (people or organizations) that may help with implementing WP:RS. I've created or exanded articles on dozens of scholars (most of them non-controversial), including on Polish controversial authors/extremists (Dariusz Ratajczak, Edward Prus, Stanisław Grabski, Jerzy Robert Nowak, Wiktor Poliszczuk) as well as on non-Polish. When such articles critical of Polish extremist sources are started by others, I have no problem with it (do note I don't censor information on Polish unreliable sources, I help to bring it to light). Irpen, on the other hand, has for long time tried to censor information on unreliable Soviet/Russian sources - the debate around Mikhail_Meltyukhov is a good example, see also Soviet historiography and his edits there/criticism on talk. My interest in unreliable outlets begun only after I've witnessed some editors (ex. Irpen, or Lithuanian tag team reliance on Vilnija) use certain sources again and again to argue for a fringe POVs (examples of where MM was used to push fringe POV: Talk:Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz#Cruelty (where MM was used to defame the person in question) and Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Recent Irpen's edit/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#Polish Vandalism/Talk:Kiev Offensive (1920)#On shortening the article (where MM was used to supply refs for dubious "acts of vandalism of the Polish army")). See also past arbcom discussions related to this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Biographies_of_living_persons_violations, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Removal_of_references, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Suppression_of_Russian_nationalist_source, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Influence_of_propaganda_on_reliability... Bottom line: I edit articles about unreliable outlets, regardless of their POV (which can be pro- or anti-Polish), with the aim of ensuring that well-referenced information about their unreliability will be available to editors (and readers). Irpen's portrayal of my actions as some pro-Polish slander is yet another example of his bad faith towards my person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I welcome anyone's attention to the content disputes Piotrus linked to above. If arbitrators choose to help resolve them, beautiful! But this finding is not about sources but about editing bio articles with the goal to strike sources not to one's liking from Wikipedia, be it Jan T. Gross, a Princeton professor, or Mikhail Meltyukhov, a Russian historian. This section at the evidence page shows all the details. --Irpen 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is something that Piotrus says himself: "The current section is too long, I agree, but was necessary to ensure that MM would not be cited as a neutral, mainstream source for P-R relations". Also "it also helps ensure that people will be less likely to use [his] extremist works as a source. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Delving into BLP territory in a quest to miscast sources for complete details. --Irpen 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

7) In numerous edits to a series of articles concerning the Eastern European topics Piotrus has cited sources for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Some examples of sources misuse include:

• isolating on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole;
• using poor sources without attribution thus concealing their quality;
• citing sources that do not exist to support his edits;
• referencing his edits to sources that do not support the content cited to them;
• using poor quality sources to counter the information presented in the first rate academic sources;
• using poor quality sources to support questionable content that is not covered in scholarly sources.

Some examples of this have been presented by the parties here, here and here. Although some of these incidents may have been honest gaffes, their overall effect is problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed based on the FMA case. Such practices are covered here, here and here at the evidence and initial statement pages of this case as well as many talk page discussions. --Irpen 22:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User conduct at this ArbCom

8) The contributions of Biophys (talk · contribs) and, to a lesser degree, Martintg (talk · contribs) to this arbitration case has been highly disruptive. Such disruption has included baseless allegations (both veiled and open) that some of the participants in this case are in some way connected to the KGB or its successor state security agencies in the Russian Federation (Biophys) [38], that the participants in this case exert some sort of behind the scenes influence over the ArbCom (Biophys and Martintg) [39] [40] [41] [42] as well as additional nonconstructive, inflammatory posts to various arbitration pages. Although they may have been sincere in some of their posts, their overall effect has been highly negative.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In other words: they dared to present evidence against Irpen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please be serious. This is not about daring to present evidence. Many people presented evidence, including against myself. You know full well that Martin and Biophys stepped well over the line with their rants in this case' pages. I am sad that their being your supporters is enough for you to refuse to acknowledge something that obvious. --Irpen 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

??? So asking questions is stepping "well over the line"? Martintg (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally no, but sometimes yes. Depends on the questions. For example Are you still beating your wife? is also "just a question". --Irpen 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed: Don't mean to suggest that their so called "evidence" should be stricken (is rather is self-explanatory anyway), but a remedy is needed to address their disruptive contribution to the dispute resolution in general as such conduct tends to derail any chance of a productive outcome from any disagreement. At least Biophys needs to be placed under mentorship. --Irpen 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Now apparently asking questions of Arbcom (which Irpen states he doesn't mind), requesting search URLs, or providing evidence and observations based entirely on my own experience (the notion that I scrutinize Irpen's past edits is false), is to be seen as "disruption". We are here to build an encyclopedia, but unfortunately some people have taken their eye off the ball and have begun focusing on the alleged wrong doings of people and their personal or judicial ethics in the last year or two, rather than the content problems in articles. A lot of damage has been done, hundreds of articles are languishing as stubs because many good competent people have been driven off this project. Unlike some, I have faith in Arbcom and trust committee members will have the wisdom and insight to sift through the evidence and arguments to determine what must be done for the sake of Wikipedia, without fear or favor. Martintg (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Indeed, several users conducted harassment during this case, and two of them (Russavia and Miyokan) were blocked for that. If I wanted to collect evidence specifically about Irpen, that would be a lot more. But ArbCom ruled already about his poor behavior in the previous Digwuren case. As about influence behind the scenes, we have a lot of that here. Everyone knows. Mentorship is a good thing.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Past cases and their outcomes

9) Numerous past cases (including Anonimu, Digwuren, Piotrus 1, Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the editors participating in the present case. The success of the past ArbCom's decisions' effect on improving the editing climate has been mixed.

• The effect of editor-specific findings and remedies (a short term block of AndriyK and ArbCom sanctioned reversal of moves that included redirects scorching and long term blocks of Anonimu, Digwuren, and Petri Krohn) has been on balance generally positive;
• General warnings and amnesties made no impact;
• The effect of so called general and discretionary sanctions have been overall highly negative as they were largely gamed to further detriment of the project. (See also [43] and [44].)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. I agree that general warnings and amnesties were useless. I am not sure whether the Estonian blocks from Digwuren's case, which have decimated the tiny Estonian community on Wikipedia, had indeed a positive impact, several other blocks might have been better but I have not interacted with those editors (out of all editors banned in such proceedings, I've personally seen only one - User:Vlad fedorov - been highly disruptive; that is not to say that others weren't disruptive in articles I've not edited). General and discretionary restrictions not been very efficient, as they have indeed been prone to gaming - disruptive users and tag teams have successfully blocked several attempts to apply those sanctions to them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as an alternative to #Endemic_conflict, #Discretionary sanctions and #Amnesty in the proposal by Kirill Lokshin. There seems to be an agreement of that [45] and [46]. So, needs to be said to avoid repeating past mistakes. --Irpen 23:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Anonimu wasn't deemed to be a part of the EE area of conflict, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu/Proposed_decision#Area_of_conflict. That the Piotrus amnesties were breached by complainants bringing pre-amnesty evidence to this case should be subject to a finding of fact. Martintg (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More: This is not to say that the specific measures above were the best ones possible. For example it might have been better if, instead of a ban, Digwuren was placed on a severe edit warring restriction and assigned a strict mentor who would remove his egregious rants from Wikipedia space and occasionally warned (or blocked him for short periods) to make sure Digwuren learns how to behave. So, I am not saying that the block was the best solution but it was clearly better than simply doing nothing and not having his conduct addressed at all. So, on the net balance, the editor specific remedies had some positive effect while the "general sanctions" approach has proven to backfire, breeding the block-shopping culture, serving a honey-pot for the admins with wrong attitudes resulting in good editors leaving or getting grudgy and new editors' being afraid to get involved into contentions topics. The idea of this proposal is simply to acknowledge the the general sanctions approach made the situation worse while the narrow editor-specific remedies may work and if they are well considered they will work well. --Irpen 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the bolded summary in the preceding comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

Alden Jones banned

1) Alden Jones (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely. This includes all his known sockpuppets identified here and here and all future reincarnations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. He is mostly inactive. I'd support a 1RR restriction and mentorship, but a ban for fifteen reverts... isn't this a bit too much for somebody who has done almost nothing, compared to most others? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you click on the links above to socking stuff? --Irpen 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Long overdue. No useful contributions anyway. Just disruption and abusive socking. --Irpen 08:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Block shopping restricted

2) Piotrus is prohibited to bring in any regular complaints and ask for sanctions based on the events that are older than 10 days with the exception if immediately following the occurrence of alleged misconduct he attempted to address it when it took place and that attempt failed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment Framing and straw man... I have always respected the Piotrus 1 amnesty, and I have never presented random stale diffs. I always present new ones, and I use older (post-amnesty) ones to show a pattern. What this is about is about Irpen aiming to muzzle people from being able to complain about harassment and disruption from him and friendly tag teams. Also, please note who here spends most time wikipoliticing and in wikidramu dispute resolutions, and who doesn't....--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is about stopping you to continue resorting to block-shopping as a primary venue of dispute resolution. If you pledge to stop maintaining black books, this would be redundant. And your continued baseless acusations that I do "harassment" is a grievous personal attack. Please choose terms properly. All this remedy does is requiring that if you see yourself harassed, or anything, you complain at once rather than wait for a time that would seem to you more opportune. --Irpen 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. It's just common sense and, actually, should apply to everyone, not just Piotrus. I won't mind if this is codified in a policy or the remedy rephrased to address a global restriction. The reason I think mentioning Piotrus explicitly makes sense is that it was he who was maintaining a black book for almost two years using the material he collected at the opportune times to shop for blocks. The only way to address blackbooking is to address its use, not its maintenance, as the latter, when done off-site, cannot be enforced. Of course the adoption of this remedy is contingent on the acceptance of the #Attitude to problem resolution or similar principle. We cannot enforce a ban on blackbooking carried of off-site and Piotrus is unrepentant and vows to continue "collecting evidence". So, unable to prohibit something over which the community or the ArbCom has no control, the remedy should instead address something that is actually on-wiki. Even if a black book is off-site, its use on-wiki to block shop can still be addressed. Also, note the world "regular" in the proposed remedy. Of course some exceptional investigations of abuse, like the Poetlister affair would be exempted. --Irpen 08:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinated revert warring restricted

3) Tymek (talk · contribs), Molobo (talk · contribs), Darwinek (talk · contribs) and all reincarnations of Alden Jones (talk · contribs) are prohibited from reverting any articles to Piotrus' version more than once per week per article per person for a period of one year (vandalism reverts exempted).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: From Irpen's evidence as of posting of this "remedy", the latest example of Darwinek reverts are three from March (with a single one from September), same for Tymek (replace March with July). The average seems to be less than one per month... Conveniently, evidence against Molobo (at least from 2008) seems to be missing, and even the infamous Alden racked up no more than 15 reverts in two months he was stalking my edits total :) Wow, what a dedicated band of Piotrus-stalking cabalists... or should we say - inconvenient editors who dared to disagree with Irpen and revert him at some point? Sigh. PS. For the record, Darwinek doesn't use GG. I wonder how does this influence the vision of the "evil GG cabal"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per evidence of their off-line coordination due to their propensity to revert to Piotrus' version in articles where they have never edited before or after. See evidence sections: Coordinated edit warring, particularly, Piotrus and coordinated edit warring, and Piotrus uses meatpuppetry for edit-wars. Placing Piotrus himself on any revert restriction is useless if he retains an ability to coordinate edit wars via IM. Note that this is the only way to counter the IM coordinated revert warring that technically falls under 3RR (conducted this way precisely to circumvent 3RR) as no ruling can actually affect anyone's ability to build such networks. Also, despite Molobo is on an independent 1RR per week parole imposed by Moreschi, there is perfect sense for these two paroles to run concurrently. --Irpen 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-line block-shopping restricted

4) Piotrus is not permitted to request administrative action from any administrator using any off-wiki means, except where such request is made to protect the privacy of a Wikipedia editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per improper use of off-wiki channels evidence section. Again, this is plain common sense that should appy to anyone, not just Piotrus. However, facts that Piotrus used #admins to blockshop are not even disputed. I see the weakness of this remedy in enforcement since, if Piotrus continue to see nothing wrong with off-line blockshopping, he will continue doing so. As an alternative, see below. --Irpen 15:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not disputed? Right, ignore all of those who disagree with you as my fellow cabalists or such, and right, than all of your statements are not disputed... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, would you object to publishing IRC logs from from your conversation of nights March 12-13 (depending of the time-zone), September 11-12, and October 5-6, all 2008, in connection to the conversations related to this? --Irpen 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-line block-shopping restricted (alt)

4.1) Administrators are prohibited to act upon Piotrus' complaints submitted to their attention by off-site means (email, IM, IRC.) Acting on the complaints whose privacy is warranted by their sensitive nature is exempted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Beautiful. Let's rephrase it to make it more clear: Everybody is prohibited from voicing any complain about Irpen or any disrputive/harassing editor/tag team that could be seen as his ally. Further, everybody is prohibited from acting on such a complain. Anybody violating either of the above is banned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. Why do you need an ability to complain about anyone privately so that they can't see your accusations? --Irpen 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative to the above. See explanation to 4. --Irpen 08:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Join advisory panel on the usage of sources for the Wikipedia content is created

5) A joint multinational advisory panel of editors is created to resolve the disputes on the sources' reliability and the propriety of their use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. May need to be reformulated. A more specific proposal than a somewhat similar proposal by Alex. I made a proposal along the very same lines over a year ago, see my Proposing a novel solution that may actually work post. Most content disputes come down to the disputes about sources and propriety of their use. For example, there is often a confusion on how the sourced opinion is different from the sourced fact and what are the difference in how they can be used in articles. Also, both the newspaper article and the academic work are acceptable sources but for different situations. Ad hoc topic-specific permanently working panel here would be best suited for catching the cheaters as evaluation of sources, as well as the propriety of their use, would be such group's main task. The group should function in public view but the members should be carefully selected and non-members should comment on a talk page rather than bloating the discussions of the panel making it unreadable, just like this workshop has become. The composition should be designated by ArbCom. Ideally it should consist of editors respected by all parties, which pretty much excludes most, even though not all, of this case' participants. This is not really content arbitration. All the panel would say is whether, for example, a newspaper article is an acceptable source of a specific piece of content or whether the individual opinion is attempted to be presented as a fact. This would be a much more productive way to resolve many issues than recruiting friends to do a revert for you or seeking ejection of opponents through endless gaming of WP:CIV or calling them names behind their backs at IRC. --Irpen 17:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Alex Bakharev (talk)

Proposed principles

Representing all views

1) All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. That is why it is important to allow harmonic work of people with different backgrounds and points of view. Wikipedia is not a battleground there one group of editors is suppose to win over another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLE. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse Per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 06:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per WP:BATTLE. Quote: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation." --Poeticbent talk 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse with the admonition that editorial views must be supported by reputable sources. I'll beat the dead horse once more, despite the Russian Duma's proclamation Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, not one shred of evidence has surfaced. And so we represent supported and unsupported (with no personal commentary on motivations=the NPOV part) "views" appropriately. This works positively taken together with building articles out of consensus and based on reputable sources. We must be mindful not to represent views equally regardless of basis in fact, which has been an issue in the past. —PētersV (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive and forget

2) Active wikipedians who have different points of view are bound to regularly have content disputes and different form of conflicts. If we allow all those conflicts to accumulate then after some time all productive work became impossible. Therefore, it is important to ForgiveAndForget. Forgive a person for their transgressions once the dispute is resolved, and forget that they made the transgressions. Or at least forget who made the transgression.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discuss content, not editors. And don't repeat old accusations for years and years. Try not to become cynical and loose good faith. A sentiment I support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Loosely based on meatball:ForgiveAndForget Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse Easier said than done, but still worth trying. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reach for the stars. --Poeticbent talk 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This is why my proposed moratorium on Requests for Arbitration includes an enforced amnesty across the Baltic/Central/Eastern/"Soviet" Europe article sphere. Let's put a real stake in the ground and work to move forward constructively. —PētersV (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No black books

3) Black books and lists of grievances are counter productive, they advertise and fossilize old stale conflicts. The cache of fossilized conflicts used as a weapon in the new conflicts prevents any meaningful conflict resolution, poisons working atmosphere. In the case of the black book put in the public space and eventually made known to the subjects of dossier it acts as a personal attack, undermining and eroding any positive, productive working environment. Wikipedia community cannot control the content of

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I have explained elsewhere: black book = attack pages are wrong. Simple evidence collection for use in dispute resolution is not only right, but is required by dispute resolution procedures like arbcom. Framing evidence collection as black booking/laundry lists of grievances/etc. is the only real bad faith here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Extension of the previous. Based on WP:CIV Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. Of course, making an offensive comment about others on the English wikipedia is an WP:CIV violation. However merely collecting any diffs is not prohibited. I think the describing collection of diffs as a "malicious activity" is an attempt to interfere with wikipedia justice authority (ArbCom).Biophys (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest support. This should be obvious that we should not tolerate devious and dishonorable behavior. As I explained in my evidence section and the discussion I am now having with Piotrus, what adversely interferes with the WP's dispute resolution system is not the ban of black book but the black books themselves. Of course there are ways to keep black books in a way that makes this provision unenforcible. This is why we should ideally have a provision that would neutralize them by restricting attempts to use such logs to gain an upper hand in content disputes. This may be tricky but we should try. --Irpen 18:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a joke: book keeping interferes with dispute resolution? I do agree that ArbCom should make a ruling on this matter. "Of course there are ways to keep black books in a way that makes this provision unenforcible". Yes absolutely, unless we are going to do home searches, or to hack the home computer of Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It does interfere and adversely. It breeds the suspicion and hostility, the complaints Piotrus filed using DR channels that included uploading his black book diffs had an overall detrimental effect on the editing environment and a very mixed success too [47]. Most importantly, and as I explained here the use of black book by Piotrus is neither DR nor a defense but an attack. As for "home searches", there is nothing about it in the proposal. --Irpen 19:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All black books are evil they prevent as they rejuvenate conflicts that otherwise would die by natural death. WP:CIV is intended to keep the work harmonious without antagonizing parties. Enforcing harmonious atmosphere by poisoning it with black books is akin improving sexual potency with the help of castration. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Die by natural death"? The conflicts don't die not because there are evidence lists, but because certain editors keep repeating certain bad faithed allegations (ignored in past arbcoms) all over project, and when the victims of the harassment try to compile proof of that pattern for use in dispute resolutions, this becomes yet another reason for the harassers to complain ("he dares to complain that I am harassing him and he collects diffs with my harassing edits - I am being harassed, see!"). Sigh.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. This is propaganda technique known as Victim blaming.Biophys (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. I have read this so-called black book and honestly, I do not see anything wrong with it. We have scores of users here who continuously push their POV, who attack others, who represent outright dislike of some nationalities. In most cases, their actions go unnoticed and lost. A document like this is very helpful, as it summarizes these actions, and I am sure that other editors/admins, perhaps those here too, keep a thing like this. Tymek (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment an important distinction needs to be made here between effect and intent. I have seen other long term disputes in which Editor A starts a page in user space, intending it as evidence preparation for dispute resolution that seems likely to occur in the future. Sometimes those are simple attack pages, sometimes those are genuine groundwork for dispute resolution, and other times they're somewhere in between. Such pages are usually compiled in a mood of disappointment and frustration. Regardless of whether the intention and execution is the best or the worst, when Editor B (from the other side of the dispute) finds the page an unpleasant episode follows because good faith has already worn thin. And if Editor A places the page in an out-of-the-way spot to be unobtrusive, Editor B interprets that as deviousness. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The practice was addressed last year: "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances. Passed 6 to 0 at 08:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" [48]. Add: On any of the foundation's servers; change to: laundry list of grievances. Novickas (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Citing instances of misbehavior is one of the basic requirements of conflict resolution in Wikipedia, please see WP:AN/I, WP:DE, WP:RFC, WP:WQA, etc. There’s a question of whether collecting such evidence ahead of time is politically correct regardless of how time-saving it might be. Personally, I would suggest to do it in private; for example, by emailing the offending diffs to yourself. However, those editors whose conduct remains questionable should always be made aware, ahead of time, of the possible consequences of their highly problematic long-term actions. --Poeticbent talk 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, if somebody have an ongoing conflict use WP:AN/I, WP:RFC or any other forms of the dispute resolution straight away. Then you have chances to actually solve the conflict. Putting on the table tens of stale conflicts, taken out of context months-old diffs never solved anything. It just make productive contributors banned from both sides Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Ummm, are you criticizing "your side" evidence now? Because I have never used outdated evidence (I might have gathered some when it was current and kept it out of laziness, but I have never used it...). Unlike some editors, presenting diffs critical of me as far back as 2005 in this arbcom, as can be easily seen from the evidence section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose an alternative. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Arbitration proceedings and requests for comments about users are a part of this collaborative project. Therefore, all users are free to gather any evidence in their user space and ask any other users to evaluate their evidence. Seriously, I do not see any reason why the collection of evidence should be exempt from the normal collaboration/discussion process. If my evidence is poor, I want to know this. One should not even bother ArbCom with poor evidence.Biophys (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Edit summaries are not searchable and talk page searches only partly so. These constraints put those who rely on memory or very recent incidents at a disadvantage. Support Biophys' suggestion that these be public - then the community can decide whether they are appropriate. Privately-kept records of behavior are not the issue here - it's the use of the foundation's servers, even if hidden. Novickas (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"...it's the use of the foundation's server". Although I do believe that as long as its non-public, it's non-problematic, as I've stated before, I have no problem with removing my evidence collection from Wikimedia servers and not using them in the future for such a purpose. It's a simple solution to an issue that has become the proverbial "mountain out of moleholes" (perhaps on purpose, as some editors try to discredit the evidence against them by discrediting the technicalities of how it was gathered...). PS. I just ask that the ArbCom confirms that the evidence collection that occurred was within the acceptable limits of our existing guidelines and policies, otherwise the defamatory statements like "Piotrus had a black book" will keep flying for years to come. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus that the judgment of whether such evidence collection is acceptable on non-Poetlister-like cases would help. One view is that problems should be either addressed or let go. If they are attempted to be addressed but still not resolved, recording the problem with an attempt of the resolution may help solve future problems while merely recording an incident for the future use at the opportune time shows a vindictive attitude. Another opinion is that this is commendable or at least acceptable. The answer is badly needed. --Irpen 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose. Gathering information is not a priori a demonstration of bad faith. It is bad faith only if any information gathered is used maliciously. I believe my proposal of amnesty as part of the judgment in this proceeding addresses any evidence gathered in the past or gathered in the future about the past. When Irpen states he has never followed Piotrus (accusing me of vicious conduct when I suggested it appeared that way regarding an AfD nomination) and challenges me to find any instance where there wasn't a notice placed about an article before he responded to it, I would much rather take the good faith move of amnesty and leave the door closed on me or anyone else sifting through past edit history trying to find some shred of evidence with which we can shout "AHA!". That's nothing but WP:BADKARMA. —PētersV (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators should have trust of the community

4) Administrators have access to potentially harmful tools as well as to the privileged information. Thus, administrators should have trust of the community, if they have lost the trust or confidence of the community they should have their access removed. Administrators are people and may occasionally make errors but acting in bad faith is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Loosely based on Wikipedia:Administrators Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Admins should be held to high standards, respect policies (edit in good faith, etc.) and be trusted by the community. But as we say in Poland: devil lies in the details. Being controversial should not make one unsuitable for adminship. Active editors will step on many toes just because they are active. I know at least one Polish editor who told me he is going to hide his nationality and edit only uncontroversial articles up to the point he becomes an admin, because otherwise he would become controversial like me, associated with the Polish cabal and surely lose his RfA. I couldn't tell him he was wrong - but I can surely tell that the system, which forces such thinking, is wrong. Many today's admins would fail reelection simply because they made content enemies and their content POV became visible, not because they abused or misused their powers. Community votes like RfA are easily stacked by such content enemies, whose mass also makes neutral editors, lacking time and will to investigate the issue properly, vary of supporting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, can you be a little more specific? Which part of this proposal you dispute? Because your response strays too far away. --Irpen 06:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I object due the unclear operationalization of "trust". What happens to often is that an admin has the trust of the community, but a vocal performance of a tag team creates an appearance to the contrary ("look, several of us are crticizing him so he has lost the trust of the community"). For example, it is obvious that you and Alex claim here I've lost this trust, even through majority of outside comments in this (and past arbcoms) contradict you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not make any claims about the community trust. That your content friends support you in anything you are doing rather confirms the sad us vs them mentality that got developed in this situation. --Irpen 03:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't make any claims, but you can. Right. I am not even going to comment further on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment prone to gaming. Think of what Poetlister did to SlimVirgin: should Slim have lost the tools for having blown the whistle on a troublemaker of the highest order? I agree the community usually gets it right; ideally ArbCom should function as a check and balance upon community opinion. Sitebanned editors and disruptive editors routinely seek to undermine the reputations of administrators who take on the hard cases--who say "no" and make it stick. Some variation on the current proposal might be excellent; as it stands I fear it would make the site more political. We don't want to foster an environment that breeds Poetlisters. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, altho this already seems to be a policy. Durova has cited a case, not linked/diffed to findings. (Would appreciate if she would do that). None of the participants in this case are sitebanned or otherwise officially designated disruptive, so I dispute the above analogy. I think the comments on his behavior made by 11 other admins in good standing at Evidence speak to the issue. Novickas (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, due to political nature of the initial statement. The so called community (an all-encompassing magic answer) is too broadly defined to be taken seriously in this instance. Could the community of editors mentioned, be a special-interest group in disguise? --Poeticbent talk 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • A very good point. This is what tag teams do: try to create an illusion they speak for all (when in fact they represent a minority POV). I've elaborated further on this issue in my mini-essay on adminship.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I could say that at present I do not trust Piotrus to explain on the admin IRC a conflict related to the Eastern Europe fairly and objectively trying not to make an advantage for his side of the conflict Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, as I also don't trust you or Irpen to be objective in this regard. This is why we are presenting our case in front of an ArbCom... also, I never discussed an EE conflict on ANIRC, only cases of edit warring/civility violations and such, irrespective to their content.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I wonder how the principle based on "Administrators should have trust of the community" should call any opposition. This is not a FoF about whether Piotrus has such trust. This is not a remedy that his status should be "adjusted". This is not even a statement on how such trust should be judged (certainly not based on mere numbers). But the requirement of the admin trust seems to me totally uncontroversial. --Irpen 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Nobody disagrees with the principle, but gaming of it is the root of the problem, as meatpuppetry and/or tag teams can create the illusion of lack of support/trust.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I am glad you don't disagree with the principle. As for "nobody", unfortunately some disagree with it, see above. As for gaming, the correct FoFs and remedies is the place to make sure that the principles are applied correctly rather than gamed. --Irpen 18:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus contributes a lot of encyclopaedic content

1) Piotrus is one of the most prolific Wikipedia authors contributing a lot of quality content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Don't endorse. Piotrus' stats on amount of content already speaks for itself, the quality issue is clearly not clear cut however. That said, if the arbs wish to place their names in witness to the truth of the above assertion, that's their own risk (see Angus' comment below). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think we should state it Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with prolific. Less sure about the quality aspect of the content as outlined here but I acknowledge that many Wikipedians praise Piotrus' content and this can be acknowledged. --Irpen 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus's contributions have their own shortcomings, still he is much better content creator than e.g. me by any measure I can think of. I am a long time proponent of a policy that protects such content creators as Piotrus (as well as e.g. Ghirlandajo, Halibutt, Giano) from block shopping and unfair treatment Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am split on that (besides the fact that I appreciate my work being praised). Yes, I agree we should always keep in mind we are here to build an encyclopedia, and editors who do this are the most valuable - particularly compared to editors who spend most of their time flaming on talk (for the most obvious comparison). That said, I also strongly believe that no matter how prolific one is, one should not have a carte blanche for attacking others: a great content contributor who drives away many small ones may by his confrontational behavior lose more potential content for Wikipedia than he generates himself (this was very much, I believe, the case with Ghirla in the past). Having seen many great content creators and respected editors (academics in real life, among others) driven from this project, I do agree that the current system is unbalanced against prolific editors - but I strongly caution against making them immune to normal civility rules. They should be welcomed and respected, but not idolized. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please stop beating this dead horse. This claim you bring in repeatedly and still you did not name a single contributor driven off by Ghirla. While I can name editors driven off by your battling attitude. --Irpen 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Driven by me? Who? Banned trolls like User:Vlad fedorov, perhaps? As for Ghirla, Halibutt comes to mind (diff provided in evidence), and I've named others driven away by you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon. But if this user named Piotrus called me a TROLL? Please read above he agreed to "pardonandforget". Very telling example of Piotrus and Biophys behaviour. Other users are usually banned for insulting other users, but Piotrus and Biophys have special status - above law, above Wikipedia policies. And, look, they are not trolls. Look, you may dispute here over anything you like, but the fact is that Biophys called my name here about 10 times, now we have admin Piotrus insulting others, and no Wikipedia policy would be applied. The same goes over his "contributions" to Wikipedia which are edited translations from Polish Wikipedia to English. You may call it contribution due to the lack of Polish, of course. Why you wonder that normal teachers call Wikipedia garbage? Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs) one year block has expired. His only contribution since then is the above post. Since we are here to build an encyclopedia, not flame, I wonder if extending the block is not advisable. It doesn't appear like Vlad has learned any lesson in the past year+ he was given to rethink his attitude.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that admin Piotrus is going to excuse for his uncivil behaviour. Correct me if I am wrong. This is why people want to desysop you.Vlad fedorov (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Vlad, I am curious: how did you find out about those proceedings? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you are curious why so lot of people think you are uncivil? You are wondering why so many people find you inccorect? Common, the whole history of Belarus (Grand Duchy of Lithuania) in this English Wikipedia is written only from Polish point of view by your efforts, and you are wondering what's going on? So, if you would ask pardon for your uncivility? --Vlad fedorov (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing surprising. Vlad was active for a while as this IP [49] in article Web brigades, which he extensively re-edited together with Mikkalai, ellol, User:Setraspdopaduegedfa (a sockpuppet of User:Kulikovsky), User:Russavia, and an enigmatic Offliner (I thought I knew who he was, but checkuser did not help).Biophys (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing surprising. The article contained FALSE and BAREFACED lie that web brigades were discovered by Anna Politkovskaya. And Biophys, the author of this article, who has been rewording the article of Anna Polyanskaya was reverting article back to this FALSE information numerous times. Particulary these diffs are very revealing : [fisrt], [second].

By the way, Biophys, may I ask why you had got sudden interest in Polish affairs [diff]? Can you read Polish? Or have you been in Poland? And why are you so assertive in your comments in reverting the article "(No reason to dispute factual accuracy was provided at talk page. Everything is well sourced.)"? And, of course, there is no tag team with your participation? Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sufficient to look at the statements Ghirla made reference to this case as well as to the last one. Also, my extended Wikibreaks were caused by my discovering of your back book. I edit Wikipedia much less because it's no more fun as it used to be. True, you are not the only reason why the fun is mostly gone. But you are one of such reasons. So, in a way, you drove me off too, at least in to a large degree. Oh, and don't try to drag the Balcer issue here again. This has been discussed and commented upon by enough people. --Irpen 21:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ghirla was about to be banned or severely restricted by ArbCom, and he wouldn't agree to proposed compromise (civility parole), so being driven away by me is hardly an excuse. THe community decided that his incivility and aggressive behavior cannot be tolerated, and he simply left. My repeated attempts to reach a compromise with Girla, as Durova - the mediator - can attest, are actually a very good proof of how I try to prevent battling - thank you for reminding us of that. And I am afraid, Irpen, the case with you is too similar, indeed: past ArbCom's have found you, not me, incivil, and I have full confidence that the situation will not suddenly reverse itself. Admitting that at least part of the problem lies on your side would be a major step in patching up our issues. Trying to portray my evidence collection as attacking you is really the proverbial grasping at straws. Instead of concentrating on my alleged errors (the "all evil on Wikipedia is because of Piotrus" line is really getting old), you'd do much better to - as I suggested on your talk - help us draft some better conduct/civility standards (or simply create content, instead of fighting wikipolitics battles). Btw, what other editors - beside you and Ghirla - have I allegedly driven away? Do tell. PS. Balcer case is quite relevant here: while there is ample evidence of how he was harassed and driven (primarily by your "battling" attitude), there is no evidence of me doing this to anybody (there is a glaring difference between accusing editors of various wrongdoings all across the project as you've had a habit of doing and gathering evidence for dispute resolution as I've been doing, so please don't equate our behavior). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "Ghirla was about to...", "the community decided", etc., lack diffs for a reason. You are running around with "ArbCom found me uncivil" and Balcer stuff for long long enough. I said all I have to say about it more than once. And indeed my trying to restrict the behavior that creates this hostile climate while you are staking diffs to prepare for your next blow are different approaches to dispute resolution. This ArbCom is finally centered at this issue and I hope it won't be derailed again by irrelevant stuff being piled up. Alternatively, you can still accept my proposal of peace through agreeing to stop doing what you were doing. My offer is still on the table while you continue to evade giving a straight answer. --Irpen 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Links are provided to cases, and interested editors can look at them and make up their own mind. Yes, you claimed that the past arbcom was wrong to have found you uncivil. It's as good an argument as the one about me not having the right to collect evidence for DR: if anybody disagrees with you, they are wrong. Yes, this ArbCom is finally centered at this issue and I hope we will solve this, once and for all.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also hope this issues can finally be resolved. --Irpen 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision in that case contained this (quote) If and when Ghirlandajo returns, it would be best for him to resume productive mainspace editing, which it is hoped can take place without a recurrence of the disputes that led to this case. (endquote). It did NOT contain any reprimand of Piotrus. Isn't this self-speaking? Dc76\^talk 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse per Piotrus's formidable track record of FAs, GAs, and DYKs. 'Trophy' pieces aren't the whole picture, but they're peer reviewed after a fashion and easily measurable. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The committee has in the past found, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors, that "strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy". As it happens, I don't see any "repeated violations of basic policy"; the words I'd use are "occasional lapses of judgement". What is the purpose of including this when the committee has previously found that it isn't especially relevant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Piotrus is one of the best editors of the whole project and I think everybody, except for some hardcore opponents of him, will agree. Tymek (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, for the record. Nothing new here about rare content prolificacy. --Poeticbent talk 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment ArbCom have usually not supported qualitative assessments such as this in the past. I am uncomfortable with the words "the most" as it suggests this contributor is more worthy than other hard-working contributors, many of whom would be in areas unrelated to those in which this contributor edits and hence it would be difficult to compare (and indeed one may question the point of doing so). Orderinchaos 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus work in the area of many potential conflicts

2) The area of interests of Piotrus are Polish related topics, many of those topics are naturally connected with German, Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Jewish history and culture. Since the national historiographical narrative, sources and appraisals are often differ regular disagreements and conflicts are almost inevitable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have said so myself in my statement... PS. And it is important: very active editors in controversial topics will step on toes and attract above-average hostility (due to being more active than average editors) from local above-average numbers of disruptive editors and tag teams (which will be more numerous in controversial areas than elsewhere). This explains why certain names pop up in arbcom again and again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he does, as do most of the other editors here as well as a great many editors without a fraction of the issues Piotrus or many other users here have. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think we should state it Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse per Alex and Piotrus. Durova^Charge! 07:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Since Piotrus is one of the most active editors of the whole project, and he is engaged in so many different articles, it is totally obvious that he works in the areas of many potential conflicts. An editor who limits himself to writing about female soccer in Pakistan, will probably be free from conflicts. But EE subjects are a mine. Tymek (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Please note, that the subject of history of European conflict is closely connected with the history of political warfare often publicly sponsored. Therefore, the sheer scope of prejudice can be staggering at times in historical literature. Thus correcting the misconceptions can take a heartrending effort. --Poeticbent talk 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. No other territory associated with Western civilization has changed hands in more ways than central Eastern Europe. Aside from the Soviet concoction of history of these territories (from ancient Russian friendship through joyfully joining into the Soviet family, minimally, into the relatives, i.e., Warsaw Pact), there are numerous other conflicts going back through history regarding who did what to whom--conflicts which still simmer centuries later. Even vigorous applications of "assume good faith" cannot avoid major conflict as editors work to fashion narrative which respectfully represents reputable fact-based sources. —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus is often unnecessary combative

3) Piotrus sometimes acts himself and canvassing his followers to transform those editorial disagreements into a battleground there one point of view should win over the all others. His opponents often act in similar fashion. The result is a long complicated history of convoluted conflicts between groups of editors loosely defined by the national allegiance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

First, the title of this proposal singles me out, while the body is about many more editors in general. Second, while I believe there is ample evidence to prove some editors are guilty of creating battlegrounds, I resent the implication that I am one of them: on the contrary, I believe that I do my best to prevent battlegrounds from arising and I try to calm down existing ones. Of course, which of those is the case - that's one of the most interesting questions that this ArbCom will answer (and I do hope it will answer, and not ignore this issue as it did in the last proceedings).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant as it may be, I brought this arbcom hearing precisely to single you out, Piotrus. Really, as far as I'm concerned, there was no point in the committee accepting the case if they weren't going to consider things on this basis. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as I stated in previous arbcoms, and here, I hope the committee will provide rulings about individuals, including myself, vindicating them or otherwise. It didn't do so the last two times, and both times I predicted this was an error and we will be back here. However, as somebody once told me: "if you get to shoot at them, it's only fair they get to shoot back at you." I create content, and I don't start lengthy DRs often (I've never started an arbcom myself). But I am used to others trying to win content disputes via wikilawyering, and I am prepared to discuss them, if they want to try that strategy. If you join the arbcom and are ready to discuss somebody, you should not be surprised if you get discussed yourself. I know some like Irpen find it shocking, alas, as Kirill stated when accepting this arbitration: "Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I did not study the conduct of all of his opponents but I admit it is quite possible that they may also coordinate revert wars by off-line exchanges. I think that off-line coordination roughly defines the line between legitimate situation when the common opinion of several users brings their similar edits and the illicit meatpuppetry. Off-line coordination usually does not produce direct evidence (and this precisely the reason why it is taken off-line) but if it is very extensive, it can be proven based on circumstantial evidence as well as by accidental incidents of beans being spilled due to the participants' "mistakes". Because it is so difficult to combat, I proposed Piotrus a voluntarily solution that would promote honorable conduct in content disputes by a way of editors' pledging to refrain from certain behavior during the content disagreement. Hopefully, we can achieve an agreement on that. --Irpen 18:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia unfortunately is one large battleground, in which the whole idea often is lost/missed. Piotrus is one of the few who reaches out to those he disagrees with, he is also one of the few free from prejudices. On the other hand, the user who has singled Piotrus out, is a perfect example of what discourages some people from the project. Tymek (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment diffuse. The title suggests that Piotrus is an edit warrior or perhaps uncivil, yet the content heads in other directions. By the end it appears to be saying that Eastern European topics are a battleground with Piotrus the principal instigator. The part I find most interesting is His opponents often act in similar fashion. Although it is difficult to infer another Wikipedian's actions based upon circumstantial evidence, each individual knows his own part with certainty. If Irpen classifies himself among the opponents then he is well situated to elaborate upon this statement with examples and evidence. In the interests of clearing the air and moving forward productively, I encourage him to do so. Durova^Charge! 07:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Piotrus' edit warring - as stated by multiple parties - is documented in evidence. As is his use of inflammatory language, see evidence. Novickas (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • PERFECT example of twisting evidence. Novickas forgets to add that I refactored my FAC comment as soon as the matter was properly addressed; that M.K.'s repeated ([50], [51]) complete removals of information about Holocaust in Lithuania and Collaboration in Lithuania (which he claimed as excessive or irrelevant) fits his long term IDONTLIKE it editing pattern (thus I believe the word censorship was justified, as information about Holocaust in Lithuania was censored out); that unlike M.K. has done often in many articles (see loooong mediation on Talk:Armia Krajowa, for example), I don't revert to the disputed wording (I don't insist on the word infamous); and that M.K's comment on FAC after I refactored my comment (striking my objection out) is a good example of battleground creation (instead of civil addressing of objections, which is what should happen on FAC). But, of course, if we look only few selective edits presented in a selective way... the story is not the same. I am really sad that an otherwise reasonable editor like Novickas, who often shows good editorial judgment (he proposed a good compromise on the discussed FAC article sentence) will nonetheless support the tag teams in their harassment of me with comments as seen above. That's a very good example of an outcome of the "radicalization of editors", a process I describe in one of my mini-essays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you refactored your comment. But I still think that admistrators should be taking the initiative in defusing conflicts, and that your use of these loaded words did not serve this cause. Novickas (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper way to defuse the conflict is what you have done - intervened and rewritten the sentence. MK, as years of experience (and his evidence section in arbcoms and RfCs) have shown, will not accept a solution proposed by the "Polish cabal": he may accept a solution coming from you, his fellow Lithuanian editor. His behavior is articles (revert warring, censorship, POV pushing) is highly disruptive, his attitude in discussions - confrontational. As an administrator, it is my duty to point it out and to try to moderate him (and as an editor of many FAs, it is also my duty to point out a major problem in the article when it occurs). And per WP:DUCK, censorship is the right term here, as I've explained above: removing a random piece of info is random removal, removing certain type of information for years is an attempt at censorship. Complaining that I dare to take a stance and do my job is a common theme throughout this proceedings, and not helping. Instead, you could try to moderate MK yourself, and explain to him why he should assume good faith, not revert my edits on spot, and not challenge all my comments as bad faithed. PS. I highly recommend you read my essay on radicalization, and than think about your attitude to different editors when you first came on wiki, and now, and how and why it has changed. I still hope we can go back to being good faithed colleagues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. It is good that Kaunas Fortress a FAC and GA/A-class article (which I, among other editors, was one of the principal contributors) is brought here, now Arbiters will have a unique possibility to see, that Piotrus behavior likely wouldn't change. The newest incident has almost all that I already described here - edit warring, tendentious edits, failure to seek compromise, etc. His inclusion of Special Squad [52] into the article is irrelevant as Ypatingasis būrys (YB) have no connection with Kaunas Fortress, therefore it is irrelevant.

Even more seeking a consensus I initially used article's talk page and explained the situation, even though it was Piotrus duty to do his best to seek compromise per WP:BURDEN (The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.) as well. Piotrus did not used article talk page and did not properly explained his edits till now, instead he chose to travel on FAC page and produce shameful rationale, linking my edit with word "censorship" [53], while in fact everybody can look to the article and see the encyclopedic detail of killings in WWII covered in article (relevant to the topic). Yet to Piotrus, his FAC "comment" was not enough, therefore he travels to article and reverts again, of cource no talk page was used for explanation again - no single hint of seeking consensus.

Now Piotrus is trying to get upper hand here, but not I used the shameful practice to suggest, that somebody is censoring article, and it was me, not Piotrus, who used article's talk page to properly explain the situation.

Summary - we saw how administrator failed to show the higher standards of conduct, again. M.K. (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Now Piotrus is trying to get upper hand here". It was not me who brought this matter here... regarding the talk page 1) I don't have the page watchlisted, I frankly missed your comment there (your edit summmary did not indicate you are explaining anything on talk) and the article is at FAC so the discussion should be centralized there (if I commented on talk page, I wonder if I'd have gotten criticized for not commenting at FAC??) and 2) If YB were irrelevant, fine, I am not restoring the link to them (I found Novickas edit summary explanation satisfactory), but rest of the information - like a link to the Holocaust in Lithuania is quite relevant (since the Jews were killed as part of that wider event), and you were removing the only link to that article (as well as to the Lithuanian collaboration, which is also helpful in understanding the reason for existence of the "Lithuanian auxiliaries"). Linking to those articles was neither "excessive" nor "irrelevant", despite your claims to the contrary in your edit summaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation, that other party didn't wrote in edit summary about his initiated discussion on article's talk page, is simply irrelevant; as by default contributors are obliged to use article's talk page, then dealing with opposite views. Even more, per WP:BURDEN, it is you who should show sound evidences and convinced parties, that deleted material relevant, you failed to do so. Instead, you choose revert warring and nonconstructive and shameful FAC comment on my edits, which is far from the proper "centralized" discussion of FAC. In short - such approach is straight forward battlefield creation, effecting FAC/A class article, and illustrative item of Alex's proposed finding of fact. M.K. (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Alex claims that Piotrus transforms "editorial disagreements into a battleground". However, that was never the case in several articles when I observed his disputes with Irpen and others. To the contrary, Piotrus demonstrated enormous patience, civility, and willingness to debate, unlike some of his opponents.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose due to misrepresentation of opinions of arbitrators on hearing this matter. It has been stated in preliminary decisions by each and every one of the seven arbitrators who accepted the case that the behavior of everyone involved is going to be examined (quote) to "investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies" (FloNight). "Many issues need to be addressed here" (FayssalF), nevertheless User:Piotrus has been singled out for preferred sanctions in the above initial statement contrary to directives. --Poeticbent talk 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Biophys. Piotrus shows patience (and reaches out for assistance on intractable good-faith editorial disputes) while the opposition immediately launches into accusations of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus created a black book, then deceived community about its deletion

3) Piotrus secretly created a black book on Polish Wikipedia against his opponents in the content disputes. Then the book was discovered by the previous arbcom case he announced its deletion and within minutes restored it with a different name working as an IP user. The manner of editing the book clearly indicates an attempt to deceive community

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is this something that took place on the Polish Wikipedia exclusively, or was there activity on the English Wikipedia directly related to it? Kirill ^(prof) 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All the diffs were from English Wikipedia. Their stacked collection was hidden on Polish wikipedia. See here. --Irpen 00:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also note my responses to this allegation, which frames normal and expected evidence gathering as some evil "black book".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• • Disagree. An opportunity to collect any evidence is required for successful and fair work of ArbCom (see my comment above).Biophys (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And for many other dispute resolutions... my point exactly: collecting evidence is not creating a black book. The very term is nothing but a bad faith framing of perfectly normal evidence collection.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, let's stick to facts. The timing of purported deletion by Piotrus followed by an immediate surreptitious resumption of the black book when logged out clearly show an attempt to deceive. Piotrus' claim to have stopped was dishonest. --Irpen 18:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. It is purely an assumption of bad faith to claim such a list is malicious. Piotrus has been subjected to so many cases in the past, maintaining a list is probably a necessary defensive measure. Spending time collecting evidence after an Arbcom case has been sprung is very time consuming and stressful. As Alex noted above, editing in EE is difficult given the competing narratives, and when a conflict does arrive, it is invariably is a case of pots calling the kettle black. The question to ask on whether the list is malicious is to ask whether Piotrus has ever initiated an Arbcom case against his opponents. Martintg (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Creating lists of grievances might be an act of good faith. Officially announcing to community deletion of a text than resurrecting it within minutes working as an IP is an act of bad faith no questions about it. If the IP involved were not Piotrus I of course bring my apologies. I guess arbcom members can verify the matter via checkuser tools. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All those links which should prove my alleged misbehavior are directly taken from Piotrus Black Book [54] [55]. M.K. (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment per my observations above, it may be quite possible that both sides are speaking candidly here. On-wiki collections of this sort--no matter how well-intended and carefully maintained--tend to enhance disputes rather than resolve them. Suggest both sides shake hands over this episode and agree not to repeat it. Durova^Charge! 07:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable, good faithed compromise would be for the other side to assume that my evidence collection was within the frame of policies, but due to possible misinterpretation, it would be highly recommended for future cases not to have such evidence collections within Wikimedia project space. Most editors collect them elsewhere, anyway, and the instances when they were collected on site seem to be too problematic too often. I wouldn't have much trouble not doing it on Wikimedia projects, thus solving this issue (I do, however, think it is important to state that I have done nothing wrong with my collection so far as current policies are concerned).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment We are missing the diff showing that he promised to delete it. Novickas (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. For someone who’s been dragged through mud as many times as User:Piotrus, the only defining factor for arbitrators in this particular instance should be that Piotrus is used to collecting evidence of edit warring in order to prepare himself against inevitable future attacks. A single glance at the Evidence page proves that many of those who oppose him collect evidence at least as effectively, and for a lot more menacing reasons. --Poeticbent talk 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I myself have chided myself more than once for not keeping records of incidents of poor editorial conduct even extending to tag-team like favoritism by certain admins threatening major punitive actions over minor issues. Keeping such information is unfortunately vital to one's personal self-defense in the current atmosphere--one which is not of Piotrus' making. —PētersV (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Let's put the terminology aside. Replace "Black book" with a "file on his content opponents" or with a "log" if you like. The facts themselves are not disputed. Piotrus created such file on Polish Wikipedia in March, 2007, [56] while no arbcom or RfC was under way. He purportedly shut it down [57] with "not needed" edit summary when it came to light in the previous arbcom [58], while in fact he restarted what he claimed is "not needed" at a different page [59] and maintained throughout these months [60]). --Irpen 18:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Framing is very important. And the very arbcoms that occurred are proof enough that evidence gathering was quite needed (unless you are going to tell me that those arbcoms would've not happened if I my evidence collection page did not exist?). PS. Same goes for the deceived community about its deletion. I never said I was deleting it, but an evidence page that is known to editors who were for various reasons unhappy about them was indeed not needed - hence it was moved. Assuming that I intended to deceive the community is just more bad faith. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I can only tell you that for me this was a breaking point. Not even that the page was online but this being your approach. I cannot tell for others. You may remember that I did not launch your first ArbCom or Hali's RfC and (as they both happened before my discovery of your "evidence collection" technique) my initial posts were rather conciliatory. I spoke strongly in defense of Halibutt and against the acceptance of your arbcom. --Irpen 18:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • For me the "breaking point" came earlier when I was forced to start compiling evidence of the ongoing harassment of myself and other editors by your and your colleagues. Years have passed, and yet you've not expressed any remorse or regret over your actions, and the victim blaming continues ("how dare you gather evidence of my wrongdoing?").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Piotrus, I see your black book and there are about dozen people there. What strikes me is not that they were harassing you (are you saying that they all were?) but they all happen to have been your content opponents at some point of time. You did not gather "evidence". You gathered "stuff" to use to hit your targets. How are the Betacommand's issues, or [http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Piotrus/Drogowskaz&diff=prev&oldid=10130592 Dorftrottel's musings at ANI, or my absence is the evidence of anything at all? Your whole black book is full of such stuff when you spin the conduct of the users in any possible way to allow you to call for their blocks (and then you go to IRC to call for such blocks once you post your evidence.) This AE thread is a good demo of that. --Irpen 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • "but they all happen to have been your content opponents at some point of time". A very prudent and important observation - alas, the conclusion you draw from it is wrong. I have no critics to speak of among neutral, uninvolved editors. All that became more familiar with the issue are supportive of me - as indicated by the correlation of content involvement and support/critique of my person in this arbcom in outside comments and elsewhere. Most vocal of my critics are editors who failed to push their POV in articles because of my objection to NPOV violation; having found they cannot win content disputes (as our dispute resolution invites neutral editors who side with me as a rule of thumb (of course one can find exceptions for everything, and I've been wrong sometimes, too), they turned to ruining my reputation and harassing of me (and others who support me). And the Lokyz thread is a good demo of how uncivil, disruptive editors who harass others are protected by those who find their harassment useful, as if allowed to continue it is likely to lead to their content opponents being chased away.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, your post left me almost speechless. So, I would just say that there is a reason why we have an evidence page. --Irpen 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

Piotrus content creation should be praised

1) Arbcom commends Piotrus for all the content he has created.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unusual, but IMHO needed. I would like to add that whatever we do his ability to work on the content should not be hindered Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither necessary nor desirable for the reasons I gave at #Piotrus contributes a lot of encyclopaedic content. I applaud Piotrus's work, but there's no reason for the committee to be doing so officially. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither necessary nor desirable per Angus. Orderinchaos 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus desysopped

2) Piotrus is desysopped. He can restore his administrative status via usual RFA procedure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I seriously doubt, based on the evidence, that Piotrus can at this point in time be considered to have the trust of the community. Given his proven lack of personal and even administrative integrity, it would be good for wikipedia and community morale if he were at least to volunteer for a reconfirmation vote. I personally would be willing to consider that his actions are ameliorated by the stressful environment in which he works, esp. as I know myself full-well the lack of moral and wiki-legal support content-editors get in the nitty-gritty wiki world (leaving one perhaps with little practical choice but to do some of those thing), but this covers only some of the issues and Piotrus as yet continues to deny the bad faith and conduct of many of his actions and thus deprives me of my ability to see it in a better light. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Piotrus is not using his administrative tools often and his administrative work is trivial and sometimes questionable (unblocking Molobo, etc.). Thus, his desysopping should not significantly hinder his productive work. On the other hand, I believe that deceiving the community is incompatible with the administrative status. It would also reduce the ability to canvass using administrative IRC channel as well as give a signal that transformation wiki into a battleground is not OK. I think, if the community trust in Piotrus will restore then RFA should not be a problem

• • Disagree. No convincing evidence, specificaly on the abuse of administrative tools by Piotrus, has been provided.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree that administrators should have trust of the community, if they have lost the trust or confidence of the community they should have their access removed, I think the right approach here would be making the admin term in general limited to several years (with the possibility of reelection) rather than desysopping Piotrus in particular. The ArbCom doesn't seem to be entitled to do such things, but if such a proposal is raised elsewhere, I'll support it. As of now, I fail to see what policy requires desysopping of Piotrus. Moreover, I am sure that such a move would be considered as encouragement by some of his opponents. Colchicum (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Abstain for now while I am holding this discussion with Piotrus outside of the AtrbCom. If we manage to arrive to a harmonious solution, this may not be necessary. For the same reason, I interrupted writing up my evidence section in the hope that it may not be necessary. --Irpen 18:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support "Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters."Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct, and more importantly it links to:

"4) In general, Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users, particularly with regard to principles such as assume good faith and no personal attacks. Administrators are expected to keep their cool and should not use administrator-specific capabilities casually or without thought. They should lead by example and serve as a model of the proper editing behavior to which other users should aspire."[61] In view of his personal attacks, but also other problematic behavior highlighted in this arbitration, I do not see that he is qualified to have the role of admin given the expected conduct of an admin. The best solution would be if he stepped down voluntarily (it would not stop him from seeking re-election if he so wishes).--Stor stark7 ^Speak 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree, the evidence is not convincing, nor are the alleged wrong doings is as extensive or chronic as other admins who have been desyopped by Arbcom. Besides, Piotrus is open to recall, let the community decide if they have lost trust in him. I certainly haven't. Martintg (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has the full right to desysop me, as I believe has the community. For the record, my desysopment was proposed and opposed my RfC last year, see here; and never any motion for my recall has been initiated. I believe I still have the trust of majority of the community. I also believe that if I should ever so visibly loose the trust of the community, I should retire from this project, as it would indicate my input and contributions are no longer welcome here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. I am yet to see solid, convincing evidence of Piotrus abusing his admin powers. I am afraid this will be difficult, if not impossible, to find. Tymek (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I regard that shopping his own unlock via admin IRC, and accusing established editors of being "pov trolls" (details) is abuse of syspop rights; shopping to block content opponents via IRC admin (details) I see as an abuse of admin rights; threats to block editor, who is following WP:BLP, I see as an abuse of sysop rights; unblocking disputed article [62] I see as an abuse of sysop rights. But the most important is this - Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users.. Does Piotrus shows higher standard? Judging from my experience - he does not. M.K. (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree per User:Martintg, User:Biophys and User:Tymek. Evidence is indeed very weak, besides, the proposed remedy stems from personally vested interest of a Wikipedian involved in political disagreements on Eastern European history. --Poeticbent talk 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support There has been community disquiet over the lack of ease by which the admin bit can be removed from those whose behaviour or judgement is in question, irrespective of this particular case. We also have three recent ArbCom precedents (FeloniousMonk, Physchim62 and Tango) where admin status was removed for questionable behaviour or judgement. Orderinchaos 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Changed to oppose. I strongly suggest any fellow neutral admins review the actual hard logs rather than AN/I to get a picture of this user's use of admin tools. Except in very extreme circumstances (eg Foundation stuff or consistent blockable behaviour), I would not support deadminning a user on editing actions alone. Orderinchaos 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but haven't all of those admins - unlike me - abused their admin powers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not enough to feel uneasy over Piotrus. You actually have to prove he has done something wrong, and specifically that he has misused admin tools/authority/status. Moreschi (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• This remedy is plainly not supported by your findings of fact. You have identified four issues with Piotrus' behavior, but desysopping will not solve or prevent any of them. It would only be punitive. — CharlotteWebb 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. To Orderinchaos, there's been "disquiet" over inability to desysop, and you name sysops I have never heard of as a precedent? There is already a remedy of recall in place. You have concrete incontrovertible proof any of those cases apply? Guilt by disassociation? I'm sorry, but you have convicted Piotrus before these proceedings have been completed. Whatever remedy is decided, if and only when required, should be up to admins clearly outside the community of contention here.

  Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, in not deferring to that community and personally supporting this remedy, Deacon has stepped over the line from plaintiff to judge and jury in the ultimate show of bad faith in advocating for this remedy. Can these proceedings possibly sink into any deeper quagmire?

   A couple of weeks ago I would not have been so strident. Now that I've had a couple of weeks to walk in the hell-hole of vicious and baseless recriminations thrown about with reckless abandon that Piotrus lives with on a daily basis, myself being assaulted by editors I have never dealt with before who have demonstrated they are interested only in their WP:TRUTH, I can only admire his continued composure and commitment to and achievements in creating reputable content. —PētersV (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the level of attacks we have been witnessing for the past month or two is not what I see on a daily basis. On average... I'd say every two or three days, and usually in weekly or monthly batches punctuated by longer periods of relative peace - it all depends on how many uncivl "true believers" are active and grinding their axes. But yes, the last month - as every ArbCom - has been one of those "months in hell". And somehow I doubt it will be the last this project will see - although I am increasingly considering whether it should be the last for me. 5 years of this crap is getting tiresome indeed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In response, there isn't *that* many closed ArbCom cases that you could not find and read the entire cases in the archive. The "remedy of recall" is not an official or enforceable remedy, as has been established and proven many times over in other cases. I certainly did not suggest Piotrus was "associated" with any of the above parties. (section withdrawn) Orderinchaos 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and what were you suggesting re "up to admins clearly outside the community of contention here"? I am most certainly uninvolved in this situation, I'm an Australian editor and administrator who handles mostly geographical and political topics within my own country. However, for about two years I've taken some interest in process-related stuff and am a moderately regular participant on AN/I and sometimes contribute to RFARs. Orderinchaos 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I appreciate involvement of neutral, new editors in this discussion (that said, please read if you haven't so far this mini-essay of mine and this recent update of my evidence, both addressing how such newcomers may be mislead). Second: could you explain what "questionable admin decisions" made you consider my admin position problematic? I have always felt that my use of admin tools was pretty uncontroversial. Third: "placing of extreme nationalist links" - could you again elaborate? I have added thousands of elinks to Wikipedia, a few of them were indeed "extreme nationalist" - a fact I had learned after I've added them, not before, and after I've learned about unreliability of a cited website I usually supported their purging. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to eat humble pie and apologise to you and retract a few things. Firstly, if you were unaware of the nature of the Antyk links until the debate, then I'm quite happy to strike that. Secondly, it would appear I have been guilty of link clicking and reading too much into past AN/Is, which I read about five of in the last 48 hours. The particular incident I had in mind, which I once saw by clicking a link in one of the AN/Is, only to find just now that it happened *three years ago*. I've just looked at 8 months of your block and delete logs and am seeing nothing troublesome there. I'm presently of a mind to withdraw my original statement. Orderinchaos 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest. As a great deal of this has reverted to the Irpen-Piotrus conflict after a breakdown of their direct talks, I have an alternate, at least partial, remedy. That is that for a trial period, say six months:

1. Piotrus and Irpen abstain from initiating administrative procedures/Requests for Anything involving the other;
2. Piotrus and Irpen abstain from participating in any way in administrative procedures/Requests for Anything involving the other; and, finally,
3. Piotrus and Irpen agree that their past interactions shall not be used by any other editor in any way in any administrative procedures/Requests for Anything against one or the other, that is, should such remedy be adopted, there is a clean slate between the two as of the adoption of said remedy, and all other editors must honor that clean slate.

Now, that would surely be a true demonstration of good faith. For the partisans here, this is the first mention of this suggestion that I have made, no prior communication with any other party. —PētersV (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you frame it as an official workshop proposal, it may get lost here. One one level I agree: for years I asked for nothing more than for Irpen to stop discussing me. See also this as well as my later proposal to Irpen. Please note that to the best of my knowledge I have never initiated administrative procedures re Irpen, nor commented in the ones involving him. Content procedures are different: your current proposal may be interpreted as forbidding me to asking for input like I did two days ago at Wikipedia:BLPN#Mikhail_Meltyukhov (and why should it)? Note, finally. that your proposal above does not address problematic relations between Irpen and others (Biophys, Lysy, Balcer, Halibutt).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. If this would be 511 years ago, I would be now in serious war with Piotrus, most likely we would kill each other. Yet, that would be only a content dispute. Dc76\^talk 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I support Peters' proposal. Dc76\^talk 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no evidence that Piotrus has abused his admin tools in any of these disputes. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Joint board on Polish-German-Russian-Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Belarusian-Jewish disputes is created

3) The ethnic disputes related to Poland often have complicated German, Lithuanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Jewish components. Attempts to solve them individually using Consensus mechanism are often only lead to Canvassing and Meatpuppeting as there are number of editors who strongly feel attachments to some of those national causes. We need a committee of reasonable users acting as representatives of those national communities as well as neutral editors interesting in the topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposal seems incomplete; it's a justification for the existence of a board, but doesn't actually say what role the board would play. Kirill ^(prof) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tried to address this concern by adding more specifics here. --Irpen 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board was tried and forgotten. How is the Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard working? If well, it should be enough for our problems.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Specific_editors_restricted. We need to replace the medieval court system with a sub-arbitration committee competent, responsible and good-faithed, consisting of 3 to 5 members. Users like Renata, Novickas (both Lithuania), Alex Bakharev (Russia), Elonka (Poland), just off the top-of-my-head, are highly educated users competent enough to understand the intricacies of content-disputes in these areas and trustworthy enough to solve them without being suspected by any "side" of being partisan. The arbs know what kind of users they'd look for this role I'm sure. It must be remembered that we only have (ignoring the particular issues with Piotrus) such significant problems in this area because there is in practice in this area more editorial power behind causing disputes than solving them. Given the large number of ideologues who edit wikipedia in these areas mostly to promote some kind of partisan agenda, however inexplicit or non-obvious it is even to themselves, and given the level of entrenchment that has already taken place, the opinions of most of these editors as to who should be on this committee can't really be taken too seriously, at least as opposed to considerations regarding who can be trusted to enforce wikipedia's content and discipline policies. Anyways, however they'd select and set this up, it seems to be fairly obvious that such a body would improve this area considerably. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We need something like this Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no way to describe the Irpen-Piotrus confict (for example) as Russian-Polish ethnic conflict, as I tried to explain in evidence. I appreciate good contributions by Piotrus specifically on the Russian history subjects. Unfortunately, he could not do enough in this area. No wonder why.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We need a committee to do what? How is it going to be decided if a repesentative actually represents a community? And if the committee happen to represent the communities (which is hardly possible), what advantage over direct democracy does it give to Wikipedia? Furthermore, how do we know if a Wikipedian is a member of the community to be represented? We cannot require people to formally declare their allegiance on Wikipedia. Would this board have jurisdiction over Wikipedians who are not represented by it? Wikipedia needs less bureaucracy rather than more, and seeking a middle ground between prejudices is a wrong approach, the right one is to enforce the existing content wikipolicies. Colchicum (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the idea while we need to develop it. IMO, we need a committee of mutually respected EE editors who would resolve the disagreements about sources and the propriety of their use. Misuse of sources, attacks on sources (sometimes valid sometimes bad faith) is the main feeder of the edit wars. My experience tells me that if we manage to resolve the sources' problem, we will make a huge progress. Exisiting general wikipedia-wide sources noticeboard is inadequate as we have to few uninformed opinions there from bystanders with no idea of what they are talking about. We need a more specialized board composed of editors respected by all sides who would resolve the disagreement about sources. --Irpen 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps separate regional or topical subdivisions of Wikipedia-wide noticeboards would be useful, but with free participation of all interested Wikipedians and based on the same Wikipedia policies. Anyway, it is probably not up to the ArbCom to set up such noticeboards. Colchicum (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that groups of good faith users with contradictory points of views exist. What we want to discourage is canvassing and recruitment of meatpuppets, pet trolls, attack dogs, etc. Unless the major players voluntarily reject canvassing, block shopping and would do anything against their own trolls and disruptive users such board would be just another scene of the battles not an instrument of conflict resolutions. And yes, there many more conflicts there than just Russo-Polish ethnic. There are many ethnic as well as non-ethnic conflicts intersects there. Smaller players like e.g. the Lithuanians are often completely suppressed there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully support the concept. IMO, what is desperately needed with respect to article concering Polish Jewry is a committee of sorts of non-involved editors who can competently weigh the validity of sources for WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS etc. This is the only way to address s serious problem inn those article--the bullying through of fringe, anti-semitic canards (largely the view that Jews brought anti-semitism upon themselves because of various "sins"--cooperating with the Soviets, creating communism, etc) that keep being inserted into a number of articles. I would eagerly welcome such a committee for those articles as an alternative to the tedium of having to battle team edit warriors who use Canvassing and Meatpuppeting to incessantly despoil articles with views that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Given Boodlesthecat's total unwilingness to accept opinion that differs from his, as well as his unwilingness to cooperate in certain inflammatory articles, such as History of Jews in Poland, a committee would be perfect. Tymek (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, would never work and is irrelevant to the current case. Given both their contributions to their respective areas, exclusion of either Irpen or Piotrus from this committee is unthinkable, while their inclusion would not resolve Irpen's paranoia towards Piotrus. Martintg (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Marting. Furthermore, all this does is create yet another venue for soaking up the energies of editors doing something other than creating content. Look at all the time already, frankly, wasted in this proceeding (which has not changed anything and in which no one has changed their positions/allegiances from similar prior proceedings). —PētersV (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A good subsection of the editors who are most informed and would participate on such a board are already participating (here).
  • As for editors not currently participating here, their position on issues is known to the editorial community involved.
  • If a board is meant to bring in "fresh blood", that is just a new invitation for rhetoric and lobbying of editors who are clueless to the intricacies of Baltic/CentralEastern European history for "NPOV" resolution based on (from my view) facts competing with fiction (from the other side, the soon to be unbanned Petri Krohn would say myth versus reality).
  • We all know who we are and what our positions are. We can deal with each other in good faith, that is, assume good faith in spite of what we deem evidence to the contrary, or we can continue along the current road with (not to single him out, others have made far worse allegations) Irpen's charges of viciousness [his emphasis]. PētersV (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Think of it as an Ombudsman's office, rather than as an additional layer of bureaucracy. The successful versions of these institutions start with the assumption that conflicts will arise, and then do their best to assure that the office-holders are neutral, enjoy widespread community respect, and are consistently civil. Yes, the proposal needs fleshing out. Novickas (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. The editors here aren't newcomers who need their hands held. This year has seen far too many arbitrations end with milquetoast solutions. It's arbitration's function to be the final step in dispute resolution, not to pass the buck by stalling for weeks or months and then asking everyone to play nicely together. Or worse, cobbled-by-committee 'general sanctions' that hand draconian power to any of 1500 administrators who wander to a thread at AE. We've seen enough of those backfire; let's not encourage more. The buck stops here. Durova^Charge! 07:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. How is this new panel of self-appointed quasi-arbitrators supposed to work? The amount of bullying is already beyond belief in some areas so what voluntary mechanisms would prevent that? --Poeticbent talk 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Durova above has captured the spirit and context of my objection to this proposal. Orderinchaos 04:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Black books and lists of grievances are forbidden

4) Onwiki black books and lists of grievances can be speedily deleted by any administrator on sight (using G10 speedy deletion criterion). Offwiki black books are treated the same way as other off wiki personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment (refactored from oppose with explaination). I agree with the principle, I oppose the idea that my evidence collection was a "black book". I have addressed this in detail in my evidence reply, but: editors have the right to collect evidence. Black books = attack pages not only should be but are forbidden (Wikipedia:Attack page); my pages were not attack pages but evidence pages. Editors are required to collect evidence for dispute resolution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Deleting diffs with comments ("black books") on sight and treating them as personal attacks - this sounds desperate to me. I have seen some personal essays in WP that sound very much like "griverances". That would be difficult to distingush.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Such stuff only breeds hostile and divisive climate. I would go as far as prohibit RfC drafts from being kept in userspace for more than one week (to allow reasonable time to write them up). In Cla-SV case this was discussed in greater detail. I make no comment on their dispute itself, but Cla's RfC-draft resting and developing in his userspace for months could only breed hostility. --Irpen 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some "lists of grievances" are normal part of arbitration, requests for comments, or preparations for them. Anyway, I don't see what it has to do with creating content and how this proposal can help here. Colchicum (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You "can't see" because you were lucky to not have seen such activity directed against yourself. You can read up about the experience of finding out about being so deviously monitored here as well as here (fourth paragraph from the bottom) and here. --Irpen 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that meticulously collecting an evidence in this case represents harassment, as you imply, especially since it was you rather than Piotrus who brought this "black book" here.Biophys (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Solving an isolated conflict (e.g. over Boleslaw expedition is easy), solving hundreds of fossilized conflicts spanning periods of years in a meaningful ways impossible unless the arbcom is prepared to deliberate for years. Keeping out of context diffs in a public place without the target having a chance to respond is a harassment. Collective meticulous preparation for months of evidence then dumping it on an unsuspecting user who suppose to answer in days (and might have some other things to do) is at least grossly unfair. There is no need to collect and nurture all your grievances you expect to seek solutions at the time the problem is arrived Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Alex, your facts are wrong. The book was not google'able to avoid being seen as an attack page, but it was possible to find so that parties interested enough in stalking my edits could see what I am concerned with and raise it on talk (this is why I left it there; do you think I am stupid and I recreated it in almost the same place where the last one was because I thought it was somehow unfinde'able now?). If you post anything online, you are making it public, I just made this one accessible only to the much more dedicated editors - I was curious who would invest time in following my edits this time... surprise, my good friend Irpen was the one to do so. There is no harassment if the harassed has spent considerable time to stalk the "harasser" to figure out what he is doing... it's like sticking an arm deep into a garbage disposal unit and crying harm afterwards :) One could argue with more logic that bad faith and harassment was shown by user(s) looking for my evidence collection in the first place. And, of course, collecting evidence is no bad faith, it's following dispute resolution procedures, so there was no bad faith or harassment on my part. "Collective meticulous preparation for months of evidence" may be grossly unfair - just as writing a Featured Article is grossly unfair to editors who have no time/will to do so... be serious, Alex. Making a better argument is not being unfair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I swear I found you black book by googling something. I really don't remember the string I was googling for but in one of our many disputes you challenged me to find diffs for something I assert and I googled in search of the page where the discussion I was referring to took place. Your black book showed up and made me disgusted beyond belief, especially how it was restarted after its claimed closure. I addressed the rest of your claims elsewhere. --Irpen 05:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you found it a year ago by googling, and I agreed that it may be offensive (as one does not enjoy googling for one name and finding criticism), which is why I ensured that current version is, to my knowledge, non-google'able (and has been for about a year). So what's the problem? PS. I also ask you to provide a diff to google search that shows that my current evidence page is googe'able.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? Two problems, actually. The lesser one was that your knowledge was incorrect as I found it by google. The bigger one is the fact that you followed me and others in search of material to be used at the opportune time and you did try that. I explained it multiple times, both at my evidence section and my talk. --Irpen 21:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please prove that the current page is google'able and I'll be happy to remedy that (I fully agree that it is unpleasant to google one's name/nick and come up with such stuff). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am not even an amateur in Google hacking. I have no idea what makes pages googleable. All I am saying is that several months ago it showed up in a response to a google string when I was looking for some of our previous discussions I needed to refer to in the discussion we had at the moment. But this is really a minor issue. My main concern is not whether the page is hidden or open. My concern is with your logging of material for months to use it at an opportune time to strike and get rid of opponents which demonstrate a vicious attitude towards Wikipedia editing as a long term "battle". I explained it all here. I requested from you a firm promise that this would stop. So far, you refused to do so. I am sure that if you, me and most other editors would agree to follow a simple code of ethics, we would have a good shot to address other problems. --Irpen 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, finally, a time clarification: several months ago. Yes, early this year - around the time of Digwuren arbitration - the page was google'able. Then you objected to that, saying it is stressful to google one's name in such context, and I fixed it. And yes, it would be great if all editors agreed to work peacefully and never need dispute resolution (which requires evidence collection). I am afraid such an ideal world is not very likely, however, and this is why evidence collection is explicitly permitted and requested by policies of DR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, not that many months ago. I am talking well after you changed the page of your log from Piaskownica to Drogowskaz as when I found "Drogowskaz" it had a very significant edit history already. It was certainly less than a year ago (which was the time of Digwuren's case.) Your claim that the type of your activity (not "evidence collection" per se but specifically what you were doing) is permissible is where we disagree. You claim it is a legitimate "evidence collection" while in my opinion this is evidence of the grand scale viciousness in the battleship for the favorable content of Wikipedia as explained here. Should I consider my request for you to promise to stop denied? Because so far you were avoiding the direct answer. If you are going to refuse, just say so at my talk and to my deep regret the rest of this disagreement would have to be resolved at the ArbCom pages. --Irpen 20:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. I don't see how semi-privately recording evidence of someone's incivility to me (for example) constitutes "harassment" to that person committing the incivility. Perhaps if we all maintained such lists, it could be a deterrent to the incivility being committed in the first place. Martintg (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The intention of all those politeness is to keep harmonic work without hostilities between the editors. Collecting dossiers of out of context difs from stale conflicts serves exactly the opposite Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment and endorsement. Examples of such "books", "lists" are extreme form of bad faith assumption, therefore such "items" should be prohibited. M.K. (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as prohibition goes, the only thing that is prohibited is your use of old (2007, 2006, 2005...) diffs in evidence, which violates Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Amnesty... but of course I can understand that like Irpen, you are unhappy that I collect evidence to defend myself against dispute resolutions you are launching against me (for the uninitiated, M.K. has been the major force between RfC Piotrus and RfArb Piotrus 1). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. I myself have been in need of such a list and have wasted hours at times looking through article histories for past incidents. As long as such a list is accessible in one's user space--after all, it would be nearly as easy to maintain such a list off-WP--then I see no reason for an editor, especially one who has been repeatedly attacked, not to be able to maintain such a list. I would additionally note that editors appearing in such a list should not comment on the page with the list, but instead view such a notation of incidents as an opportunity to foster user talk page dialog to positively address any misunderstandings. Again, we have the Piotrus opposition making the blanket assumption/charge of bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree as per PētersV. I have no time going round collecting evidence of bad faith and gross misbehaviour which is rampant in my areas of interest. That’s why I’m always deeply distressed by being subjected to occasional smear campaigns. I suggest you keep things in perspective. The Arbcom attacks seem to be on the rise and not in decline. --Poeticbent talk 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative community, not a grudge match. Unless such a page has official bearing (eg our Long Term Abuse or Request for Checkuser cases), or it's only meant to be up for a few days or for the duration of a particular dispute resolution phase, otherwise there is no place for it here. People can use Notepad or Microsoft Word or something on their own computer if they wish to store information. Orderinchaos 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? First, why should gathering evidence be limited to "a few days"? This very arbcom has been on hold for weeks as some editors gather their evidence. Second, as long as the page is not google'able, why should one be forced to use non-wiki medium, when one can write on a wiki, where it's easy to work on wikification of the content? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Two things: my second caveat ("or for the duration of...") anticipated longer periods such as this one, the "few days" was intended for normal circumstances. I personally object not to the collecting of evidence but the storing of it in a public place for periods of non-fixed duration. On one's own computer, it serves the intended purpose of keeping the information on hand. In a public place it only serves to create drama and keep wars going longer than they should. i.e. hinders collaboration, which is the raison d'etre for the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • In that case, I don't think we are in much disagreement. I tried to ensure my evidence collection - which by itself I hope we can agree is acceptable - would be reasonably private (not googleable) but easy to wikify, easy to discuss with others if I chose to do so (including editors in the evidence). Apparently this has caused much wikidramu, and I wouldn't mind moving it off Wikimedia projects entirely. The big thing is not about where it is (as long as it is somewhere reasonably private), but that some editors claim I have no right to collect evidence or that the very act of collecting evidence violates our policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
          • In whose eyes, then, I'd also be in violation, as I have quite a few offline files to that general effect. We've had some really tough cases on the Australian project usually ending in indefinite blocks and most of the work I have done sits on Notepad files or Excel spreadsheets on my home computer in case future checkusers or other admins working on the case need it. Orderinchaos 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Indeed. See also how I frame this issue with my proposals at #Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure and #Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "black book" shows bad faith. Do note I've refactored my comment in the party's comments in this thread, as I do not oppose the principle but rather, framing of my evidence collection as a "black book" or "list of grievances".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For the reasons given in #Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure, I don't see this as a principle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please define black book in 100% unequivocal terms. Is this from dictionary? My answer is: impossible, resp. no. So, oppose, b/c this is highly interpretable. Remedies must be specific, not general and creating other problems.Dc76\^talk 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Piotrus

Proposed principles

Gathering evidence is a normal dispute resolution procedure

1) Sound evidence is the rational basis for sound judgements. Gathering evidence is required by many dispute resolution procedures, such as Request for Comment and Request for Arbitration. There are different ways to gather evidence, and editors may take different lenghts of time to gather it; editors are free to determine how and when they gather evidence as long as their evidence is not used as an attack page to defame others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A response to "No black books" proposal by Alex. Simply, a finding that my evidence collection was wrong would crash our current dispute resolution system, as it would indicate that evidence collection is wrong. A statement to the contrary is needed before future arbcoms and other dispute resolutions become paralyzed with sides accusing each other that the other side had no right to gather evidence... PS. Search for instances of the word "evidence" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Arbitration guide and one'll find repeated instances indicating that participants are required to gather evidence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• • Fully and repeatedly answered here and here. --Irpen 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. This is standard.Biophys (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Necessary to one's defense in these sorts of proceedings built on the premise that an editor is apparently the nexus of all WP bad faith. —PētersV (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Standard requirement of all conflict resolution procedures in WP:AN/I, WP:DE, WP:RFC and WP:WQA. --Poeticbent talk 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Is a party to litigation to be required to appear without evidence in his own defense? Nihil novi (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Litigation should not disrupt editorial process and violate normal ethical principles of civilized society. It is counter-productive but not forbidden to keep black books on your private hard drive. It is quite common to keep grivances onwiki in the place known for accused. It has the name WP:RFC. Collective collecting evidence behind somebody's back is absolutely unethical. It is similar to ridiculing a co-worker or a party guest when he or she temporarily left the room. It is simply not that civilized people do. Discovering of such black books by the subject is very disruptive. The books prevent any meaningful conflict resolution. Editing the black books Piotrus way: after announcing the deletion and by IP editing destroys all the trust between the editors: if Piotrus used sockpuppets (to avoid scrutiny) and deliberately told an untruth then what other edits he may have done using socks and what other statement of him were deliberate untruths? I hope none but how can we trust that our hopes are true? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Than change the way WP:DR works, because as I've illustrated in quite a few places, evidence collection is currently required by our policies. And searching for my non-public evidence is stalking; if I've moved it to a doc on my computer, would some try to hack into it to look for it? How and where I collect my evidence is up to me, as long as it is in a reasonable private, ungoogle'able location that cannot be mistaken for some defamatory attack page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As a generally applicable principle this has flaws. How can one assume good faith while continuing to maintain a collection of so-called evidence? Where's the forgiveness? It is right and proper to collect evidence for purposes of dispute resolution, but only when dispute resolution is underway or at least under consideration. Principles should be broadly applicable and broadly true, but there are many cases where collecting evidence would not be reasonable. Try to see it from the other perspective: "Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project" (from here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Angus, there are several flows in your argument. One: as was discussed elsewhere here, assuming good faith does not precude one from participating in DR proceedings and gathering evidence for them. Two: I gathered my evidence in various periods when I thought a DR may be likely to occur. Was I supposed to delete it afterwards? With oversight, perhaps? Remove it from my memory? Online medias are by their nature near perfect archives... Third: Since I didn't actually got to use the diffs I collected against Irpen (who is the editor primarily criticizing them), consider that for him to get harassed by them he had first to dig long and hard to find them, and than assume bad faith that I intended to somehow subverse wiki DR policies and use them to ban him... it's kind of like looking hard for a place to hurt yourself, on purpose, and then crying foul, I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said, I have no problem with evidence collection, but there have been cases in the past where the committee has found that collecting diffs could be harassing. This makes the principle difficult to frame so as to endorse legitimate collection for DR but not for the purposes of harassment. Collecting diffs on pl.wiki would be a very ineffective way of harassing users on en.wiki, and I think any reasonable outsider would have no problem with this. At worst it's incompatible with forgive and forget. I don't think the committee should endorse your view or Irpen's view on this because neither is broad enough. You can't one principle for bad-diff-collecting and another for good-diff-collecting. This would be reasonable if rewritten as a finding of fact. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Angus, my view is best summarized in the #Attitude_to_problem_resolution principle. I am not opposed to the diffs collection per se. Recording a problem along with an attempt to resolve it is permissible. Recording a problem and presenting it to an ongoing DR process is permissible. Recording an incident for the future use (save special cases like Poetlister affair) isn't. Should I modify my proposal to make this difference more clear? --Irpen 22:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • We'd have to agree that keeping lists of evidence for purposes of harassment is bad, the arbcom already said this. But Piotrus is right that collecting evidence for dispute resolution is fine in principle. So, again, I don't see that there's a useful principle can be drawn. Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's not. I don't see anything objectionable in #Attitude to problem resolution, but what's "a reasonable period after their occurrence"? I think this too would be stuff for a finding of fact because it has to be case specific. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I agree, Angus, that what's "reasonable" is a matter for a Finding of Fact. "Collecting evidence for dispute resolution is fine in principle", true. Note the stress on "dispute resolution". Recording an incident along with a failed attempt to resolve it may help create peace. Recording an incident on which one makes no attempt to resolve with the purpose to use it "when the time is right" is "for dispute resolution" only if one sees seeking the opponents' blocks a primary method of winning one's disputes with them. --Irpen 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

2) Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, editors should act on the principle that other editors are trying to be neutral and are amenable in reaching a consensus. Assuming other editors are acting with bad faith is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A very important basic principle, particularly as much of this arbcom centers around bad faithed accusations about my person: anything I do, it seems, can and is twisted and misrepresented in bad faith, up to and including a claim that I create content with the sole intent of creating battlegrounds... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support the principle. However it apparently does not apply to arbitration proceedings, where everyone seem to assume bad faith. Right? Support comment. Content never creates battlegrounds, however controversial it might be. Only people create battlegrounds.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF requires assuming good faith in the absence of the evidence to the contrary. The first part is most often cited and sometimes mis-cited. However, the second part is important too. --Irpen 03:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Both a very important points. Assuming good faith does not mean, for example, assuming that all will work out peacefully, or that nobody makes errors, nor does it mean being blind to dispute resolution when needed - or its requirements, such as collecting evidence required for dispute resolution... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Assuming good faith in the absence of the evidence to the contrary" I believe is a specious argument. Irpen has accused me of "vicious" attacks, of "block-shopping" where there was no such intent, bad faith, or malice on my part. Diffs are not material. "Evidence to the contrary" in this case = "being able to construe as bad faith." There IS NO ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH if it is not done in the very face of evidence (perception) to the contrary. Assumption of good faith when there is no "evidence" of bad faith is a meaningless syllogism. —PētersV (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the basic princilple as defined by WP:AGF behavioral guideline. Please note, the policy acknowledges also that: "there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer." --Poeticbent talk 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Assumption of good faith is a sine qua non for civil discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Absolutely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Currently, "specific evidence of malice" is far too open to personal interpretation. For the purposes of the community here, we should consider (at least as general guidelines) what acts do, and do not, constitute malice. —PētersV (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not necessary, someone beat us to it with Hanlon's razor. Wikipedia policies and guidelines charitably allow that there are alternative explanations which do not involve stupidity, but the general idea is the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - assumption of bad faith is very disruptive Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking for input is not canvassing or forum shopping

3) Advertising a discussion on forums relevant to current issues, such as regional notice boards, topic noticeboards (ex. WP:RSN), or RfCs is not canvassing, provided that the message is neutral and nonpartisan. Preferably a message with similar content should be copied to all relevant noticeboards, to ensure no party is excluded from notifications (like here, here and here). Asking for input regarding other editors actions (like this) is not forum shopping; editors have the right and even obligation (in case of admins, whose duty is to ensure battlefields are contained!) to ask on a neutral forum for others to review, comment and possibly act on edits that they deem troublesome (just as posting to WP:ANI/3RR is not "block shopping"). Finally, using off-wiki communications is acceptable, as long as it is not used to hide activities that would be violating wikipedia policies if revealed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as Alex raised a good point above that this is not only about meatpuppetry, but canvassing (WP:CANVASS). I will also point out that Irpen himself recently agreed "There is nothing wrong with off-wiki communication per se" (see workshop talk for full context). Assuming one communicates with others, without any proof, that editors stack votes or conspire on reverts, is bad faith - editors vote the same way and support certain content all around Wikipedia. Per WP:CABAL: "consider that if many people disagree with you, it may be just because you are wrong [and not because they are conspiring against you]". PS. I would also like to openly declare what I have declared previously in my statement and evidence: I have asked several editors (primarlily ones who have left this project, or those involved as official and unofficial mediators in dispute resolutions relevant to this case) to join this arbitration. This is an example of what I believe is a perfectly proper reason and way to ask other editors to join a certain discussion for the benefit of all community. If ArbCom wishes, I can provide a list of whom I've asked and a rationale behind it. I don't request that the other party provides similar declaration or a least, but I fully expect they have done the same (just as they have collected their evidence - and just as I am not criticizing that).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Backing assertions like this would be creating a meaningless legal nonsense that would most likely only ever be used by partisan editors canvassing or forum shopping. Most experienced editors can tell by phraseology, by the targetted forum (where the latter is for whatever reason expected to be more sympathetic), and by their experience of the user in question whether or not the "asking for input" in question is canvassing/forum shopping or a real good-faithed attempt to get wider participation for its own sake. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• • Supported. I was accused of "canvassing" before I even knew the term simply alerting a Baltic board regarding a proceeding borne of a content dispute. (I was also accused of being a "meat puppet" before I knew what that was.) And quite frankly, such notices are the only way to draw in previously uninvolved editors. I rather suspect that at this point, Irpen and I could trade and ghost-write each other's positions and no one else would be the wiser. —PētersV (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Just as a reminder. "The following table illustrates under which circumstances notifications are considered acceptable."[63] --Poeticbent talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

	Scale		Message		Audience		Transparency
Friendly notice	Limited posting	AND	Neutral	AND	Nonpartisan	AND	Open
	↕		↕		↕		↕
Inappropriate canvassing	Mass posting	OR	Biased	OR	Partisan	OR	Secret

• • • Strong support of this table. Dc76\^talk 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. And as a practical matter in the present context, I must state that whenever Piotrus has notified me of a matter that might be of interest to me, he has done so in a perfectly neutral manner. Nihil novi (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support I'm not sure why making other editors aware of articles they may be interested in working on is considered 'bad'. Additionally this has become an ad hominen accusation repeatedly made by some users towards both the editor who makes the post and anyone who wonders over to take a look at the article in question. This accusation is being used in an uncivil manner (usually combined with completely unfounded accusations of edit-warring as in "you were canvassed, obviously you're an edit warrior") and in fact personifies bad faith. Accusing others of "canvassing" without some strong evidence of inappropriate behavior is basically akin to spuriously throwing the label "troll" on anyone who disagrees with you.radek (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly support the table above. Asking for input may be perfectly appropriate. The problem is, for example, in asking for a quick revert over IM. --Irpen 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, "asking for a quick revert over IM", an accusation which I have always strongly denied, is unprovable and only leads to bad faith. It is as unprovable and damaging as suggestions that certain users support the web brigades, for example (please note I've never made such an allegation - despite that there is as much evidence for it as for Polish Gadu-Gadu cabal - and I strongly discourage idle, bad faith speculation and conspiracy theories about any cabals).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I happen to disagree that this is unprovable. Same 3-4 editors, known to be your Gadu Gady partners always showing up, exactly when you used up a "3RR quota", on the multiples articles they never ever edited before, quickly reverting to yourself (once or twice) and never contributing anything to the articles and their discussions besides reverting to your versions may be a proof or not depending on who looks at that. To me, the evidence seems convincing. I am glad that, at least, you publicly seem to state that this practice isn't good. Hopefully, this would be codified by an ArbCom ruling. --Irpen 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree all you want, but so far you've failed to prove it. Particularly with me being as active as I am, I am sure you can find enough cherry-picked exceptions to the rule and coincidences to show examples of anything. But exceptions to the rule don't make the rule (or the case), I am afraid.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly! And the point of the evidence of page and FoFs section is to establish what constitutes rules and what constitute exceptions. --Irpen 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

4) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on identical and relevant passed principle from Digwuren arbcom. PS. This is quite important in light that some users (for example, Novickas (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs)) are primarily active in dispute resolution (this arbcom), criticizing other users. Novickas is a case to point, with all but one edits since September 2 till the moment I am writing this words edits to this case. I believe there is something wrong with user's priorities if they spend more time criticizing others in DR than in creating encyclopedic content. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not fight wars... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. PētersV (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Poeticbent talk 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the principle. I don't endorse Piotrus's essaycommentary which accompanies it. Perhaps someone who speaks Polish can tell me if belka and źdźbło are the right words? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The heading of the principal is not true phrased as a fact. How about WP disagreements shall be conducted according to established rules of conduct. Novickas (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --Irpen 18:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus evidence collection was within norms of the community

1) Piotrus evidence collection was within norms of the community. Dispute resolution requires editors to collect evidence and Piotrus evidence was most implicitly a simple application of those requirements, and not an attack page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. A reply to "Piotrus_created_a_black_book.2C_then_deceived_community_about_its_deletion" proposal by Alex. I elaborated in replies above and my arbcom statement on this. I'll also repeat that the evidence page was hidden to avoid accusations that's it's a googlable attack page; I a not stupid and I knew well that any reasonable search through my contributions (anybody can look at editor's global contribs from English Wikipedia contribs!) will find it. I kept it semi-public because I had (and have) nothing to hide. Finally, I resent bad faith framing (where the very name implies wrongness) of my evidence page as the "black book". For the background of this term first arose, see old 2005 case, the Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/User:Witkacy/Black Book and compare the differences.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. This is so called "black book". It includes simply diffs and brief comments by Piotrus. Diffs themselves are not "malicious" by any means. The comments can not be interpreted as a personal attack - as clear after reading them. They were made outside the English WP. Importantly, these diffs were never actually used by Piotrus to "attack" anyone. At least I did not see any evidence of that. To the contrary, they were used by Irpen to attack Piotrus during this case. I would like to see any written WP rules that consider keeping diffs with notes at the user subpages as a serious violation punishable by ArbCom. I kept some diffs with comments too. Should I copy such diffs instead to my home computer?Biophys (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Malicious are not "diffs" but their collection to use as a weapon at an opportine time. And again, Biophys, your claim is simply factually wrong. Piotrus used his diffs many times. Just in my evidence there are examples (example 1 [64] [65]; example 2 [66] [67], example 3 [68] [69]). And there were many more attempts. --Irpen 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Using diffs during RfCs, ArbCom proceedings, and in many other cases (like those you indicated in examples) is not a "malicious activity" or a "personal attack". For example, you provided many diffs during this case. I am not sure one could call your diffs and arguments "malicious".Biophys (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Malicious is seeking blocks and sanctions of opponents are the primary method of resolving content disputes in one's favor. The core issue is the following: Does Piotrus activity falls within the community norms of dispute resolution through ridding the Wikipedia of bad apples or does he seek the elimination of opponents at any cost as means to gain upper hand in content disputes? And if the answer is the latter, and I believe it is, his diffs collection and their unloading (along with the spin he gives to them) to various pages when he thinks the time is ripe falls within the pattern of his trend of using various unseemly strategies to win content disputes. Calling in reverts via Gadu Gadu is another such strategy. This is a judgment issue whether this conclusion can reasonably be inferred from Piotrus' activity. I think it can. --Irpen 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We are talking here only about his evidence collection, not about Gadu Gadu or anything else. Of course if someone tells: "go away of my article, or I will unleash my evidence against you!", that would be a violation of the policy, but not the evidence collection per se.Biophys (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think malice is evident because, even without Piotrus' issuing such a direct threat, we can reasonably conclude from what we see that Piotrus used elimination of opponents through following them around to collect diffs and then unleash his collections to various boards at opportune times (also badly spun) as a strategy to help him win content disputes. I believe Flo precisely meant such unseemly strategies in her acceptance comment. You may persist (along with Piotrus) that what he did does not amount to any wrongdoing. Facts are on the table and not disputed. What to make of them is to be decided in this case. --Irpen 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You tell "elimination of opponents through following them around to collect diffs". But this can be said about collection of any evidence if only someone was banned in the end. Collection of diffs about the "opponents" - it is exactly what you and others are doing during this case. You probably mean: it is inappropriate to collect evidence in advance. But this is a highly controversial opinion at best.Biophys (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - hivemind style collecting dirt is unacceptable. Anyway if it was done in good faith then why Piotrus did use anonymous accounts? Why did he announced its deletion? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• "hivemind style collecting dirt" - perfect example of bad faith framing (social sciences). Calling a normal activity evil is not going to make it so, I am afraid. Why anonymous? As I wrote above, I wanted to keep it private (since last time when it was public Irpen complained it was google'able and linked his name with misdoings...). Where did I announce it's deletion? I said from the start that I did nothing wrong, and I still say so, I haven't deleted this useful page - I simply moved it so that stalkers would need to spend a little more time and effort finding a new one. I did note above that I was curious who would dedicate time to stalking me and finding it out (if I wanted it to be safe, I would have taken it off wiki, obviously - and kept my diffs in a doc like everybody else here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, but you forget one important thing. An enormously absurd accusation will be trusted if repeated a thousand times. I could provide a link to a WP article about this phenomenon, but that might be interpreted as a personal offense (calling someone "Nazi" etc.). WP becomes a dangerous place where people can not freely discuss anything.Biophys (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, mud sticks. Very true. It doesn't matter that 90% of criticism of editor A comes from editors B, C, D, and E - if they keep criticizing him for years, on public and highly read forums, a lot of wiki bystanders are just going to remember that editor A has been commonly criticized... mud sticks. Like the fact that the previous two or three arbcoms that I've been involved in didn't find anything wrong with my behavior doesn't stop certain editors from saying that "Piotrus is a disruptive behavior as proven by the number of arbcoms he was involved in". Framing is important, too: obviously, "Piotrus 2" arbcom as the title implies is about nothing and nobody else but Piotrus being disruptive, again, right? If we have a policy or essay about it, please link it here or on my talk page - I plan on expand my essay on that very subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose If there was a need for it at the Polish Wikipedia, why is the entire thing relating to the English Wikipedia and why is it entirely in English? This to me suggests some level of effort to "poison the well". Orderinchaos 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• What well? As I've explained before, it was on pl wikipedia so that editors would not find it easily (both to protect the privacy of my evidence collection and the feelings of certain editors).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If such things were key considerations why did it need to be online and public at all? Orderinchaos 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you are missing a key point here: it was not public. It was not googleable, nor easily traceable via my contribs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I usually abandon articles crippled by political agendas because I get traumatised by edit warring. That’s why evidence collection is of less interest to me than the actual content of collected evidence. And what do I see? Constant misinformation about historical facts, totalitarian pipedreams, racially motivated hate mongering, statistical manipulation, revisionism, newspeak, grown up men behaving like children. Am I happier by pulling out? Not. --Poeticbent talk 05:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone who carefully reads Piotrus' above account will see that he is being forthright and is within his rights. Nihil novi (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per Nihil novi. —PētersV (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Dc76\^talk 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• We absolutely need a ruling on this issue, either way. I am on the record with my opinion on that. But leaving this not addressed by this ArbCom would be untenable. --Irpen 18:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't it nice when we can agree on something? Even if it's that we disagree on something :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "black book" shows bad faith

2) Since Piotrus' evidence gathering is a normal procedure for dispute resolution, attempts to frame it negatively as "black book"/attack page are a violation of "assume good faith" policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as a logical extension of the proposed finding above. Arbcom may also want to consider whether actively looking for such an evidence page is not a violation of WP:STALK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose - collective collection of dirt is absolutely unacceptable Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Framing of Piotrus' evidence gathering as "collecting dirt" also shows bad faith :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Someone was looking for the diffs, someone found them in the Polish wikipedia, someone brought them as "evidence" against Piotrus, even though the evidence was more than a year old. Sure, that was done with a purpose. What purpose? To discredit Piotrus using perfectly legitimate evidence he collected. How can anyone call this "good faith"?Biophys (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Using derogatory expressions such as "black book" and "collecting dirt" is an example of creating a big lie to discredit one's opponent (Piotrus). Nihil novi (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The gross overuse of politically charged misnomers is haunting these proceedings from the get-go. --Poeticbent talk 02:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose there is nothing normal in lying to community, there is nothing normal in commenting on users in the public place behind their backs Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Take something that is absolutely necessary in the current atmosphere and give it a "bad" label. Collections are not of information or of diffs, but "dirt" in a "black book". Defamatory labels are thrown around with little regard for their consequences. Or perhaps that IS the idea. Sling mud until someone thinks, gee, they wouldn't keep slinging mud unless it was deserved. Hasn't the concept of victim responsibility come up somewhere else? —PētersV (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A recommendation can be made to place a tag on such pages, smth like "The content of this userspace page is an attempt to gather evidence for dispute resolution. Taken out of its context it can be misrepresentative. Unless you are a person gathering this particular evidence, do not assume anything written below. If you want to involve, please do so in the dispute resolution pages." Dc76\^talk 02:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alex but irrelevant how you call this secret file. It's implications are by far more important than its name. --Irpen 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• The name had a history in Wikipedia. It was the ancient collection page of the Poland-related noticeboard for slandering people as anti-Polish: [70] [71]. Sciurinæ (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus is a civil editor

3) Piotrus respects WP:CIVILITY, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:CONSENSUS and related policies. He tries to prevent "wikibattlegrounds" from arising, and tries to moderate conflicts and reach peaceful compromises when possible. He is not perfect, but nobody is, and on average his behavior falls within acceptable community norms on civility and related policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I am not seeking praise, but I feel this is needed as a direct reply to "Piotrus_is_often_unnecessary_combative" proposal by Alex. It's either one or another, and I believe it is very important: have I been damaging this project with my attitude and should I leave? Or am I being harassed instead? PS. Further, this is needed to dispel defamation, slander and libel that have been damaging my reputation for years.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• • Absolutely. In my experience with him, I have never seen Piotr act in an uncivil manner. Ostap 04:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Ostap. Piotr is a great asset to Wikipedia. Närking (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Piotrus has incredible patience. Sometimes looking at his debates with Irpen, I thought: "How can he survive?". I would run away and leave the article to POV-pushers. Let them do whatever they want. Health is more important. And that is exactly what I did in Holodomor article.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. I have never known Piotrus to be uncivil or combative in the way Irpen is. Martintg (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I can say quite unequivocally that, in about two years of observing Piotrus at fairly close range, I have never seen him being uncivil. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to see that there are parts of community who still have trust in me :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Endorse to the limited extent that my observations permit. He was fully cooperative throughout my attempts to mediate between him and Ghirla. Durova^Charge! 07:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Given the level of hysterical harassment and number of editors who are interested in him being banned, not in sharing their knowledge, I am amazed that he still manages to keep his temper. Tymek (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Tymek. PētersV (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Piotrus has consistently shown himself a model of civility. Nihil novi (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. He's not seeking praise here. --Poeticbent talk 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Presented material indeed shows sophisticated way of taunting opponents. If I have time, I will expand my evidence section covering and this issue. M.K. (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per my observations of this user. However it should not be assumed as stating "Piotrus will be god" or "whatever edit Piotrus will made in an article should be assumed as 100% truth". One should only assume: "So far Piotrus has behaved civilly and quite professionally. If you find yourself in conflict with Piotrus on a range of topics mentioned above, chances are it is a content dispute. Consider getting outside help to resolve the content dispute. Behavior of Piotrus and rightousness in a content dispute are two different issues." Dc76\^talk 02:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment but how to proceed, then you are encounter editors, whose most of the time spending on unproductive baiting of others, like user:Alden Jones [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]; user:Xx236 [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] or user:greg park avenue [89], [90], [91], [92] ? M.K. (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Not really. Would agree if it said that Piotrus does not use vulgar words or something to that degree if such finding needs to be stated. I find civility a more elaborated concept than that. --Irpen 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagreeing with you and having a different POV is not being uncivil. Seriously, how my comment "I beg to disagree :)" is uncivil??? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Full context for the novices. Context: "Russians do not have much of this rancorous, vindictive habit to accuse everyone of long past misdeeds against Russians." Response: "I beg to disagree :)". --Irpen 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, than perhaps you should complain about Mikka who made this uncivil comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Your post casts the entire Russian nation in negative light. But could you elaborate on what is uncivil in Mikka's post? --Irpen 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no Polish cabal or tag team

4) There is no group (WP:CABAL, WP:TAGTEAM) of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. Piotrus is not a leader of such a (nonexistent) group. Piotrus is however one of the leaders of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Polish Regional Noticeboard community; this community is a perfectly normal and policy-abiding WikiProject community that will - not surprisingly, and without any malice - be relatively active on Polish-related subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The ArbCom should also rule on whether certain other cabals/tag teams exists or not, and take appropriate action against either editors involved in them (if they exists) or accusing others of being involved in it (if it doesn't).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can you provide any evidence for this. How many Polish editors opposed Piotrus in any ethnic wikiconflicts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful. Guilty until proven innocent, aren't I? Just look at various discussions and you'll find Polish editors with different viewpoints, often not supporting each other (example - Halibutt opposing my proposal). PS. Alex, can you prove there is no Russian cabal and that you are not a member of it? Also, can you prove that CIA, KGB and Microsoft are not running Wikipedia? And while you are at it, disprove the black helicopters conspiracy? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this argument by Alex places everything "upside down". To the contrary, the lack of criticism by Polish editors indicates they respect Piotrus. On the other hand, the relations among Russian users are terrible, as I presented in evidence. Hence, there are dissenters like me who criticize "leaders" like Irpen. Not too many Russian users criticize Irpen? Sure, they do not want to be harassed like me.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And how many support him? Or how many reliable, respected Lithuanian or German editors support their tag teams buddies? Nadda. It's not "community vs community" or "community vs editor(s)", it's "tag team(s) trying to create an illusion they are community vs editor(s)".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Most people work peacefully here, regardless to their country of origin. There are few who create battlegrounds. The question is who they are, and how to minimize the damage. I must admit however that quite a few Russian users would support Irpen and share his political views.Biophys (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between agreeing with one's POV and agreeing with one's editing methods. You don't share my Polish POV, but that doesn't mean we are enemies. I understand that we have a proper place even for Putin-nationalist or Soviet POVs and I have nothing personal against the editors who represent them. The problem is that sometimes, some editors will have confrontational attitude (the "true believers" I wrote in my essay), and they will create battlegrounds. But most Russian editors, while many would share Irpen's POV, don't go around and harass their content opponents. You mentioned Przyszowice massacre: why was it only Irpen who made it his crusade to disrupt that article? Why wasn't he supported by the Russian community? Also - a battleground doesn't mean that both sides are guilty - one can attack others, and the defenders are victims, not co-battlers (just as in WWII the Allies were not as guilty as the Axis).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I would defy you to prove Piotrus is not a witch. It's very hard to prove a negative. Remember Senator McCarthy and the Red Scare. Fraud ^{talk to me} 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must admit that in Jewish-related articles, there is a certain group of editors who always act in unison, and these gentlemen are not Polish. Am I going to claim that there is pro-Jewish, anti-Polish cabal? No, I will not say that. I will just say that they vote/contribute according to their opinions. Same applies to Lithuanian-, Russian-, German- or Ukrainian-related articles and this is obvious. We have all been raised in a certain way in our respective countries, therefore our experiences and education influence our contributions. BTW, anti-Polish hysteria of some editors is beyond imagination. User Ostap, who is Ukrainian, has once been called a Polish nationalist. Tymek (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see absolutely no evidence of a Polish cabal of tag team. I am tired of users simply claiming that this exsists on talkpages despite no evidence, and attempting to use these unproven allegations to sway opinion. This really does undermine and erode any positive, productive working environment. The "Polish cabal" allegations need to stop, unless it can be proven that there is a cabal or tag team. And so far I have seen no convincing evidence that there is a group of Polish editor acting together violating policies and damaging this project. I encourage the arbitrators to carefully examine the evidence that is given. Ostap
  • Support I see no evidence of such a cabal. I rather recall being called the leader of one or somesuch similar at some point. "Cabal" is, at best, a bad-faith accusation code-word meaning "collection of active meat-puppets," and we've already dealt with the bad faith attack usefulness only of that term (meat-puppet). —PētersV (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Unsupported potentially-libelous accusations should not be brooked. Nihil novi (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Ostap R. Evidence please. --Poeticbent talk 02:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well presented evidences here, here shades a different light. I especially would encourage to look to these fellow wikipedians' remarks. Those people are with different background and different interests, but yet produce similar conclusions on certain Polish editors and their actions. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This well-reasoned argument leaves no doubt: there is a cabal. Beware! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly, most of Polish editors are not meatpuppets or a tag team members. Still violations of WP:CANVASS seems to be common. Behavior of Greg Avenue seems to be quite close to meatpuppeting/tag teaming Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you list some canvass violations? As for greg, do tell how is he a meatpuppet (for the record, I don't know any IMs he uses).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strange proposal at it frames the issue in a bizarre way. According to Piotrus there is something very Polish-specific in EE corner of Wikipedia. There is a Lithuanian tag team, German tag team, Russian tag team, "Jewish" tag team, etc. but the Polish editors are somehow unique in not forming such team. I find terming the editors in "tag teams" an offensive generalization. --Irpen 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Lithuania =/= Lithuanian tag team. WikiProject Russia =/= Russian tag team. And so on. If you can demonstrate that there is a group of Polish editors who 1) are "true believers" and 2) harass those who disagree with them, then we can talk about a Polish tag team. While Polish editors obviously have a Polish POV, no evidence has been presented to show that they try to censor out other POVs, ensure undue representation of a Polish POV or wage long campaign of harassments aiming at chasing editors who disagree with Polish POV off this project. That is the difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes indeed. WP:LT =/= LT tag team. WP:RU =/= RU and so on. No one is saying that WP:PL = PL tag team. Certainly not. But what you are saying is that there are Lithuanian, German, Russian, etc tag teams but there is no Polish one. I call it a very strange way to frame the issue. And don't try to reframe it as "WP:PL is PL tag team". It isn't. --Irpen 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • My evidence shows the existence of groups of editors who collaborate together with the intent of harassing others and chasing them off wiki. Your evidence shows nothing but the fact that members of WP:PL edit articles related to Poland, and sometimes discuss those edits. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Piotrus, my evidence does not assert the existence of "Polish tag team". I find such term offensive and totally inappropriate. I am talking about editors, not their ethnicity. Not all (put any nation here) editors are disruptive and not all disruptive editors are of (put any nation here) nation. As for whose evidence showed what, I think it is not up to you and me to decide. My sole comment was not meant to say that contrary to the assertion of this proposal, there is such tag team. I merely said that framing the issue this way (by asserting that some nations have tag teams and naming them while the Polish nation does not) is strange. Not only it is strange. It is also offensive and divisive. --Irpen 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Civil content creators are harassed and chased off by tag teams

5) Civil content creators were (ex. User:Halibutt, User:Lysy, User:Balcer, User:Beaumont and others) or are (myself, User:Tymek) harassed with bad faithed, personal attacks and chased off this project or at the very least quit certain area contents (ex. User:Biophys and Holodomor article). Whether this is intentional or a byproduct of incivility and confrontational attitude of certain individuals (sometimes working as tag teams), this one sided harassment culminating in editors quitting or vastly limiting their activity represents a trend that is very harmful to this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. See my statement and evidence (linking to several other statements on this arbcom made by editors who shared their experience of being harassed) for proof that many users were harassed and resigned due to that (or are still being harassed), and that their harassers are still at large and completely unpunished, continuing their activity (targeting, among others, myself). If anybody thinks that being a target of harassment, culminating in mud olympics of arbcom, doesn't waste my time (I could be writing articles instead of arguing here) and doesn't raise my stress levels (why should I contribute to this project where my rewards are nearly yearly arbcoms against me?), they are dead wrong. PS. It is important to note that this is one sided harassment: Balcer, Lysy, Halibutt, myself, Tymek, Biophys and so on are not harassing the harassers. It is not a mutual mud slinging festival: it is an event when one side (who usually can't win content disputes due to violations of NPOV/V/RS/etc.) keeps slinging the mud, seeing if they can chase their opponents off or bait them into becoming like them, and over time, worsening their reputation (even if there is little truth in what they same, mud sticks, and focusing on few errors others made and repeating them for years gives an illusion of credibility to those unfamiliar with the isssue). See also my essay "On radicalization of users" where I address a related phenomenon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update (Oct'10): User:Radeksz chased off an article after a torrent of accusations: [93] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is not always harassment, but people are certainly chased off. I have learned the following lesson. Almost all important wikipedia articles are collectively owned by groups of users. Prior to editing any political article, look at POV-pushers who own it. If there are no "owners", one can go ahead. If you think the "owners" from the strongest team will allow you edit - you can go ahead. If you see a battle (like in Holodomor, Terrorism or Ossetin war) - run away.Biophys (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good observation, again. But here's an interesting question: I, for example, watchlist ~3000 articles, and try to ensure their NPOV, V, MOS and so on. Now, one could argue (and some here do) that I am "owning" or "tag teaming" on those articles. I disagree, but how do you tell if an editor or a group are doing a good job or a bad job, protecting or destabilizing an article, ensuring NPOV or POV pushing on it? I'd think that if an editor has a record of GAs/FAs that would indicate he knows what NPOV means, but would I be right, Biophys? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Partly agree. The GAs/FAs contributions are certainly a factor for ArbCom when it wants to minimize the damage for the project. For example, it may want to keep a highly productive contributor but penalize others, simply because this is best for the project. This is not a justice system after all. However, the "POV-pushing" and "NPOV-violations" are mostly visible when someone deletes an information published in reliable secondary sources, such as books written by an expert in his field. This can be done even by an established wikipedian with regards to edits made by a new user, like in this example. Here, User:William M. Connolley deletes an information he does not like as a "fringe view", even though this specific information was never disputed, and the claim was made by a notable espionage expert, precisely in the area of his expertise, and published in a book by Pete Earley. That is what I call a clear-cut NPOV violation. To be honest, I also looked at some of your recent disputes to check if you are doing something like that. However, everything was pretty much in a framework of a normal content dispute, although I checked only a few examples. That is one of the reasons I support you here, although I would not support William M. Connolley. All of that however is not harassment. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support the observation. "Tag teams," aka "traveling circuses," are regrettably a reality. They can be extremely disruptive and demoralizing. They are the Wikipedia equivalents of street gangs. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Are there any evidences, that, for instance User:Halibutt, User:Tymek etc, considered as civil creators? My experience and incidents, which I noticed, speak otherwise, starting from bad faith baiting, [94], official NPA warnings, ending with official restrictions. I remember, that somewhere was launch and official investigation of User:Tymek behavior involving PA against fellow editors, however can't locate the proper venue and diffs now (will look for it later). M.K. (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Are there any evidences, that, for instance User:Halibutt, User:Tymek etc, considered as civil creators?" WP:AGF and innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. My presented data allows to ask questions, M.K. (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Content creators like Hallibutt, Balcer, Ghirlandajo, Renata are certainly driven away by the battleground actions including tag teaming, assumptions of bad faith, blockshopping, unwillingness to present balanced point of views. I am not sure about the word Civil. All of the mentioned editors occasionally have being incivil and/or disruptive (we are all humans) still their contributions were significantly more prominent than the occasional disruption Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any harassment of Ghirlandajo and Renata. Could you expand on that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are not caring about Ghirla's leaving, but could you elaborate on whether you truly consider the editors you named above "civil editors"? Because my personal experience with them was different while, as I emphasized many times, could have lived with their levels of civility but not because they were exceptionally civil. --Irpen 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As Alex wrote, we are all humans. Anyway, my edits speak for themselves, dear MK. Feel free to check all my 3691 plus 1 deleted. Thank you.Tymek (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we are all humans and we make mistakes, therefore I asked Piotrus to correct his, M.K. (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The big picture: what this all is about

6) The turmoil in Eastern European conflicts, culminating in this ArbCom, can be explained by the following model (which I discuss in more details in my essay):

1. In every content area, a small percentage of editors display the signs of being "true believers" (uncompromising POV pushers).

2. Wikipedia model in general and content related dispute resolutions procedures in particular do work; thus the neutral/mainstream community ensures their POV is given only due weight. This also means that ArbCom almost never has to concern itself with claims ("my POV is erased by an evil cabal" - such claims usually come from "true believers" whose POV is not accepted by community as "the entire truth".

3. The process works worse in highly specialized content areas, where fewer neutral editors will notice disputes. There, radicalization (process where a normal editor turns closer and closer to a "true believer" - at the very least, they assume good faith for "their side" and bad faith "for the others") occurs quicker, leading to rise of tag teams or at the very least formation of content-based sides. Thus battlegrounds are more likely to arise in such content areas. Eastern Europe is one of such less frequented and thus more problematic content areas.

4. Because "true believers" are likely to lose content disputes, they turn to harassment, personal attacks, and similar acts. The end result is a high count bad faith accusations and battlegrounds in articles where they clash with others. This is were ArbCom can help, by identifying and restricting/banning most disruptive "true believers". Radicalized users can also be identified, and helped with some advice/mentoring.

5. Editors who find battlegrounds uncivil leave the project. Only the harassers and the victims with "thickest skin" remain. This unfortunate result is what the ArbCom has to prevent, and victimized, civil editors are the ones that need help the most.

Technical note: If both parties ("true believers" and "victims") claim they are right, how to easily identify who is who? There are two ways: 1) Look at who's supported by neutral editors (moderators, etc.). Two caveats: users involved in content may be biased due to radicalization, users "just passing by" may be confused by "sticking mud". 2) Look at the content creation: users who can write peer-reviewed and recognized content (FA/Reviewed A/GA) probably know more about NPOV than those who don't.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Please direct theoretical discussion of the model (i.e. discussion not related to the arbcom) to my essay's talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse. This is the core of the majority of EE disputes. Martintg (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen: case study in radicalization

7) Per #Purpose of Wikipedia we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to flame others or settle scores. As shown by the statistical analysis of Irpen's chronological editing pattern presented in evidence, Irpen's edit pattern over the years has shifted dramatically from creating and/or discussing content, to discussing editors. In the first years of his Wikipedia career (2004-2005) he created more content than in the last three; on the other hand his participation in dispute resolutions and wikipolitics shows an opposite, increasing trend. This showcases extreme radicalization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. How to remedy that? That's for arbcom members to answer, but I believe there is little doubt editors who are here to flame and harass others should not be allowed to continue to do freely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Harass? --Irpen 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Like what happened with Balcer.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The repetition of this accusation by ad naseum does not make it any more valid, Piotrus. I addressed it many times [95] [96] and even more people commented on that later [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]. If Balcer chooses to return, which I said several times [102] I would welcome, I'll be very happy to discuss with him anything he wishes. But your repeated invocation of Balcer and trying to use him as a truncheon in your own fights is not something that I think he would approve if he knew it. --Irpen 02:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The evidence, such as it is, doesn't seem to support such extreme conclusions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In isolation, no. But when combined with the other evidence? This is a question for Arbcom to answer. Martintg (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

8) {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.

Specific editors restricted

1) Specific editors X, Y, and Z are restricted on case by case basis, with blocks/civility parole/1RR restrictions/topic bans, where appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am leaving identities of X, Y, and Z to the wisdom of the committee (I really dislike pointing fingers, and enough of them have been pointed alraedy in any case). If the committee decides my activities and contributions are damaging to this project, so be it. But I am begging the committee: no more general amnesties, no more hard-to-enforce general restrictions. While this problem is affecting an entire content area, it is not because majority of editors there are to blame: only a tiny faction has been radicalized by "true believers". That tiny faction (and the "true believers" in particular) need to be restricted/blocked so this vicious cycle of radicalization can be broken. Almost all of the problem editors have been identified in this arbcom. The proverbial ball has been served. Let's make this match the last one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If something like this is to be put for Piotrus or another user, it would be helpful to have a special committee who'd enforce it. A committee with the power to do so and in the latter possessing a monopoly, rather than the current usual farcical AN/I thread where anyone with enough friends can have the most sensible decision overturned based on a ridiculously misapplied use of WP:CONSENSUS. Atm wikipedia often resembles an early medieval court, where you are tried or convicted based on the number and status of the armed friends who turn up at the hearing. We've kinda moved on from that era, so don't see any reason wiki should be stuck there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Not to mention that when one goes to AN/I or AE and tries to present a case, too often it ends up highjacked by tag teams and the editor who started the thread is accused of whining/canvassing/block shopping/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've decided to draft one instance of a proposed restriction remedy, which I feel could be applied to quite a few editors. Please note that the goal of this restriction is to prevent harassment, while allowing content creation. See two proposals down.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Something should be done, simply for the sake of the project. To achieve this goal, one should provide good working conditions for the most productive WP contributors, even if that means some restrictions for others. I think that Deacon and Piotrus do not have a significant subject overlap and can easily resolve their differences without any sanctions. However, a few other people, who were much less productive with content editing than Piotrus, might be issued some editing restrictions, like topic ban on EE subjects.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. And I have personally seen such a single-editor topic ban open up a series of articles to a new crop of involved reputable editors who never bothered earlier because of a disruptive editor's self-enforced "ownership" of those articles. —PētersV (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. This really is necessary. Especially since much of the disruption to Wiki work is due not merely to differences in point of view, but to frank personality disorders and, in a few cases that I have observed, actual psychosis. In several extreme cases, the individual concerned has been banned—to the great benefit of Wikipedia operations. Nihil novi (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to comment without knowing who are X,Y,Z and what type of restrictions were are talking of. It might be a blessing or a disaster. At any rate there are many productive contributors involved (including Piotrus) whose full ban would be a disaster for the project Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that past ArbComs involving our little circus (Piotrus 1, Digwuren are the ones I am familiar with) produced mostly general, non-individual specific restrictions which have proven to be not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the idea of specificity being at least a significant part of this ArbCom's outcome. Piotrus and myself have expressed in the past our deep frustration that past arbcom decisions on related EE cases were more general than specific and paid less attention to the wrongdoings of specific editors. Instead of acknowledging such wrongdoing and impose specific sanctions, just like the ArbCom does in most cases (and this is what we all expect), all past arbcom decisions on EE cases, attempted "general sanctions". I spoke multiple times of the dangers of this approach that would give the block-happy admins a free reign in dealing with the superior editors in any way they see fit. The fallout from the past discretionary sanctions ArbCom cases has been tremendous. Good editors left and newly joined editors found themselves fearful of getting involved in contentious topics. While the Wikipedia admin corps is a diverse body, there is a disproportionately visible part of it that just love to "run the Wikipedia" and put the content editors in "their place". These discretionary sanctions tend to be a honey pot for exactly such admins. Another fallback from the "general sanctions" approach: they developped a sophisticated culture of block-shopping (often off-line) as means to win content disputes. I understand that when calling for specific an targeted sanctions on the editors whose conduct is detrimental for the project, I open the possibility that my own conduct would be scrutinized under such prism. Honestly, this is what I actually want. And, besides, this is what Piotrus wants (or at least claims so) when he calls for ArbCom to acknowledge whether his practice of "collecting evidence" for months to use at the opportune time, urging fellow-editors to "discuss content" off-line which, and this is my assertion, leads to the same 3-4 individuals coming in handy to revert when Piotrus is at "3RR quota" limit, or "discussing disruptive users" (as he calls them) who all happen to be his content opponents with other admins at IRC or email (evidence posted.) We need a global change of conduct in EE topics via excluding of off-line coordinated revert wars, aiming at blocks and sanctions to win content disputes, and off-line canvassing for such sanctions and blocks. --Irpen 19:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I fully endorse the first part of Irpen's post, up to about the sentence "And, besides, this...". I'd replace the last bold part with my own as follows: We need a global change of conduct in EE topics with paroles/topic restrictions/outright bans in order to stop battleground creation that occurs via incivility, personal attacks, expression of bad faith and long-term harassment, resulting in radicalization, formation of tag teams and editors being chased off this project.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific editors vindicated

2) Accusations of cabalism/antisemitism/harassment/vandalism/[add or remove where appopriate] directed at editor A are found to be untrue and are officially discarded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Related to this finding, this and similar, and to various statements and evidence boiling down to the fact that many editors have had their good names and reputation dragged through mud for long enough, and those good names/reputations should be cleared. The failure of past ArbComs (Piotrus 1, Digwuren) to address past accusations and clear the name of some targeted editors have led to those accusations being repeated over and over again, each time damaging good name/reputation of certain editors. Many editors left this project because of damage done to their good name/reputation. Repairing damage done by years of slander/libel/defamation should be prioritized, and is fairly easy - it does not punish any editor in any way, and it may actually bring back some valued content creators that were chased away (Halibutt, Balcer, Lysy, Beaumont, and so on). With findings/remedies among those lines, this ArbCom may actually do something that has been rarely seen - not only stop a a problem, but reverse it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support the idea of explicitly ruling on the accusations. Is Piotrus' black book indicative of bad faith? Who is guilty of "harassment"? Are accusations of KGB-connection permissible? Etc. Lack of specificity in past decisions is the reason why we all end up here so often. Time to learn from past mistakes. --Irpen 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen is restricted and put under a mentorship

3) Based on "purpose of Wikipedia" principles, findings (#Irpen: case study in radicalization and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Irpen) and analysis of evidence, Irpen is reminded that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss other editors of create wikipolitics. He is therefore restricted from actions other than creating content/wikignoming. Irpen is not restricting from discussing and editing wikipedia policies, but is highly advised to prioritize content creation instead. In particular: 1) he is put on 1RR to ensure his mainspace contributions are new content creations, not edit warring 2) he is restricted from discussing editors other than to request interventions against vandalism (he is allowed to make one appeal to ArbCom per month where he can discuss editors on a case by case basis (i.e. he can post a collection of grievances from that month), with the understanding that if he is found to be aiming to harass others by bad faithed dispute resolution again, this may result in a block) 3) he is put under a mentorship aiming to steer him away from wikidramu (particularly, discussing others) and towards content creation. After a year, ArbCom with mentor's input will review Irpen's progress to see if lifting of this remedy would be warranted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Point 2) is based on Irpen's request about me (#Block shopping restricted). I believe it would to to everybody's great benefit if Irpen would go back to being a content creator, and help with Ukraine-related content, as he was doing before 2006. His participation in wikidramu since than was not as helpful. As a mentor, I'd suggest User:Durova, Irpen can suggest alternatives, and ArbCom will be the final judge of course. PS. I'd also suggest very similar remedies for some other members of tag teams identified in my evidence: I'd like to stress that what we need to do is do combat radicalization, and promote content creation. Many disruptive editors create valuable content (even Irpen did so, up till about a year ago), mentoring them (back?) towards being a productive member of the community is a preferable outcome.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A very interesting proposal. And unexpected too of course. --Irpen 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's for your own good - and that of a project. Building an encyclopedia is good. Harassing other editors - not so good. This is all it boils down to.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, for the last time, either present an evidence and a FoF that justify your accusation of myself in harassment, or stop using this word now. I never accused you of beating your wife. --Irpen 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You left the kitchen sink out of it, too. Gee, thanks. Alas, you managed to accuse me of almost every wiki-calamity but simple trolling and vandalism, and you have done so to others, some of whom were so put off by your harassment they left this project (Balcer, Lysy, Halibutt...). You not only don't create content, you chase away those that create content you don't like. You think I am wrong? Perhaps. This is why you are asking for ArbCom sanctions against me, and I am asking for sanctions against you. ArbCom will determine who, if anybody, is right here - it is hardly surprising we both disagree with claims of one other. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, as I said earlier, this arbitration, at least for me, is not about personal issues between us and who of us is right. Arbitration cases are not about personal differences but about policy violations, or at least they should be. All I am saying is that you repeatedly accused me in a very grievous offense ("harassment") several times on this very page alone and fail to present evidence and diffs to support the use of such a strong term. All I am asking that you either stop using this word or write up an evidence section with diffs showing me "harassing" you. Harassment is a very grievous term not to be used lightly. Either show it or use the terms that fits the substance of whatever is that you allege I do. --Irpen 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems a mild and reasonable remedy to harassing behavior that has been creating a hostile workplace and driving away productive users. Content disagreements need to be settled by resort to reliable sources, not by Joseph McCarthy tactics of reckless accusations or by attempted show trials. Nihil novi (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but he could be sanctioned simply by an individual uninvolved administrator. Bad behavior of Irpen has been recognized already by ArbCom in Digwuren case [103]. He obviously falls under new discretionary sanctions by ArbCom approved for this case. His behavior before and during this case was obviously disruptive, as follows from the evidence. I am really surprised, why Irpen is treated differently than other editors listed in Digwuren case. There is no any reason for that. If there is any reason, here it is: Irpen has a tag team everyone is afraid of.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support restrictions put on any editor who has chased away other editors from the project. This is a voluntary project, not some fancy political forum, and productive volunteers shouldn't be discouraged this way from editing. Knew about user Lysy who left Wikipedia after being harassed by user Boodlesthecat during the latest Cabal Mediation proceedings, but about Balcer and Halibutt I hear for the first time. If there is an evidence to support such an activity, the ArbCom should take an immediate action to prevent it. greg park avenue (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1)

Proposals by User:greg park avenue

Proposed principles

No personal attacks

1) Based on WP:NPA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Strong support. From the language used to attack individual editors (anti-Semite et al.) to entire nationalities (Baltic ethno-fascists, majority of Latvians eager for German rifles to kill Jews, et al.), WP is the first and only venue I have experienced on the Internet where such behaviors are for the most part encouraged through lack of sanctions, thereby actively tolerating the vilest (usually high-horse self-sanctifying) denigrations of others--whereas in any civil society the individuals making such heinous accusations would be immediately and permanently ostracized. PētersV (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, per greg park avenue and PētersV. Nihil novi (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:Boodlesthecat has been uncivil and disruptive

1) He has repeatedly accused me of antisemitism ([104], [105], [106]), been uncivil to other editors ([107], [108], [109]), and engaged in the revert war ([110], [111]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To say the least. Never in my 4 year history here, and having dealt with quite a few offensive flamers, I have seen so many violations from a single user, with the "you are a dick" email being the proverbial cherry on top. And accusing anybody who disagrees with him of antisemitism is just one of the worst slander tactics I've ever seen, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's compare 13 articles created by an eight year veteran, user Slrubenstein - a suspected runner of Boodles, who got zero contributions - with 1901 created by user Piotrus alone. Even user Irpen with 105 looks better, at least he got more than SLR, Shabazz, M0RD00R, Jeeny and Boodles combined. greg park avenue (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I have never interacted with Slrubenstein, or SLR, or Jeeny. Greg, I really think you should concentrate on incivility (both as in defending yourself from it and not being incivil yourself), and drop the "runner of... sock/meatpuppet" angle. There is little proof those users are doing anything wrong together (now, granted, some of them like Boody do a lot of wrong by themselves). You can win an argument against Boody: he is much more incivil, and did much less creative contributions than you. But if you go against all of those others editors, your position looks much, much worse (and I believe would be wrong - most of those other editors look like good, constructive ones). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not into this little office pushover of yours, user Piotrus. SLR, Shabazz and Boodles call me an anti-semite and even racist, just because I disagree with them/him. You (see your speculation below) and others as Ryan (see his talk page) are assuming they're Jewish, but he/they never stated they are Jewish. I am not assuming they are Jewish until they say so (clear and present), even then if I was disagreeing with him/them and he/they were Jewish, was I necessarily an anti-semite? It's an obvious malfeasance, even fraud. An insolence - If I was Jewish, anyone who disagrees with me would I call an antisemite? Three accounts which look like the same person say essentially the same thing: I am an antisemite, just to make an impression more than one person is of the same opinion. Looks like a crowd, huh? Why no one else, say, user Irpen or user Lokyz, or user M.K. or user JayG or user Gamaliel claim that, huh? Give me a break. greg park avenue (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No Piotrus, I only accuse antisemites like Greg of antisemitism. As to you receiving unkind emails, you might consider just how some of your overt abuse of admin authority in defence of an anti-semite contributes to an editor getting frustrated with your tactics. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to suggest to Arbiters, that they investigated Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz article (and its talk) very carefully, as many involved contributors, including Piotrus, failed to follow good editing practices.M.K. (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As an active participant in recent editing of that article, I would fully welcome such an audit of that article and it's talk page, particularly with respect to Piotrus' role in tag team edit warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have stated earlier in several places that I welcome and suggest analysis of this talk page, which shows Boody's bad faithed, "true-believer-like" refusal to compromise and his baiting of greg (and greg falling for it), including IIRC his first accusation that greg is an antisemite (may be in edit summary on talk and was probably cited in evidence).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, Piotrus, however, once again reality contradicts you. The first talk page interaction I had with Greg was a semi-coherent abusive post by him accusing me of “disruption.” I responded explaining the edits, to which Greg replied with one of his classic BLP violating anti-semitic rants. And just what “provoked” Greg to attack me and spew anti-semitic garbage on the talk page? Nothing more than my having the audacity to edit some flagrant unencyclopedic nonsense from the Piotrus and Gang version of the article. Judge for yourselves, folks, if these edits warranted abuse and were “disruptive” enough to send an editor into flights of anti-semitic garbage spewing?: See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here etc ad nauseum.

Frankly, Piotrus, I have grown weary and disgusted with your incessant and obsessive vilifying of me and bullying misuse of your admin authority for simply making edits like the above which I challenge you or anyone to show were anything but improvements to this encyclopedia. Instead, I have been subjected to months of abuse by you and anti-semitic wacko ranting by your ally greg. Seriously, Piotrus, knock it off. You are making a spectacle of yourself, and you have reached a level of incivility which will result in my calling for appropriate action if you continue. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From the same article: Example of gang edit warring by Piotrus’ team: In this series, they serially remove a reliably sourced quote from the book that is the subject of the article because….they don’t like the quote:

1. Boodlesthecat added the quote on 20:40, 19 May 2008
2. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 21:04, 19 May 2008 with edit summary of "please keep anti-Polish propaganda shots out this article, WP:BALANCE, thank you"
3. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:09, 19 May 2008
4. Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:14, 19 May 2008
5. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 21:22, 19 May 2008
6. Alden Jones removed the quote as of 21:36, 19 May 2008
7. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 00:20, 21 May 2008
8. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 07:23, 21 May 2008 with a "poetic" edit summary of "(encyclopedit style; emotive eloquence and outbursts of anti-Polonism)"
9. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 12:12, 21 May 2008
10. Piotrus removed the quote as of 12:56, 21 May 2008
11. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 14:23, 21 May 2008 3RR
12. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 15:14, 21 May 2008
13. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 15:58, 21 May 2008 4RR
14. Poeticbent removed the quote as of 16:10, 21 May 2008
15. Boodlesthecat reverted back on 16:13, 21 May 2008

The quote remained in, after support from outside admins put an end to this POV gang edit warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That greg was uncivil is as obvious as that you were uncivil. The only difference is that you accused him of antisemitism in addition to the standard barrage of bad faith both of you employed on each other (and on other editors, too - your accusations of "Piotrus gang warring" is as bad faithed as greg's accusation of certain editors being your puppets. I do hope that this arbcom will moderate both of you, as this is getting ridiculous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to urge the Arbiters to look not at the Fear (book) edit history per above, but at the malicious nature of what was being fought for in this instance by Boodlesthecat via a prolonged edit war conducted in bad faith. Please read my extended comments in Talk, here and here about the purely political nature of the quote in question, which was an uninformative attack on Polish national character based entirely on sweeping generalizations. Boodlesthecat won his edit war by dogged insistance with the help of a tag-team. --Poeticbent talk 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Self-evident from this page and the long list of his blocks.Biophys (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The evidence that Piotrus did indeed gang edit war, and in conjunction with an anti-semite like Greg (whom Piotrus only attempted to "moderate" after he became an embarrassment) is indeed right at this page. Piotrus was happy to threaten to block me for bringing Greg's anti-semitism to light, and indeed would have, if outside admins hadn;t intervened. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User Boodlesthecat has once again shown that whenever there is sourced information which he dislikes, he will go out of his way to remove it or at least discredit it. His comment find a source indicating how this relates to Zydokomuna or this Jew baiting nonsense will be removed tells all about his incivility and disruptive editing. See here [112] Like it or not, this is history and you will not change it. Tymek (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, folks, please take a look at that article. Here is the "history" Tymek (with the support of Piotrus) thinks belongs in an encyclopdia article about a longstanding antisemitic myth (known as Zydokomuna that has been used for decades to justify the murder of Jews:

Among high-ranking functionaries of the Stalinist organs of oppression (such as the Ministry of State Security, which played a role analogous to the Gestapo in Hitler's Germany), there were such names as Jozef Swiatlo (born Licht Fleischarb), Anatol Fejgin, Juliusz Hibner (born Dawid Schwartz), Roman Romkowski (born Natan Grunspau-Kikiel), and Jozef Rozanski (born Goldberg). Polish communist Wiktor Klosiewicz stated in an interview with Teresa Toranska: All the department directors of the Ministry of State Security were Jews.. Romkowski and Rozanski were in 1957 sentenced for 15 years, Fejgin received 12 years, all for brutally torturing incarcerated members of Polish patriotic resistance and for abusing their power.

This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews. Sorry, nope. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, most of your edits are Polish baiting, since you talk that way. We are creating Wikipedia for the public users, not for ourselves. Readers have the right to be informed about this part of Polish-Jewish history, this gives a more complete picture. Again - you will not change it, these individuals were among highest ranking members of communist repression apparatus, responsible for torturing a score of Polish patriots. Jews were opressed, but some of them would oppress, too, if they had a chance and there is no point in hiding it. Your edits speak for yourself. And share your knowledge, not your biases. Tymek (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)\

Boodles, you continue to insist in your witch hunt that the world is black and white. It is not. Individuals of numerous ethnic groups participated in the Soviet terror. (In my case, I must observe, Latvians as well.) And there were cultural and intellectual reasons that communism had appealed to some groups more than others. That does not mean "all Jews... " or "all Latvians..." or that those individuals in any way represented their cultural heritage or values.

   That someone later took facts and twisted them to "justify" murder does not change initial facts. Nor does noting initial facts imply that someone supports said twisting to support murder. Nor does noting initial facts in and of that act alone constitute an assault.

   You ascribe motivations where they do not exist regarding acts of anti-Semitism which have not occurred. —PētersV (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since talking to Boodlesthecat is like talking to a brick wall, I am leaving this [113] unchanged. I will only note that user Boodlesthecat, a contributor to the project, calls words of Stefan Korbonski, member of the International PEN Club and recipient of Yad Vashem's Righteous Among the Nations medal Jew-baiting original research. Let the committee decide, I will not waste my time. Tymek (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User Boodlesthecat has gone to another level, using such friendly, cooperative terms as anti-Jewish crap, idiotic claims and bully crowd. I am hoping this will be taken into consideration, as seriously, creating an encyclopedia in such atmosphere is discouraging. Here is the diff: [114]. Tymek (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. It's obvious to anyone who has been watching what has been going on. Nihil novi (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. User:Boodlesthecat is the runner of arguably the most disruptive political tag-team in the history of Eastern European coverage in Wikipedia. His tag-team members include User:Jayjg routinely abusing his admin powers for example, by reverting content opponents using Twinkle; and of course, User:M0RD00R, account created exclusively for the purpose of political smear campaigns. None of these users create content to any substantial degree. The express widely documented purpose objective of their tag-team is to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering (my further comments). --Poeticbent talk 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'Comment on Poeticbent's defamatory rant Poeticbent writes, regarding a supposed tag team that I "run," that "The expressed purpose of their tag-team is to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering." My dictionary defines "express" as: To set forth in words; state. Can you please indicated where I, or any of the other editors you named as constituting this supposed team, set forth in words/stated a purpose as being "to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering."? If you cannot provide documentation supporting your allegation, I must ask you to remove such a defamatory and maliciously false claim, which exceeds by far the dozens of other defamatory rants already in this arb. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of your highly disruptive behaviour has already been provided on numerous occasions. This is just the confirmation of fact. --Poeticbent talk 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So you apparently cannot supply any evidence demonstrating where where I, or any of the other editors you named as constituting this supposed team, set forth in words/stated a purpose as being "to mock Polish nation and deface Polish history via racially motivated hate mongering." Nor will you find such a thing. You leave your malicious and defamatory statement in at a risk to your own already sagging credibility, and further risk to Piotrus credibility, based on the tendency of most of his small coterie of supporters to do little more than post the same unsubstantiated malicious rants over and over. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?! I do not recall seeing a single edit in your long edit history made in support of Poland as complex but mostly reasonable nation; on the contrary, to the distress of all Polish content creators, you devoted all your entire energy to cherry-picking the most hateful and despicable claims about alleged Polish misdeeds throughout history. Let me quote just one sentence from an Eastern European scholar familiar with that sort of attitude in socio-political literature of our times. "To single out and humiliate Poland for its real or manufactured anti-Semitism is grossly unfair" (Tadeusz Piotrowski in Poland's Holocaust). And yet, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing since day one. --Poeticbent talk 16:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You've pretty much sunk your credibility by showing you are unable to substantiate your malicious charge (against 3 editors) above. With your claims that I've failed to make edits "in support of Poland as complex but mostly reasonable nation" (I'm sorry, I missed the email instructing me that my job on Wikipedia is to be a propagandist for a particular country) and that I make "the most hateful and despicable claims about alleged Polish misdeeds throughout history" (pick one edit I've made to that effect, and any edit regarding "misdeeds" that wasnt reliably sourced), well, I'm afraid you are moving from loss of credibility to downright foolishness. Hey, your choice. Rant on. Your "team" seems to have decided on anointing me as the scapegoat for your truly questionable activities (many of which predate my involvement in Wikipedia). Enjoy it while it lasts; it won;t last much longer. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is a member of the "team" you are talking about? Ostap 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Boodlesthecat conducted an extended campaign to with-hunt and bait me into the most reprehensible antisemitic contentions by constantly misrepresenting my statements and position on Holocaust scholarship. And they still insist their blatantly false rephrasings summarize my position. There is no arguing with true believers. I have never been assaulted in such a manner by any WP editor. —PētersV (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Boodlesthecat has clearly and unequivocally stated that Poland's anti-semitism is "distinct" per their interpretation of sources when it is not in any way unique. The Žydokomuna article, as transformed by Boodlesthecat and supporters, has been turned into a litany of anti-semitic stereotypes all blamed on the Poles and all without any other historical context other than an implied hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, while reliable sources state what anti-semtic stereotypes existed in Poland, reliable sources NOT REFLECTED in the article state what the historical origins were of such stereotypes (not to be indicated, per Boodlesthecat and supporters), and RELIABLE SOURCES also discuss what anti-semitic stereotypes are multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, or, with respect to Poland, multi-Slavic, that is, having their origins in the wider area of Eastern Europe, also not reflected in any way in the article. From Jewish conspiracies to run society to white slave traders, there is no anti-semitic stereotype blamed on the Poles that is in any way unique to the Poles. Boodlesthecat and company have turned the Żydokomuna article into an anti-Polish coatrack, driven by their POV which I can only interpret as being that all Poles (and their WP supporter "edit warriors" such as myself per Boodlesthecat) are anti-Semites. —PētersV (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ummm, OK, so in an article about a Polish form of anti-semitism called Zydokomuna, it is anti-Polish to characterize it, as I did on the talk page as "a distinct phenomena called Zydokomuna, which is specific to the history of antisemitism in Poland."?? Ummmm, OK! But, since you are intent on (mis)using an Arb as an extension of a content dispute, PētersV, I defy you or anyone to point to any edit I have made to that artcile that wasn;t well sourced and fully in compliance with WP:RS, WP:V, and any of the WP's you like. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bonding XX century stereotype of Jewish-Communism with medieval well poisoning is a OR at its best. We can surely find sources that claim that the Swedes are antimuslim, or Arabs are antirussian, because with a little cherrypicking, we can basically confirm our worst stereotypes about other nationalities.But is this the purpose of a neutral encyclopedia? Both Boodlesthecat and Mordoor are here for a specific reason. It is enough to check their contributions. Tymek (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg is not an antisemite

2) I am very offended by antisemitism accusations, which are extremely slanderous. I believe I have a right to a clear statement by the neutral Wikipedia justice system that would clear my name in this regard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose Greg doth protest too much. He has a rich history of making antisemitic remarks. Here's a sampling from just two pages, Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence:

1. that clown Thane Rosenbaum who parades here as son of holocaust survivors
2. Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor
3. Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor (restored after it was deleted for BLP reasons)
4. Even Jews are tired of Thane Rosenbaum who obviously masquerades as son of holocaust survivor (restored again after it was deleted for BLP reasons)
5. You don't even sound like Jewish
6. Even Jewish readers themselves find Thane Rosenbaum's masquerading as a son of Holocaust survivor confusing ... Further digging shows who really Mr Rosenbaum is: a Wall Street lawyer turned writer, who is actively engaged in a legal campaign of handling of settlements for Holocaust survivors
7. Now they write essays, novels, reviews in which they tell their side of the story as seen from a high rise elevator somewhere on Wall Street and jump and scream bloody murder hearing the stories about the cattle cars
8. Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that

No one can look into Greg's heart and know his feelings toward Jews, but in light of his comments, I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Greg is not expressing antisemitic sentiment here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg's fault is that he dared to use the word Jew. If you'd replace this word in his remarks with Polish, I'd not consider him anti-Polish. Discussing whether an article has a pro-Jewish bias is not anti-semitism, not anymore than discussing whether an article has a pro-Polish bias is anti-Polish. And discussing whether an editor has a Jewish bias does not make one an anti-semite, just as discussing whether an editor has a Polish bias does not make him a Polonophobe. Just as well editors who are discussing anti-semitism or Holocaust are not necessarily pro-Jewish.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who threatened to block Boodles when he removed Greg's antisemitic and libelous comments concerning Thane Rosenbaum, despite Boodles referring to WP:BLP, I hardly think you're objective here. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as you, being an editor who gave Boody a barnstar for "going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists" in the aftermath of his 3RR block and sending me a "dick email", may be a tiny wee bit biased too. I have cautioned greg to be more civil, you've only encouraged Boody in his disruptive behavior. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, saying Greg's fault is that he "dared" use the word Jew is patronizing and doesn't help your case or his. The problem is not that he used the word "Jew," it is how he has used the word "Jew." You yourself wrote on my talk page that he used the word "Jew" in an offensive way ("Hmmm, I don't think that saying "you are playing a Jew" is antisemitic (it is however a bad faithed, offensive remark)."). Well, that is the whole point. If a person writes "you are a dick" they are just being offensive. But if a person makes an offensive comment predicated on race, it is a racist comment. If they make an offensive comment predicated on somenone's being Jewish, it is an anti-Semitic remark. Greg's pattern of comments suggests that he does not view his fellow editors as fellow editors; some are Polish editors, some are Lithuanian editors, some are Jewish editors ... and that any edit a Jew makes is a "Jewish" edit. Shakespeare understood that this gets at the heart of anti-Semitism, I think others here will see it too.

In any event, I do not see how this so-called "finding of fact" has anything to do with the Arb Com case against Piotrus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Slr, I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one place (our talk pages). I wrote that Greg was seen as some as having used the word Jew in a offensive way, when in fact he hasn't (all he did was to claim Boody has a Jewish POV, a claim which doesn't appear to me offensive in any way, just as a claim that I have a Polish POV is perfectly fine). And yes, editors differ, the problem arises only when one assumes that for example that "Jewish editors are damaging this project", which greg most certainly did not. He simply stated that Boody's edits show a Jewish POV, which is a reasonable comment (although I agree, it's best not to discuss editors in any way - Boody however claimed he has no POV, and is neutral, which was making any progress in discussion with him hard, particularly when others self-identified themselves as having a Polish POV, and he was still towing the line of being the no-POV neutral editor). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly was this "Jewish POV?" Specifically? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-02 History of the Jews in Poland were this is discussed in detail. In particular, see the section "Problem statement", where Boody, after having been repeatedly asked to declare his POV, stated that "My POV, if I need to describe it, would be to get this article closer to mainstream scholarship" (doesn't that sound pretty? :). The few months I've known him it became clear to me that he shows above-average interest in Jewish-related topics and his argument echo those of Jewish historiography. There is nothing wrong with that - other than the fact that he refuses to admit this, and sees his POV as NPOV. His refusals to admit that he has a certain POV (when he repeatedly accuses others of having other POVs - like Polish POV - which nobody denies in any case) is at the cornerstone of his disruptive edits and attitude, as I've explained in this essay. When Greg stated - in some instances, in a somewhat uncivil fashion (annoyed and even baited, as I believe, by Boody's constant refusal to portray himself as anything else but a perfectly neutral editor and defender of NPOV) - that Boody has a "Jewish POV", he got accused of antisemitism. That's the entire story in a nutshell.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Directing me to a mediation case is hardly providing me with something specific. I searched through the page you indicate and do not see anyone using the term "Jewish POV." I did however look at some of the edit-conflicts between you and Boodles, for example, this. Now, why should it matter what the race or religion of the editor is who put in the material you deleted? I think that all that matters is our policies: is this a notable point of view? Is it verifiable? Is it from a reliable source? Is the source clearly identified? I see several sources, including Robert Sanders, who one can say is expressing a Jewish POV, and also Timothy Snyder, whi is expressing the POV of an academic historian. But what does the identity of the Wikipedia editor have to do with any of this, and why is it at all a reason for deleting the edit? If an edit complies with NPOV and V and NOR by adding content from notable and reliable sources, shouldn't any Wikipedia editor support it, whether Jewish or Gentile, Protestant or Catholic or Russian Orthodox, Communist or Liberal, blond haired or brown haired, tall person or short person? Boodles made an edit and you are claiming his edit expresses a Jewish POV. Why isn't it possible that a non-Jew could have made the same edit, added the same material? What makes this a "Jewish" edit and why is Boodles race relevant to your having deleted his edit?

By the way, just to be clear: I saw on the talk page that you know of several sources that say General Pilsudski was not an anti-Semite. I would not label any of those sources as expressing a "Polish" POV. Several of them appear to be academic historians too. Here is what you should have done: you should have created a section on the controversy over whether the General was anti-Semitic (for people to explicitly argue that someone is not an anti-Semite sugests that some people think the person is an anti-Semite i.e. there is some controversy) and provide the range of views. Then you, Boodles, and others can negotiate over the right way to characterize different views. But there is a longstanding principle at Wikipedia, which is to add verifiable content to create NPOV, and not to delete verifiable content. At least, this is my view, however you want to characterize it... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The piece of the puzzle which I think you are missing is WP:UNDUE: editor's POV determines what he things is relevant and what is not. Also, from WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sometimes, reliably sourced and verifiable information has no place in a given article. Sometimes, editors with a certain POV will not see it that way: an editor with a Polish POV, for example, will assign greater weight to German crimes against Poland than editors from other countries, and an editor with German POV will assign the smallest weight. If those editors can see their POV, they can reach a neutral version. If one of them thinks his POV is neutral, he will refuse to compromise. In case of Pilsudski, there is little controversy: only a tiny majority of sources claim against the consensus he was an anti-semite; to discuss this in detail in the article would create an undue bias, favoring editors who have an anti-Pilsudski bias (or others, which include this one). To give you another example: at one point an important American politician was criticized in Poland for "You forgot Poland" remark. An editor with a Polish POV may want to stress this in various places, when in fact it is a minor issue that does not need more coverage in general articles - it is of UNDUE weight. Most Polish-POV editors will, when this is explained to them, agree with that view and drop the issue. But a "true believer" will stop at nothing to advertise this issue across Wikipedia articles.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Criticizing Rosenbaum and other statements by Greg are not antisemitism. Even criticizing Jewish traditions, religion, and national character is not necessarily anti-semitism. Many Jews criticize or even satirize all of that themselves, like Igor Guberman. Only an extreme Jewish nationalist might consider the statements by Greg "antisemitic".Biophys (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So Biophys, are you saying that the 4 or 5 editors who think greg's remarks were anti-semitic, including the ARB clerk who insisted that greg refactor his comments because they were "clearly antisemitic" are all extreme Jewish nationalists? Is that your position? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know which 4 to 5 editors you are talking about. I also do not know why Ryan (whom I respect) decided the statement by Greg to be antisemitic. But as someone from a partly Jewish family, I believe his statements were not antisemitic. Most important, the endless discussions who is "antisemitic" and who is not are damaging for WP. So, this should stop.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion about greg's antisemitism. However, it does not negate the fact that a number of other editors, and the clerk, think he has made antisemitic statements. And there are those who believe that it is that sort of anti-semitism that greg has littered these pages with is what is "damaging for WP." So while you are entitled to your view, it will not "stop" until greg's abuses is addressed, as it will be. And your own inflammatory accusations that editors who object to blatant anti-semitism are extreme Jewish nationalists does little to improve the health of this encyclopedia, BTW. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I take back my words about "nationalists". Sorry. That was wrong. This only proves how easily one can fell in the trap by even starting to discuss such contentious issues. But you are telling "it will not stop until greg's abuses is addressed". Well, I am very happy you are not going to address my abuses, but only abuses by Greg and Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything you've said to be at all anti-semitic or an "abuse", although I do think that in your zest to defend others, you are missing some basic realities (for instance, the depth of Greg's bigotry) that others seem to be noticing (and certainly not just me, despite the self serving mantra that Piotrus likes to propagate that I am somehow responsible for all ill will here). But Greg's anti-semitism most definitely needs to be addressed; as for Piotrus' role in empowering and supporting Greg, and abusing his admin authority towards that end, I'll leave it to reviewers of this case to decide. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. As stated elsewhere, I reviewed the whole thread in detail where I first came across Booodlesthecat calling Greg park avenue and anti-Semite, and there was no basis for such a contention. Boodles continued to bait Greg until he could get some more emotional comment out of him (which was still not anti-Semitic), which Boodles then latched on to like a rabid terrier. The Rosenbaum comment was in a similar situation. My own experience with Boodles confirms his attack mode. —PētersV (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems, that you missed quite a lot in your review, from this analysis it is evident, that baiting came from Piotrus group towards another editor and later, towards another fellow admin, not contrary. I am also disturbed to see an attempt to downgrade significance of WP:BLP violations. M.K. (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See Malik's entry above for some examples of Greg's despicable antisemitism littering the pages of Wikipedia. Some of you just don't get it, do you? Oh well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Greg singling out Thane Rosenbaum for the type of fiction he writes profiting from and based on the Holocaust (the vast bulk of Malik's accusation), including fictional characters Rosenbaum rather models on himself, is not grounds for labeling someone a hater of the entire Jewish nation. Let's get real. —PētersV (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes let's get real. Greg's hateful comment about Rosenbaum was removed by an admin becuase it was an antisemitic BLP violation. greg's comments on this Arb had to be refactored becuase the clerk said they were antisemitic. Keep your head in the sand all you want; he is, according to a number of editors, admins and clerks, someone who has spread antisemitism here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite clear Greg doesn't care for Rosenbaum in particular. I have read Greg's "antisemitic" comments per you in another rather lengthy thread and what I see is your provocations and Greg's increasingly exasperated responses, culminating in what you declared is anti-Semitic but in fact was not. I really don't care that somehow you manage to play Greg's violin. But you know very well that is exactly what you are doing, and have tried to do with me, repeatedly asking if I were making "in other words" anti-Semitic contentions, culminating in a blatant hateful lie about what I have stated. Ah, so easy for you then to use the "hateful" word on others, as that's what you do yourself. —PētersV (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, except that the accusation against Greg is not "slander"—it is libel. Nihil novi (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Greg is critical about a lot of things. At times, his commentaries might be revealing; other times, overtly emotional, but I never saw him speak against the Jewish nation per se, not for once. --Poeticbent talk 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

Boodles is restricted

1) Boodles, who has shown a clear tendency to revert war a lot and harass others with extreme incivility, is put on a permanent 1 year 1RR and civility parole. Because he has turned the previously peacefully articles on Polish-Jewish topics into battlegrounds, he is banned from that content area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Having Featured History of the Polish Jews and having worked peacefully with many others editors in that content area, I believe this would be a reasonable solution, restoring peace, quiet and good will to the Polish-Jewish subject area.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Radeksz chased off an article after a string of accusations by Boody and tag team allies: [115]. With that in light, I believe at the very least a topic ban from Polish Jewish topics - to stop him from flaming other users and chasing them off - is necessary, as even 1RR restriction will not stop him from flaming others on talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Without any broader comments, Boodles does not seem to have any greater tendency to revert war than Piotrus does. I think that's plainly obvious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And your statistical analysis to prove it is... where, exactly? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Greg is misremembering when he says that the articles on Polish-Jewish topics were peaceful before Boodles became involved with them. For example, look at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#"who were conscripts like other citizens of the country," and Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Jews in Poland/archive1. If 1RR is deemed appropriate, it should apply equally to all editors who edit articles on Polish-Jewish history, most of whom have engaged in edit-warring at one time or another. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Many articles have occasional incidents. Since Boody appeard, all Polish-Jewish history is an ongoing incident, with Boody revert warring everywhere and accusing his opponents of anti-semitism.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No I accuse them of anti-semitism when they are being anti-semitic, as in the case of Greg, whose anti-semitism a number of editors have pointed out. You, Piotrus, seem not only to be tolerant of such anti-semitism and defending of it, you have gone as far as threatening to block me for challenging it. This might be excusable if you had learned from your errors from months ago; your persistence in empowering anti-semites who have allied themseelves with you, however, is quite disturbing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association? I am not surprised. I rest my case, it's not like I need to prove anything more, evidence of bad faith and spurious personal attacks is quite rich. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Guilt by association? Does this overt abuse of admin authority in defence of an anti-semite look like "guilt by association?" Are your repeated pleadings on behalf of the Jew baiter Greg "guilt by association"? Not in any reading of the term. Guilt by (your own) actions, Piotus. Nothing more, nothing less. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: What's a "permanent one year" restriction? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I think it means that I am restricted for a full 365¼ days no matter how fast I edit? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. A review of B's last few hundred mainspace contributions shows the addition of very well-sourced material and refs. That is valuable. The assertion that the articles were peaceful before he began editing there was discredited; History of Jews in Poland in particular was heavily edited by the now-banned user Jacurek [116], and those edits were not disputed by Piotrus. That article reflects current real-world disputes; it's unrealistic to expect it to stay in the same place forever. Novickas (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. We are talking about a person who is unable to talk to other users in a civilized way, a person who with his biased editing has destroyed once a good article, and who himself does not create any new articles. Tymek (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

99% are reverts. The rest, as you call it very well sourced material and refs are blurbs from tendentious newspapers or excerpts from pseudo-science publications as by Jan T. Gross who uses his Princeton connection to get even, pseudo-science because not corroborated by the rest of scientific community. Also speculations like about the number of Nazi collaborators during WWII in Poland, estimated by some ignorant and less known new historian from Germany at up to 1 million, who evidently assumed that all of Polish citizens of German descent (about the same number) were Nazi collaborators, while the real and well established number is less than 10 thousand. Novickas, just imagine - if someone told you that the number of Nazi collaborators in Germany was 80 million just because there were that many Germans living there at that time, would you believe in such science? I don't think the other Wikipedians would handle this, but give it a shot. Maybe some genius wrote it that already? greg park avenue (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support editing restrictions for everyone who constantly uses inflammatory "ethnicity"-based arguments in content disputes. The accusation of antisemitism is one of them; Boodlesthecat fires such claims everywhere; and he does not even understand that he is wrong.Biophys (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment How about editing restrictions for everyone who adds content to articles that blames Polish Jews for antisemitism? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No editing restrictions for adding any sourced content about antisemitism. Support editing restrictions for anyone who blames other wikipedians of antisemitism, anti-Russian propaganda, and other things like that.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, since you claim that I "fire such claims everywhere", can you give me an example of who else I've accused of anti-semitism, other than the anti-semite Greg park avenue? I recall one other editor I accused, and I even got blocked in the process; however, as in the case of greg, eventually members of this community agreed about the anti-semitism of that editor, who won't be editing Wikipedia anytime soon. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: "the antisemite Greg park avenue". But he is not. There are no proofs of his "antisemitism" whatsoever; he received no blocks for promoting anisemitism; nothing. His original statement to ArbCom was not antisemitic, contrary to your claim. As someone with a lot of Jewish relatives, I can assure you of that. I wonder what you would tell after visiting a performance by Jewish poet Igor Guberman who presents some very sharp satire on the real and perceived shortcomings of Jews. The statement by Greg was not offensive, but your claims of his antisemitism are indeed offensive. Therefore, I support the restriction.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my, my , my, Biophys, I didn't realize some of your best friends are Jewish!. I humbly defer to your interpretation over the other editors who indeed feel Greg is an antisemite. Mind you though, the antisemite [EliasAlucard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EliasAlucard] also had never been blocked for promoting antisemitism, that is until he got permanently banned for it! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about my friends, but about my family. What "other editors"? Do you mean User:Malik Shabazz? I looked at the links he provided above. These links only prove that your and his accusations are unjustified.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should read further, Biophys--among others, the clerk insisted that greg refactor his comments because they were "clearly anti-semitic." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who else? Within the last 24h, among others, Vecrumba, who complained on talk of this arbcom that "You demonstrated NO interest in discussing anything, rather, you were intent ONLY on putting words into my mouth that would indicate I'm an anti-Semite".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Show me where I called him an anti-semite. I queried him about the actual words he wrote; if Vecrumba is worried that quoting his own actual words makes him look like an anti-semite, then perhaps that could be a valuable lesson to be a bit more discerning in his choice of words. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't try this tack with me. You put explicitly anti-Semitic phrases into my mouth that if I had agreed with in any way--as you apparently expected me to, catching me in my presumed bias--you would have been all over me like a bad smell with charges of anti-Semitism. No, you didn't say "Vecrumba is an anti-Semite". You DID say: "Vecrumba, in other words, you are saying [fill in clearly anti-Semitic phrase]" Either way, that is a charge of anti-Semitism. Don't play word games. PētersV (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, for your edification, I did finally break down and properly paraphrase myself, as opposed to your attempts to put hate speech in my mouth. You and anyone who wishes can find it on the evidence page (diff). —PētersV (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Boodles is currently one of the most uncivil and disruptive persons in this neck of the woods. Nihil novi (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I’d like the Arbitrators to explain why the verbal abuse in these proceedings is not being removed per policy guidelines? It is not difficult to see what constitutes verbal abuse, unless we want to retain direct proofs of it without having to leave this page? --Poeticbent talk 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Boodlesthecat

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User:greg park avenue has engaged in incessant posting of bigoted, belligerent and antisemitic attacks

1) User:greg park avenue has engaged in anti-semitic attacks, transparently false charges of sockpuppetry, repeated acts of incivility, while contributing no little actual content to Wikipedia, instead devoting the bulk of his contributions to uncivil attacks on other editors, peppered with anti-semitic vulgarities. sadly, Greg is consistently empowered and supported in his bigotry by User:Piotrus, who consistently defends Greg's bigotry (in a most disturbing manner--by claiming that Greg is "provoked" by other editors, echoing the twisted logic used by whitewashers of anti-semitism throughout history that Jews "provoke" anti-semitism by their actions). Piotrus has, again quite disturbingly, gone as far as threatening to (ab)use his admin authority in defense of Greg's flagrant, vicious Jew baiting (note that removal of this anti-semitic BLP violation by Greg was ultimately upheld despite Piotrus bullying threats of a blo0ck. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"while contributing no actual content to Wikipedia": User:Greg park avenue has a list on his linked userpage of articles that he created/expanded; the first part can be easily confirmed by this tool. And his 8 articles compared to Boody's 0 tell a very interesting story about two editors with quite different editing strategies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Greg has a grand total of 235 mainspace edits, representing 3/16 of his total edits. Boodles, on the other hand, has 1,707 mainspace edits, representing more than 1/2. Who is the more productive editor? "A very interesting story" indeed, although it's clear that the numbers don't tell the whole tale, but the obvious conclusion is that Greg isn't the productive editor you paint him to be. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support (1) Regarding Greg's antisemitic comments, see my remarks at #Greg is not an antisemite above. (2) Greg's persistence in looking for evidence that Boodles and I are sockpuppets is to be commended. It's a shame he doesn't understand the fact that two editors may have common interests without being socks. A look at my contributions and those of Boodles would show that we edit primarily in different areas of Wikipedia, although there are a few small areas of overlap. (3) Greg needs too understand the importance of civility. In one instance, he threatened to kick the sorry ass of an admin. 'Nuff said. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your point (2) I agree with you (as I've stated elsewhere many times). Greg's accusations of sock/meatpuppetry against you are as sensible as the ones coming from editors arguing for a Polish cabal (i.e. baseless and bad faithed). I also agree with (3) - that greg needs to be more civil. Unfortunately, I fail to understand why you are completely ignoring much more serious incivility ("dick emails" and so on) coming from Boody. I cautioned greg to be more civil, officially on his talk pages and I've supported you here; you reward Boody with barnstars in the aftermath of him sending me offensive emails :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Again and again. It is the easiest and nastiest way to call somebody you disagree with an antisemite. Greg is not the best example of a civil editor, just like Boodlesthecat. But antisemitism? This is way over the top. Tymek (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Technical note and comment. If contributors fell, that Greg should be placed here, I suggest to reword proposed finding of fact, to something like - <heading>User:greg park avenue has engaged in disruptive edits <heading ends>; <body>User:greg park avenue has engaged in disruptive edits - used extreme forms of personal attacks [diff][diff][diff] etc., violated WP:BLP [diff][diff] etc, continuously and falsely accused established editors of sock'ing [diff][diif] etc etc.<body ends>. Remember, findings should be clear and to-the-point short. Obviously, Greg's comments are irrelevant with good editing practice, however, I am nonplussed to see that certain individuals are trying to play them down. M.K. (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe that none of the statements by Gregg provided by his accusers was really antisemitic. The criticism of Jewish politicians, Jewish state, and many other things does not constitute the antisemitism, just as criticism of W. Bush (for example) does not constitute anti-Americanism.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Tymek's and Biophys' very cogent arguments. Nihil novi (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Nihil novi. PētersV (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus' insistence that ethnicity if a fundamental quality of editors contributes to making Wikipedia an ethnic battleground

2) Piotrus' whole argument here (as stated above and elsewhere) all rests on a presumed agreement with his questionable thesis--that all editors on Wikipedia share his own admitted quality of having an ethnic based "POV." By his own admission, Piotrus insists that this is true for all editors. Like his ally Greg, he seems not to be able to grok the notion that an editor--regardless of ethnicity--can aim for fairness and balance to articles. Although Piotrus does not share his anti-semitic colleague Greg_park_avenue's pathological obsession with Jews, Piotrus is indeed, by his own admissions above, absolutely insistent that all editors share his admitted personal commitment to ethnicity being the primary motiavtion for all editors. This of course, is simply a not very sophisticated ploy in which Piotrus can paint those who disagree with him as "true believers" having an ethnic POV (e.g., his insistence that a "Jewish POV" is operative behind any edits that seek to remiove anti-Jewish biases). This rather unsophisticated argument of Piotrus' only works if one accepts it's premise--that all editors are motivated by an ethnic "POV." While I have noticed that some others share his view, I am confident that this is not a principle of this encyclopedia project. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's a pure straw man. See my essay for what I really say (which boils down to "all editors have some POV"). In Central/Eastern Europe conflicts, obviously national ones will be dominant. If we were discussing abortion, religious one would be dominant. See also my discussion with User:Slrubenstein, at #Greg is not an antisemite and at his talk page, of why this is a problem (which boils down to the fact that Boody refuses to admit he has a POV other than being a perfect NPOV editor, and thus refuses to compromise, seeing all of those who disagree with him as disruptive in some shape or form - I analyze this approach to editing in my essay; Boody is not the only editor in this case representing it).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I suggest you be a bit more circumspect in applying "logical category" rebuttals ("Thats a pure straw man")--you seem to consistently misuse those categories. What you consistently insist is not that "everyone has a POV" (obviously that's true) but rather, that anyone disagreeing with you (for example, removing anti-semitic no0nsense from Wikipedia) somehow is operating from a "Jewish POV", or, that a supposedly Jewish editor must be operating from a Jewish POV. You consistently inject ethnicity into disagreements--by characterizing removal of anti-semitic content, or criticisms of anti-semites like Greg as "a Jewish POV" you attempt to relativize and minimize anti-semitism. No "straw man" here. It's quite real. As clearly demonstrated here, the issue is not "all editors have a POV", the issue is that you, Piotrus, insist that editors confess to having the POV you ascribe to them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So now I "insist that anybody disagreeing with [me] has a Jewish POV"? Dear committee, this is just one of many examples of why discussion with "true believers" is difficult. They are right, their opponents are wrong, and probably anti-semitic/Polish/Russian/Nazi/Jewish/Christian/Muslim/insert insult applicable to "true believer" POV here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Spare the committee the drama Piotrus--here's some of your own words from the sabotaged medcab , in which you and others filibustered a medcab with bullying demands that I fess up to your interpretation of my POV and insist that the mediation would not move forward until I made such a confession:

• "You claim that your POV is "to get the article closer to mainstream scholarship." That's not a POV. I and Lysy explained what POV means, and that you refuse to admit you have one is a big part of the problem."
• "I don't think we have much to discuss, as long as Boody refuses to admit his POV. As I wrote above - it's hard to negotiate with "perfect" editors."
• "It is expected that a Polish editor will have a Polish bias."
• Malik replied in the medcab to Piotrus as follows: "I don't agree with Piotrus that Polish editors should be expected to edit with a pro-Polish bias, nor that Jewish editors edit with a pro-Jewish bias, etc. Personally, I'm not interested in putting down Christian Poles or promoting Polish Jews; I'd like the article to reflect what reliable sources say." I support Malik 100% here. And I think Piotrus' tactic--which is to insist that "everybody has some ethnic POV", so that he can then dismiss opposition to anti-semitic nonsense in Wikipedia as simply being some "Jewish POV" should be transparent to anyone who examines his rather crude tactic. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am really sorry, Boodlesthecat, but it is you who brings inflammatory ethnicity-based arguments everywhere. This should stop.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you do not see this yourself, I can not help.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, "sorry" back atcha--if you can't supply examples and evidence for your inflammatory and malicious claim that I "bring inflammatory ethnicity-based arguments everywhere" as well as arrogantly add "this must stop," then no one is going to take you seriously, and your accusation will just appear to be what it likely is--bogus. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Discussing edits, not editors, is a core policy, along with the concept that valuable contributions are made on WP without revealing personal data. The above mediation page contains these statements by Piotrus: "Those same editors hide under a cloak of perfect anonymity" and "I also doubt very much that those anonymous editors will reveal anything about themselves". Such knowledge does help in battles - Know your enemy is derived from The Art of War - but the project is trying to get past that. Novickas (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• To long and to many assumptions. Should be reformulated or removed. Generally the problem is not only of Piotrus or "Polish editors". Overplaying ethnicity of editors or sources (e.g. this source is in Polish/Russian/German - thus it is biased, the author of the source is a Jew/Pole/Russian/Georgian - thus it is biased, the editors is X so his edit should be reverted immediately, etc) is evil Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is a kernel of something worthwhile in this, could you reformulate it? Novickas (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:greg park avenue receive appropriate sanctions for his incessant incivility, personal attacks, and bigoted statements

1) User:greg park avenue receive appropriate sanctions for his incessant incivility, personal attacks, and bigoted statements

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I cannot support Boody's finding which includes allegations of antisemitism, as I've noted elsewhere, greg has certainly been incivil (although I believe to a lesser extent than Boody). Both of them seem to be hard to moderate (not that anybody tried to moderate Boody other than me...), extend bad faith to other editors, and should be subject to a combination of civility parole, 1RR restriction and topic bans.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please spare me your condescension and incessant rewrites of history--you have never tried to "moderate" me, you have, from the beginning been an admin-authority abusing bully--starting with your threats against me for daring to challenge Greg's vicious anti-semitism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Piotrus, where and when greg has been uncicvil? That's what Ryan had explicitly advised you against from doing: Don't get into dispute with trolls. I follow that advise and ignore the troll(s), all of them, Boodles/Shabazz/SLR, because there simply is no middle ground between an extremist editor as them and a moderate editor as you or me or Lokyz. Same as with the terrorists in real life. We don't give them nothing, even if they're dying for attention. Nada! You have been trying to be nice and reason with them and see what happened: To reach a middle ground you have acknowledged Boodles is a little uncivil and I am a little uncivil, just to prove one point or other. Doesn't matter. Besides, Shabazz just commited a fraud voting double under Boodles' sick remedy about me being an antisemite, and he is the same person. And who else called me an antisemite, even racist? Also the same person, just signed as Slrubenstein, and no one else. What better proof do you want they're the same person? Who else would make such a fool of oneself to claim such a bullshit based on nothing? But as I said before, I am not here to get anybody; if someone is going to request a checkuser, suit yourselves and get rid of them, but they will be back under another name, such as Snoopythedog or something. Better concentrate on how to get rid of those endless reverts done by the above mentioned troll squad. Maybe 1RR limit for everyone, three strikes and you're out? greg park avenue (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have different civility standards than most editors here, and - for example - I'd consider calling others trolls - like you did right now - uncivil. And yes, you are very right that I tried to reach the middle ground and I might have went to far: my apologies - it was certainly not my intention to equate you with Boody. That said, I still believe that there is little evidence of those editors sockpuppeting, and that we should uphold the highest stanards of WP:AGF/WP:CIV and so on. Yes, I know that "the others" don't do it - but we don't want to be the same as them, do we? Higher moral ground and so on (for all that it's worth on Wikipedia...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, if a troll is a troll as in here, then I condemn it, especially, if someone unprovoked would call you a racist or antisemite. Hardly a reason to be a subject to violation of WP:CIVIL guidelines. When Bush condemned Bin Laden was he uncivil? Some people would agree, some even called him Hitler. But let us clarify who a troll is? According to [117]: The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all. The basic policy regarding trolling is simple: please refrain. Just don't tell me the above diff was not a trolling - it's a classical example in my opinion. He even acknowledged that in his next post to Boodles what he was up to: give them enough rope he says in it, just see this. The issue of sockpuppetry I leave to decide by others, but it's hard to believe three trolls got along as a tag team to plot a conspiracy against a minor editor for his taking stand at Fear - also a minor book based on fabricated by communist propaganda diaries. greg park avenue (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by M.K

Proposed principles

There are no 'get out of jail free' cards on Wikipedia.

1) There are no 'get out of jail free' cards on Wikipedia. Being an established user with plenty of edits or an admin does not exempt you from obedience to Wikipedia policies or investigation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, per my statements above. Exemptions are bad. What is needed is perspective, as I've explained here (and in this essay).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on WP:JAIL. I was stunned to see that administrator Piotrus trying to justify bad deeds by stressing one's prolificness [118]. Good insight about such behavior can be found is recent comment. M.K. (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this "perspective", WP:JAIL's bullets sums everything quite well, actuality.M.K. (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree in principle. Still assigning best remedies we should take into account user's positive contributions as well. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Higher standards of administrators

2) Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support with a caveat. Standard proposal, but "higher standard" should not mean impossible. It's human to err occasionally, and admins are still humans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Important issue - sysops are entrusted with delicate tools by community, with additional rights; additional rights leads to additional responsibility and higher conduct standard. M.K. (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Novickas (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Novickas

Proposed principles

Limit the scope of user conduct cases

Concerns regarding the actions of editors should be brought up in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. These forums should limit their scope to the actions of the parties originally named in the dispute, contributing to timely resolution of the disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. One one level, it's a good suggestion (the more parties, the more complex and the longer the case). But 1) framing of the case is important (despite the misleading name "Piotrus" it's also about Deacon, and other editors he named) and 2) if other editors present evidence, it's only fair that they become parties (particularly since the accused has the right to defend himself by presenting his evidence). In other words, one could interpret your argument on its extreme as "only Piotrus should be judged" (or "free Piotrus season starting NOW" :D). As I wrote above: if you complain about somebody, they should have the right to complain about you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed to prevent user conduct examinations from growing huge and difficult to follow. Novickas (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Add the consideration of (relatively) speedy resolution. Novickas (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support we should somehow limit the case or it is quickly becomes unmanageable. Other disputes can be considered on other forums Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• So, having just reread the whole page, did I imagine all those sections focussing on Greg, Boodles and Irpen? Evidently not. Novickas has a point here. No disinterested party reading this clusterfuck of a page and the similar nonsense of an evidence page would leave with a positive impression of every editor who has contributed to them. Piotrus's response above is depressing. What would be good would be if, rather than replying in kind, editors turned the other cheek. The view from the moral high ground is much prettier, and the air is cleaner too. Not that I'm speaking from personal experience here you understand, but this is what I've heard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators should lead by example in their project areas

Administrators have a duty to publicly intervene with troublesome editors working in their project areas. If other users have posted their concerns in articles or fora that an administrator can reasonably be expected to have seen, the administrator should demonstrate leadership by discussing the concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. Kind of pushing the envelope, but what the hey. Novickas (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree in principle but not sure about practical implications. I have approximately 16K articles on my watchlist. I am not sure I can properly intervene if any violation occur on one particular article. I think the same is true about Piotrus Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 16K? I am impressed, Alex. I barely manage my 3k... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussing editors' motivations and ethnic/national backgrounds is unproductive

• Proposed. Moves away from discussing edits, not editors. Novickas (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Yes and no. Yes with regards to WP:NPA: discuss content, not editors, when possible. Certainly avoid discuss editors in a negative fashion without a very good excuse (when editors violate policy and are complained about, that's an allowable exception - otherwise we would be blind to all wrongdoing, up to the most serious trolling). Sometimes, however, an editor's behavior is a source of a problem (from pure and clear vandalism to a serious POV pushing), and in order for a compromise to be reached, parties should try to understand one another and their POVs (probably my most important experience on Wikipedia, back in 2005, during Featuring of the Polish-Soviet War, was when a Russian immigrant and academic, User:172, whom I highly respect, taught me that I have a Polish POV, and that Russian POV is as valuable). Hence, civil and peaceful discussion of one another POVs can sometimes be useful. Sometimes, those POVs are tied to ethnic/national backgrounds. Sometimes, to religious or philosophical or others. Their backgrounds and beliefs should always be respected; they may refuse to divulge them (everybody has the right to privacy), speculations should be limited and always mindful of AGF, but they should not be taboo. See also my essays on "true believers" (highly disruptive user who refuse to discuss their POV and claim they represent the "truth"/NPOV) and my thoughts on anonymity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Stated as a negative. We have far too much on what SHOULDN'T be done and a dearth of what SHOULD be done (aside from apple pie and motherhood). Consider refactoring as "Respecting editors' reputably sourced editorial POV and ethnic/national backgrounds is productive." I tire of "nationalist" being akin to leprosy and sources being denigrated on the basis of authors' names. My ethnic/national background is a motivator to construct informative narrative regarding history and geopolitics in Baltic/Central/Eastern Europe based on reputable sources. No more. No less. —PētersV (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits that remove sourced material

Edits that remove sourced material are unproductive, as are the reversions supporting such edits. Removal of such material on the basis of undue weight, fringe, unreliability of the source, or misinterpretation should only be performed after consensus is reached, using a dispute resolution process if necessary.

• Proposed. Could help with edit wars. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. Sound proposal in theory, but in practice 1) many disputes center around what is a reliable source and 2) "true believers" will never back down an inch and agree to a consensus. I have seen to many disputes were the other party (tag teams...) give you either an option of "agree with us 100%" or "get lost".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well it is topical proposal, for instance I have recent example on Dariusz Ratajczak article, the Polish editor removed reliable source and its information, that League of Polish Families is/was the main extreme right party [119]. Solving such editing practice would reduce possible conflicts in Wikipedia. M.K. (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need specific policies for that; and for the record I endorse your revert of Xx236 there (unlike some, I am ok with criticizing "my Polish supporters" when they are wrong).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:BRD guideline. If an edit is an obvious violation of wikipolicies it should be reverted. If the action needs to be repeated it might be better to discuss Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vigorously Oppose. I was accused of "reverting" on Żydokomuna when in fact I NPOV'ed the narrative around a disputed source leaving the source intact (!). The issue is NOT the "removal" of "sourced material." The issue is finding A piece of material then quoting a SINGLE author by name (takes care of attribution) and then constructing a narrative around that material that purports to be the ENTIRE TRUTH. When narrative purporting to be the "TRUTH" is changed/deleted and the source removed with it, that is then declared by the TRUTH-HOLDERS to be "vandalism" deleting "sourced material." As worded, nothing more than institutionalizing the ability of TRUTH-HOLDERS to construe any opposing edit as vandalism. This is not an assumption of bad faith on my part, this is simply the empirical voice of experience. —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging error

Acknowledging errors, however briefly, contributes to a civil and constructive editing environment.

• Proposed. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong support. I have acknowledged my errors and agreed to other side's proposals often (ex. just yesterdays [120]); After all, cooperation is often about meeting the other party halfway. Unfortunately, I have yet to see "true believers" acknowledge any errors and agree to any compromise... usually, after strong criticism by a neutral/other side, they just disappear, only to repeat their claims in the other article, the same one in the future... or proceedings like those. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Strong support Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support PētersV (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Loaded language does not serve the purposes of this encyclopedia

There are words, terms, and analogies that inflame discourse. These should be avoided on talk pages and edit summaries as well as in article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Propose. Novickas (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus's description of MK and Lokyz as "pov trolls" at #wikipedia-en-admins was an inappropriate use of that channel

His use of these terms recorded at [121]. I don't know when civility on the admins channel became policy. But it is now, and an admin should not have needed a direct policy directive before being civil there.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Comment only The reforms to IRC occurred in late 2007, I believe, so March 2008 would have been well after this time. Civility always was policy but it was at times poorly enforced and often breached - it has most definitely improved since, and I have seen people silenced (i.e. a +b put on their name but they are not kicked, allowing them to "cool down") or kicked for behaving inappropriately or making bad faith accusations against non-present users. Orderinchaos 04:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• My own experiences and comments by several admins I talked to show that civility is increasingly not enforced. I have long ago given up on reporting individual instances of incivility, as they are ignored, and even when I show many diffs (based on my evidence page) the reception is often similar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The formulator of this point and myself both had civility on IRC en-admins in mind. Orderinchaos 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd find it ironic that when I am called a troll/vandal/etc. and complain about it in that channel, I am ignored/accused of whining, but when I once or twice called one of the users who accuses me of those things with the same terms he uses on me, big fuss arises. I do agree that as an admin I should not behave like they, but it's ridiculous that they can keep doing so without any punishment. Higher standards should not mean - as they seem to do currently - that "non-admins can be uncivil, but admins cannot". The reality is that I said "the troll called me a troll" and the fuss is that *I* dared to call somebody a troll... see the slight problem with the logic here? Also, be mindful of scale: one slip of tongue every few months (so I called somebody a troll once this year, in a private channel...) is hardly "below our standards" and hardly a great arbcom finding :) PS. According to Wikipedia:IRC#.23wikipedia-en-admins, the reforms became official in March 2008. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Official, yes, in that we didn't have a policy for the channel beyond a vague purposes and statements document. But as early as November 2007, long-term regulars were getting warned and in at least one case kicked for talking in an unfortunate manner about non-present parties, and there would have had to have been some authority to support that at that time. Nevertheless, I shall emphasise I put "comment only" as I have no opinion on whether you did or not as I wasn't there and didn't see the log - my only reason for commenting was that it annoys me when people malign IRC or try to suggest it's a particular kind of problem when they aren't there and don't see what goes on. Hence my patient explanations of what *does* go on. Orderinchaos 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support if a part of a conflict has an access to a forum but the other party has not then a care should be taken to present the case objectively or recluse all together. Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus's acceptance of his unblock before having engaged the blocking admin or contacting the administrators' noticeboard was a violation of policy

His edit warring block took place at 23:05 March 12th 2008. [122] The existing version of blocking/unblocking policy, as of its March 6th 2008 edit, read: "Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them... If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." [123] These steps were not followed according to FT2's statement on March 20th: "While it is noted that Piotrus did contact Tigershark (i.e the blocker) on IRC, it appears that it was after the block was lifted." [124] Novickas (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC) More exact wording per comments. D'oh. Novickas (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How was I to contact the administrator's noticeboard when blocked? I've emailed TS, and since I didn't know if he was online of not, and I didn't have time to waste (I was in the middle of writing a DYK that got featured few days later) went to a forum where I knew reply would be quick (admin IRC). I presented my case and got unblocked. End of story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Partly support The venue is actually irrelevant, but I agree that Piotrus's misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding his block to another admin with the purpose of getting blocked, and with no discussion taking place with the blocking admin or on AN/I, was not acceptable. However, this incident is now 7 months old, FT2 in reviewing it in March said it was stale *then*, and I'm struggling to see why it should be part of the brief of this particular RFAR. Orderinchaos 04:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• According to Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#Other_possible_appeal_steps, while IRC is not listed as a possible unblock appeal location, it always has been used to ask for unblocks and continue to be. It is almost like asking another user to unblock you. IRC also has a faster time. I don't see anything that says IRC cannot be used for unblocks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There's a process to be followed, but as long as the correct steps are taken, the venue is quite irrelevant. One could ask on MSN or email or Facebook or any other number of places. If there was a question of collusion between the unblocker and the unblockee (definitely not the case in this instance) then one might be more hesitant due to any perception of a conflict of interest. But that would apply even if it was done here under the full public glare of Wiki. Orderinchaos 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of the problem here is just me not talking to the block admin, but that happens a lot. Frankly, when I blocked people, people don't tell me about unblocks or any reductions, so I guess it is a vicious cycle that is going to continue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. While incident indeed happened some time ago. BUT the problem surrounding it and outcome are still topical. Not only, that Piotrus friend's, User:Zscout370, unblocking summary is misleading (and the unblock was done in vio of policy), not only that Piotrus claims that his 3RR block was "hastily overturned by several admins", but that is more discouraging - that his friends trying to imply on this case, that Piotrus was blocked only once. Per WP:TE - Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor:....You have been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule, and misleading unblock lets indeed to overlook this aspect, while in fact tendentious edits of Piotrus are real problem. M.K. (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose whether to contact the blocking admin, discuss the issue on AN/I or limit the discussion to IRC was ZScout's not Piotrus. I believe Zscout was not correct here but it was not Piotrus's fault Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Piotrus is asked to voluntarily stand for re-confirmation of his adminship

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rationale missing. Past version of this proposal, before being refactored, was based on few cherry-picked comments critical of my various actions by few admins. Admins criticize one another all the time, just like everybody else. The important question is: how many of those criticized me as an administrator and suggested recall? And the answer is: not a single one of them suggested my recall (despite me being one of the few admins open to such a procedure), and the last time my recall was discussed, at RfC Piotrus, vast majority of editors discarded this as a pointless (if not bad faithed) idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on negative comments by 13 administrators at this Arbcom's statement and evidence, in addition to other editors' concerns. Novickas (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Vecrumba

Proposed actions and remedies

Demonstrate good faith

There are many areas of contention in the arena of Baltic, Central, and Eastern European history and geopolitics. Conflicting reputable sources will inevitably produce conflicting "truths." Where those "truths" are shown to be based on demonstrated, reputably verified, facts or events, those "truths"--which often also represent collective memory--shall be discussed with regard to creating article content in a collegial and congenial atmosphere. To demonstrate good faith, accusations that editors are exhibiting bad faith based on ethnic bias, religious bias, racial bias, nationalistic bias or are engaging in unethical conduct (for example, by suggesting they are dishonestly representing people or sources), et al. shall not be entered into by any editor nor shall they be tolerated. If an editor cannot discuss content devoid of accusing other editors of bad faith or dishonesty, they shall be given a warning and the opportunity to voluntarily excuse themselves from such article until they are prepared to be WP:CIVIL. If they continue to accuse editors, they shall be topic blocked or blocked more widely at the discretion of the admin(s) involved.
[text struck during refactoring deleted, updated text in red]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: this doesn't go far enough. A lot of the worst personal attacks flying in those context are not limited to ethnicity. As one of the very few editors in this mess editing under a real name, I don't care that much about ethnic based accusations (my Jewish best friend always gets a good laugh when I tell him why I was called an anti-semite), but accusations of "academic dishonesty" - like the ones which chased Balcer away, and like the ones I face as well - are much more serious and constitute a much more damaging libel. If the above proposal is not refactored to deal with such libel, it will not be effective in solving the situation. PS. See also my mini-essay on the importance of anonymity or lack of thereof. PSS. Further, I sincerely hope that this ArbCom will issue a series of bans (topic or otherwise), and not make random AE/AN(I) admins pick up the pieces afterwards (the inefficiency of the Digwuren's restriction proves that delegating authority is not very efficient). See another mini-essay of mine for the reasons behind this failure.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support now.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The mere fact of this repeat performance involving both a predictable as well as a demonstrably widening community of editors in conflict proves that "assuming" good faith, that reaffirming WP principles unanimously, etc., have no effect on such conflicts. Indeed, as these proceedings have become ever more vituperative, the affirmation of principles has become impotent because affirming principles does not require one iota of demonstrating adherence to any principle.

   When Petri Krohn's ban expires, he and I should be able to discuss history without his calling me an ethno-fascist or my calling him a neo-Salinist. Irpen should be able to discuss the Holodomor without being called a Russian nationalist (aside from the fact he's Ukrainian). When any number of editors interact with Boodlesthecat on the article on Polish Jewish-communism (Żydokomuna), they should be able to discuss sources and content without "Jew-baiting" and "anti-semite" defamations and comments in edit reverts. Polish and Lithuanian editors should be able to discuss inter-war (WWI-WWII) Polish-Lithuanian relations without recreating the conflict on WP. This is not a topic ban. It is not a ban from discourse on any topic or content. It IS a ban designed to stem the escalating assumptions of a priori bad faith as demonstrated in these proceedings. The only means to accomplish that at this point is to require editors to demonstrate good faith at every turn even when editors personally perceive "evidence to the contrary."

   (Truly) uninvolved admins should be able to readily determine whether accusatory or defamatory comments are in scope and act accordingly.

   If we cannot come out of these proceedings without agreeing to practice good faith by not leaping to accusations at every turn, then all this will have been for naught. Anyone who feels they cannot agree to this action and remedy is paying lip service to "assume good faith." —PētersV (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I would think we all would welcome a break from name-calling. I would have no objection, say, to a trial run to be reviewed at a 3 or 6-month interval. No remedy should be made permanent unless it can be shown to have produced a material benefit. —PētersV (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Refactored. Note that my own evidence in these proceedings regarding Irpen's representation of Davies and Wheatcroft (his summary versus the authors') would have resulted, going back in time, instead in our opening a RfC and both presenting our positions for further input and resolution, as opposed to our mutual accusations. —PētersV (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost there. What about replacing or are engaging in dishonest representations of sources with or suggesting their conduct is unethical (for example by suggesting they are engaging in dishonest representations of people or sources) ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, additional edit done (not quite same wording but should be equivalent). —PētersV (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. An encyclopedia should not be a mud-slinging contest. Nihil novi (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. As a suggestion, how about adding also:

A typical example when this should apply is when X presents a content dispute with Y with comments "This user [Y] expresses nationalism/anti-Semitism" or "This user [Y] is anti-Romanian/Polish/Russian/Ukrainian/Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian/Finish/Hungarian." or "This user supports a POV that is also supported by Hitler/Stalin." rather than X addressing the specific edits to articles.

Dc76\^talk 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. I would like to take this notion one step further and propose that WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and many other Wikipedia principles and behavioral guidelines—devised at the initial stages of the Project for less experienced audience—have become a laughing stock among long term users involved in content disputes, safely hidden from real-life accountability behind monikers, and only lashing out from under the cover of darkness against their opponents. --Poeticbent talk 21:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence gathering is not a priori bad faith

Who gathered what and when is a red herring unless that data or information gathered is subsequently used in a clearly malicious manner against an editor. If someone carries a gun for self-protection, one cannot make the accusation they therefore are planning to shoot someone, why else would they bother having a gun?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Ditto....--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Nihil novi (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with the condition that the "gun comaprision" is removed. The comparison IMHO is off. A better comparision would be jurnalistic investigation. If politician X finds a file gathered by journalist Y, that should not cary the same weight as if Y has already published something. Y might have simply gathered incomplete initial info, Y might realize in the future that some of that info does not constitute a case, and a lot of other mights. Y's ability to do investigative journalism should not be hindered by X. Dc76\^talk 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I believe this is clear enough to not require further explanation. Ruminating on possible intentions of bad faith in these proceedings is divisive at best. —PētersV (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiatus on editor-originated administrative actions in Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" Europe

aka Stop the Madness

We will never have a chance to LEARN to react with GOOD FAITH if we have Arbcom ever at the ready. I propose a six-month moratorium on all Arbom actions such as these. Admins would, in an observer role regarding Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" Europe, still have the option to propose and agree/disagree on admin actions in the event of any observed egregious behaviors not in keeping with the policy or spirit of WP.

This proposal specifically:

1. places a moratorium on Requests for Arbitration;
2. requests that (bot-automated) 3RR monitoring be implemented for all Baltic, Central, Eastern, "Soviet" Europe articles; 3RR violations to result in an automatic one-week block (also to be bot-automated and as immediate as possible);
3. bans accusations of meat-puppetry during the moratorium period;
4. allows checkuser requests; these to be reviewed by uninvolved admins;
5. bans personal attacks regardless of venue (note, this is implicitly covered by the admin observer role, but repeated here for clarity).

Editors to be barred for this period of time from lobbying admins--although it is recognized there is no way to enforce this if an editor and admin agree to communicate offline. Admins found to have participated in such offline lobbying shall be subject to being de-sysop'ed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment. It is true that past arbcoms have done little to address the core of this issue and that they represent a giant waste of time as editors involved have to play wikipolitics game instead of creating content. I do hope that this arbcom will be an exception, if not... I am split between agreeing with Peters and hoping that if not this one, maybe the next one will fix the problem. Or the next one... or the next one... sigh. I also find a second para unclear: are we forbidden to ask for enforcement of 3RR, for example? Or massive sockpuppeting? Perhaps this proposal should be rewritten, as a finding that some editors use those preceedings to harass opponents, chase them off or ban (as they cannot win content disputes otherwise), and the remedy is that those specific editors should have their rights restricted (as they seem to have abused them)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: can we extend bans accusations of meat-puppetry to bans personal attacks of any kind? I'd also suggest clarification of what they are, and how they should be dealt with (escalating blocks)?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Let's discover how amazingly productive we can be as a community if we spend our time on content. —PētersV (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I've added some more language in each of the specific areas Piotrus mentions. Let me know what I've missed. I'm hesitant to create a finding, as there will be as many abusers who contend RfA is a necessary tool as there are those who complain RfA is abused. The point is the RfA shouldn't happen in the first place and we should try "life without RfAs" for a period of time. —PētersV (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support 1. 2. 4. and 5. Do not know what to say about 3. as it is unclear to me how would that be used. So, for now, I enter "no oppinion" on 3.Dc76\^talk 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen and Piotus shake and we get on with editing

Irpen and Piotrus shake hands like Begin and Sadat, declare their conflict a huge misunderstanding based on a history of bad faith and editorial contentiousness in the Baltic, Central, Eastern, and "Soviet" European sphere, agree on withdrawing the RfA, and work together in a real task force to come up with community solutions and improvements, with an amnesty (no past diffs) declared for the B/C/E/"S" community and six-month moratorium on RfAs while positive supportive measures can be put into place.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Call me a utopian. —PētersV (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support a truthful handshake any time. See just the most recent thread where I discuss it with Piotrus. I support working together on a task force. I support a limited amnesty. Guaranteeing a moratorium is meaningless judging by how sour the things are (and it is certainly not just Irpen vs Piotrus) but I can say that I am eager to work in good faith to avoid any RfAs. Most importantly, I wanted all the participating editors to pledge on three things: 1) to never call in reverts off-line; 2) to never seek sanctions or blocks as a valid method of resolving content disputes, particularly off-line (like at IRC); and 3) to not log stuff for the purpose of having a weapon to use at an opportune time. I am certainly willing to abide by such restrictions that I followed all along anyway. The remedies I am going to propose are largely along the same lines. It was never my intention to have Piotrus blocked or restricted in any other way. I have no problem with those remedies being aimed at myself as well as refraining from the above mentioned practices is what I will always do. If we ban such conduct, however, we must acknowledge that it is harmful. So far, we were unable to do this, including at this very workshop. --Irpen 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems indeed a progress, as you are not asking me to admit I did things I didn't do. I can certainly pledge to the above with the understanding that it is simply confirming my normal editing policies. PS. I again would like to ask Irpen to pledge to refrain from discussing me and other editors like I asked him not to do before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am sincerely heartened by the above from Irpen and Piotrus. Discussing why editors did what they did, whether it was justified or not, and so on is only going to boil down to recriminations over the siege mentality that has developed on both sides. To improving circumstances, we must let go and start fresh. —PētersV (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, you don't have to "admit" to anything. What you did and what you did not do can be seen by anyone who reads evidence. The content of your black book and its fragments' being posted by you verbatim to AE and other boards at the opportune times (like this set [125] [126], this set [127] [128] or this set [129] [130]) as well as several #admins logs from this year [131] show whether or not you indeed sought sanctions of your content opponents by improper means and logged their activities to have a weapon ready to strike when the time is "ripe". If you (as well as everyone else) won't do it from now on we may see a great climate improvement in this sector of Wikipedia.

Vecrumba, the fault in your suggestion is that it paints this case merely a personal conflict and there are no bad behaviors to be considered by ArbCom. This ArbCom is not about a personal conflict and no ArbComs should be about personal conflicts. I support shaking hands and getting on with editing but this all was never about me. The problem here is not whether Piotrus, myself and you can shake hands because it was never about how we all like each other but it was all about conduct. No one should bring arbitration based on personal complaints. They should be about policy violations. I will be happy to be amiable with Piotrus. But there must be no policy violations and whether there were and if so, what can be done to prevent them from recurring, is what we are here to determine. If a handshake was all that is needed to stop revert wars coordinated by IM and sanctions of opponents being sought as means to win content disputes, I doubt we would have been where we are. Everyone agrees that such things aren't good. We can shake hands and pretend that nothing wrong was going on. But if we don't solve a problem we will be back arguing and complaining, perhaps at yet another arbcom, in no time as blockshopping and rabid revert warring will continue, quality of content will suffer and good editors will be getting burned out, leaving or getting radicalized. We are here to determine what needs to be done. Doing nothing did not help. Past arbcom decisions (general sanctions and loaded guns being handed to ANI courts) did not help but made situations worse. We need to find something that will work. --Irpen 09:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(quote [from Irpen]) "good editors will be getting burned out, leaving or getting radicalized." (endquote) Respectfully disagree with this quote. Good editors achieve their "radicalized state" approx. after 1-2 months on WP. From then on it's constant. So, seeing if a person gets more readicalized is IMHO a Litmus test for good editor. An especially dangerous form of radicalization is concentrating it on a number of "enemy" editors. Something that will work is to ban using WP politics to target others for "behavior". It should be ok to bring to ArbCom only cases based on content disputes on a larger topic, disputes that re-appear here and there over a period of time. ArbCom should itself discover "bad behavior". (By checking articles history or in talk pages, veryfying diffs.) ArbCom should not be told "Here I am going to present a case, but in fact you know it has a long pre-history of bad behavior, so I'm not going to bring you specific recent diffs - you of course are welcome to read this 200 pages independently until tomorrow morning -, but I will give you a general overview of this bad behavior with 2-years old diffs, which BTW we were told by a previos composition of the Arbcom, when you were not yet on it, that we should forget, but I won't tell you that so as not to undermine my case." Dc76\^talk 12:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Martintg

Proposed principles

Misleading evidence

Misrepresentation, manipulation and skewing of evidence presented to AN/I and other forums, including and not confined to:

• Tendentious presentation of out-of-context evidence about an editor in order to give the impression that he or she maliciously committed disruptive acts, in order to malign them
• Manipulation of a particular incident in order to lend credence to the first point, for example, by wrecking achieved consensus after the fact with meat puppetry so as to claim said consensus did not exist and thus advancing the notion the editor acted in bad faith, or by massively restructuring and deleting sourced content, with the assistance of tag teamers, from articles that have recently achieved A-class status in order to give the impression that the targeted editor is an unreasonable edit warrior.

is considered to be a form of particularly malicious incivility, which along with assumptions of bad faith, is especially damaging to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Intentionally or not, those issues contribute to the problem I outlined in this section of my evidence.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Probably could be expressed in a better way, but I think the gist of it is an important principle. Martintg (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Supported. PētersV (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that this proceeding follows a path driven by the rules. Let's use something else as an example, namely Holodomor. We can agree that it is a poster child for an article where two individuals can read the same exact source and come away with editorial conclusions that are 180 degrees from each other heading off to infinity in opposite directions. And so it is with "evidence" and the entire manner in which these proceedings are structured. Assume something is not "cut and dried" (some single act which so grossly violates WP policy that it cannot be subject to interpretation). Let's follow along:

 

1. Based on diffs, diffs encouraged and required.
   Diffs are quotes out of context. Let's not pretend they are anything else. Poster children for the phrase "cherry picked."
    
2. Context to diffs quotes out of context is provided by complainant
   This is a two part narrative:
   1. The assemblage and chronology of events
   2. The interpretation of said assemblage and chronology of events
       
3. Complainant's context is interpretive
   An interpretation is a version or view of facts, it is not factual, it is not in any way demonstrated to be true, Q.E.D., beyond all doubt.
    

So, what does that make a Request for Arbitration? We all present evidence as if it's

 

Q.E.D. (that would be black and white)

 

when we're really after a:

 

conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (that would be shades of gray)

 

where we view our own role through rose coloured glasses.

 

So, what is the answer? I would suggest the following:

1. Require pointers to conversation threads, not to diffs out of context.
2. Complainant summarizes their complaint and conclusion succinctly, not peppered with a dozen diffs.
3. Interpretation is left to admins who read through the conversation threads and come to their own conclusions as regards the complainant's interpretation.

 

Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention. —PētersV (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. This analysis really gets to the nub of a major problem: much of the mud that is slung comprises diffs taken out of context. Nihil novi (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support both Martin's proposal and Peters' three-point "answer to the problem". Dc76\^talk 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Ostap

Proposed findings of fact

Piotrus has done nothing to warrant disciplinary action

1) There is no solid evidence that Piotrus has done what he is accused of [132]. He is not combative, no evidence that he uses meatpuppets, he is not uncivil, no evidence that he is in command of a personal cabal, no evidence that he abuses his admin status and his evidence gathering was within norms of the community. Because he has done nothing wrong, he does not deserve any disciplinary action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support without qualification or reservation. Nihil novi (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per Nihil Novi. Tymek (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Dc76\^talk 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

No action taken against Piotrus

1) Nothing should be done to Piotrus (except perhaps praise of his content creation as Alex Bakharev suggested above). He should not be banned, desysopped, forced to have his adminship re-confirmed, or whatever else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support unreservedly. This is the most concise and appropriate conclusion possible concerning this sorry proceeding. Nihil novi (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Support again. Piotrus is a person to whom Wikipedia owes a lot. Tymek (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Dc76\^talk 12:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strong support. Extremely important. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to flame those with different POV. PS: Sam proposed an identical policy above, I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Self-evident, but I have no problem with principles which state the obvious. They have to be considered traditional by now. Perhaps the committee could have them turned into boilerplate text on a template and included on the decision page when the case is opened. It would save time and allow editors unfamiliar with the arbitration process to see what a principle actually looks like. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree that edit war against consensus as in this case indeed falls under such definition (one can see from the diffs that the same user I. repeatedly reverts changes by many different editors). Otherwise, this is very subjective. We know that individual reverts are allowed. What is indeed explicitly forbidden are 3RR violations. One could rule that any user who made more than N 3RR violations will be automatically placed on 1RR restriction. That would be objective and fair.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard principle that applies pretty much everywhere. 3RR is not an entitlement to revert war. Even 1 revert per day can be considered an edit war in some cases. If the ideal cycle is followed strictly by users in a dispute, then there shouldn't be an issue - that cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is what to do when BRD breaks down. Particularly when dealing with "true believers", who refuse any discussion other than the one everybody completly agrees with them. What happens is that we file for an RfC, get neutral editors who usually disagree with the "true believers", but who often will not edit the article - they consider their role "done" after a comment or two. And the "true believers" are always happy to skirt the 3RR. Only when enough editors disagree with them on talk and keep reverting them in mainspace, they go away - usually by moving to another article (hence the "traveling circus" term coined in Folantin's discussions some time ago). As I've described in another of my mini-essays - this one on edit warring - often the choice neutral editor face is to give up and let the edit warring "true believers" win, ask admins for intervention (which often will not be given until 3RR has been broken or at least approached consistently for some time), or keep reverting the "true believers", risking to be branded edit warriors themselves. What's more, with the traveling circus approach this goes on and on, leading to the point that editors familiar with "true believers" know that discussion is close to pointless ("true believers" often recycle the same arguments on discussion pages and engage in personal attacks), but have to go through the pain of showing this to neutral RfC editors over and over, in each new article visited by the circus. In other words - when the "discussion" part breaks down, the entire system is in trouble, yet proving to neutral observers that the "true believers" have an established record of not discussing in good faith is quite difficult (which is when you get radicalization). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you're encountering troubles with a problem editor, you should try to comply with these 3 fundamental principles as much as possible. When the cycle breaks down, you use the dispute resolution process - tendentious editing is increasingly becoming well recognized by both the community and the Committee and is being treated accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is usually not "treated accordingly". To the contrary, things becomes worse and worse. That is why we have this case. What we actually need is an editorial board that rules on the article's content. We only went as far only because there are a few dedicated wikipedians like Piotrus or Connelly who act as de facto members of the content editorial board in WP (which does not mean these people are always right). I am going to always support such people, even if I had a few disputes with them (and in fact I had such dispute with Connelly), because this is needed for the sake of the project.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are being treated accordingly - I presume you may not be having much success due to a severely flawed approach or because of the nature of this dispute. The community has ridden the project of several such editors in the past few months alone. While there were several considerations, one of them being that the community was ready to handle such users, both the community and the Committee explictly rejected an idea of a sourcing adjudication board, let alone a content editorial board. Obviously, certain disputes like this one aren't going to get looked at by the community - far too many parties, not enough concrete evidence for some claims, area of editing, type of user etc. etc. etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and in 99% BRD works. The problem is when in the remaining 1% it doesn't. That happens when few editors - "true believers" - refuse to participate in the D part (discussion) - they discuss, all right, but simply to restate that they are right and their opponents are wrong (peppered with personal attacks). Eventually, DR and input of neutral editors makes them give up on a given article for a period of time, while at the same time they disrupt other articles with "tendentious editing" and increasingly harass their opponents wherever they can. True, our system at the end usually does the right thing - but it takes so long to do the right thing, that in the meantime, many editors give up and leave (and those who stand up to disruptive users slowly see their reputation ruined). I don't think we need a content board - what we need is a way to deal with radicalized editors and "true believers" faster, a way that would make the life easier for civil content creators and others who are here to try to build an encyclopedia (and a way that would make life more difficult for flamers and trolls). PS. Consider why I have never initated an ArbCom or even RfC myself: because they cost so much time and stress and prevent me from creating content (which is the reason I joined this project) that I preffer to suffer the harassmet rather than to invest a ton of time required to deal with it (and the ton of time I invested in the arbcoms I was made a party to in the past has in any case not been sufficient, as the harassers I and others mentioned then are still at large and happily mudding the waters in this case, too). It is only because I saw good editors and content creators chased away by the harassers that I started to compile evidence (and also because I knew that the harassers would start a new arbcom involving me eventually). Bottom line is that good, civil content creators are leaving, and wikipolitics savvy harassers require a ton of effort to deal with. The system is not broken, but it is in dire need of repair. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. The general atmosphere in the Russian/EE section of WP is much worse than it was two years ago, and this case is much worse than anything I have seen before. I almost stopped creating anything new, because I am closely watched by a tag team. This project is breaking down.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate these responses. Unfortunately, detecting these type of editors can be difficult, as these editors often do not directly violate the conduct standards, and if they do, it is often overlooked because of compliance with the principle of assuming good faith. Going through the edits of such an editor can have a draining effect (or one that produces burn-out, as Raul654 has said in an essay, iirc). Overall, it can take a long before anything is done. I know some users are trying to find quicker ways of identifying such editors and putting a stop to their disruption. Unfortunately, I personally don't think there are any shortcuts, or much we can do beyond what is done already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps the biggest danger to the project. The software can scale up, but can the community? As civil editors are burnt out/chased away, and uncivil flamers/harassers remain, I am afraid that the proportions of disruptive users to the rest of the community is increasing, resulting in a vicious downward spiral creating more and more battlegrounds, radicalized editors, and such. How to deal with it? Of course, this is the one million barnstars question :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree that the EE (have worked minimally on Russian) section of WP has gotten much worse over the past couple of years, per Biophys. And it is ALL, I repeat, ALL the result of one-dimensional POV pushing. Single issue voters have remanifested themselves as single issue single POV editors. And so...

• "Adding materials based on reputable sources"--easily becomes "MY" reputable sources only
• Disputing the reputability of reputable sources--this happens endlessly, sometimes deserved, but now far more often to the purpose of eliminating balanced article narrative, that is:
  • HERE IS MY REPUTABLE SOURCE SUPPORTING MY POV
  • THEREFORE YOUR SO-CALLED REPUTABLE SOURCE NOT SUPPORTING MY REPUTABLE SOURCE ("my reputable source" being code words for "my highly POV interpretation of this particular source") IS WRONG AND INADMISSIBLE
  • edit war follows
• I hold out Boodlesthecat as just one among this class of editor. All reputable sources support their one-sided portrayal of a subject. Any editorial expression which does not support their POV is summarily deleted EVEN WHEN TAKEN FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES ALREADY CITED IN THE ARTICLE. Any sources which might provide perspective to the subject do not apply to the subject.

Good writing about history demands a priori the use of numerous reputable sources and not endlessly disputing those sources (except when in error, and I had one of those arguments with the now banned Anonimu). Good writing about history weaves an informative narrative that incorporates numerous reputable sources offering multiple insights. The community of editors willing to edit to such consensus, to write an informative narrative based on numerous reputable sources, not just the "single definitive source" (theirs), has dwindled to a handful. Most of those reputable and thoughtful editors have been run off over the last two years and Wikipedia is the far, far, far poorer for it. Meanwhile, the true believers point to their accomplishments in beating down their opposition and increasing the crop of dismally one-sided articles. —PētersV (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard, as per Sam above. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consider a user who repeatedly inserts a claim that Earth is flat, or a user who is trying to "prove" that Jews deserve to be exterminated. Is that a good-faith dispute?Biophys (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Every POV has the right to be represented in due weight. The problem is, what to do with "true believers", who refuse to compromise and adhere to NPOV? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom should settle guide-lines for resolving recurrent content disputes, when a topic (not just an article, but a wide range of them) gets bugged. In a sense, ArbCom is the authority that writes a "How to" guide for admins to take actions, and also the ArbCom takes itself the initail action that it deems necessary in order to start implementing the "How to" guide, for example ArbCom can ban a user or two that would otherwise undermine the application of the "How to" guide. Conclusion: 1) A good-faith content dispute is always resolved in the articles' talk, it never gets to ArbCom. 2) If it got to ArbCom, it is either a bad-faith dispute or an attempt to use WP-politics to hurt an "enemy", if not by banning him, at least by taking so much of his time that he no longer edits content. So, filing such ArbCom cases is a win-win situation for those that cannot do a dispute in the talk page and actually arrive at something there. Dc76\^talk 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A very good conclusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vested contributors

5) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "permitted" instead of "expected". There are plenty of good editors who don't ignore all rules from time to time, too; that isn't considered a failing.... Also, I'm not certain about the title. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, however in my experience "strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia" very rarely go together with "excuse repeated violations of basic policy". The real problem is that it is not easy to deal with users whose contributions to the encyclopedia are small, but who combine "excuse repeated violations of basic policy" with high skills in wikilawyering (and/or support by tag teams). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree, but the following may be more relevant in this case: WP is not a justice system. The purpose of ArbCom is to ensure good work of the project. To achieve that goal, it is important to provide good working conditions for the most productive contributors, unless these contributors violate WP policies, as proven beyond the reasonable doubt. So, I believe the productivity of an editor is an important factor, and Piotrus was many times more productive than other people involved in this case, perhaps excluding only Deacon.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we still have such a spirit of the project rule somewhere, regarding the ArbCom? It should be a bolded motto at the top of every page here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Nyb, though I'd probably favour keeping the title as is as opposed to something like 'established users'. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, permitted isn't quite the word either. Keeping it implict may be a good idea here too; "editors might make mistakes...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But we're used to it being called "Vested Contributors" now! Yes, "expected" is not quite the word, nor is "permitted" I fear. "It is accepted that editors may make mistakes ..."? And that's not so great either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

6) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Circumstantial evidence

7) Absent an extraordinary and compelling need to do so, the Committee will not sanction an editor solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In particular, editors will not be sanctioned for participating in a collective violation of policy without direct and concrete evidence of their involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Defining an extraordinary and compelling need will vary with interpretation, and it's probably better to keep it implicit. Although I like most of what is said, I'd prefer a little less rigid wording. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not clear what is "direct and concrete evidence". For example, would a preliminary agreement of users I and R followed by a synchronized edit war constitute an evidence of collective action? Or would an open admission of users I and A to work as a team constitute a direct evidence of collective action? I am not talking about violation - that should be determined by ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This wording suggests Case dismissed due to lack of direct evidence, although there was a lot of circumstancial one. In fact it should be Case filed in bad-faith. No evidence to alegations were found. Evidence found for using ArbCom cases in a campain of wikilawyering. Wikilawyers given a cool-off period for filing cases. Dc76\^talk 12:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Case filled/evidence presented in bad faith" is a very important finding to consider. Are certain editors presenting evidence to address honestly perceived grievances - or are they presenting it so they can harass, defame and chase off their content opponents? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Compelling, yes, but not extraordinary. If it were truly extraordinary there wouldn't be an average of 2-3 cases running at any one time, half or more of which end with some form of sanctions. As for circumstantial evidence, that is used frequently elsewhere on Wikipedia (WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, probably others). I see no reason why it shouldn't be acceptable here. I don't see this as a very sound general principle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Endemic conflict

1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The above sentence may imply partial recognition of my motion above, as so far the only official parties are me and Deacon (and I've never been involved in OoL and AndriyK arbcoms).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, as a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

2) All articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are currently subject to discretionary sanctions, as outlined in the Digwuren case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sanctions which have proven game'able/disruptable by tag teams (example1, example2).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Coordinated editing

3) It is almost certain that externally coordinated editing—meaning an off-wiki, premeditated undertaking by several editors to perform certain agreed-upon (whether in specific or general form) edits—has taken place, and continues to take place, on articles within the area of conflict. However, because such external coordination leaves little or no direct evidence, it is generally difficult to distinguish among several possible scenarios:

(a) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A and B have explicitly coordinated their editing.

(b) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A has a personal relationship B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.

(c) Editor A edits in support of editor B because A shares a national, ethnic, or other viewpoint with B, but where A and B have not explicitly coordinated their editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thoughts. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In certain cases people make a preliminary agreement on wiki or openly admit that they are going to support each other, as in two examples I provided above. In other cases, this may be judged as WP:DUCK, but this should be a clear pattern through a number of different situations or articles. For example, a continuous support by an administrator of users clearly identifiable as a group (by arguing in their favor at the ANI), may represent such case.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also a self-fulfilling prophecy - radicalization - occurring with coordination. When I first came to this project, I made a point of keeping any kind of communication on wiki, I even frowned at email, used to reply to wiki email with a comment "please consider communicating with me via talk pages in the future". But after continued accusations of cabalism and bad faith, email and IMs became more attractive, as they lessen the chance one will be accused of canvassing or cabalism. I still try to use on-wiki communication to the maximium, and off-wiki to the minimum, but in the end, any on wiki comment I make can be called by some bad-faithed harasser of mine canvassing, and such an accusation is in 99% unactionable - ignored on AN(I) as a "personal attack" of little seriousness and so on. And when using a private communication channel, radicalized attitudes become more likely to be expressed (people may say things in an email or in IM that they wouldn't say in public, IRC is the case in point as some people consider it private and others don't). Does it mean that (build in wiki) email or IMs should be forbidden? Of course not (this is not only impossible, but IMs in particular offer instantaneous communication, not offered by mediawiki). The real problem is bad faith and personal attacks, which leads to radicalization and teaches users that they should use off-wiki communication. Unlike unprovable off-wiki misdoings, bad faith, expressed on wiki, like accusations of canvassing and cabalism, is also identifiable and actionable. If there would be no bad faith and accusations in the first place, there would be much less off-wiki communication, and much less radicalization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Heightened tensions

4) Because of the endemic, long-term conflicts plaguing the topic area, many editors have at times experienced understandable—though regrettable—difficulty with assuming good faith of their counterparts. In such an environment, it is unfortunately possible for certain actions to be regarded as provocative even if the actions are not problematic in and of themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

More thoughts. Peaceful coexistence in this area requires a certain voluntary restraint beyond that expected of other areas. Kirill ^(prof) 03:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. We want experienced editors and administrators to help work on contentious articles. Because of the difficulty in dealing with these topics, I understand that at times the good faith efforts of editors and admins will not work and perhaps even make a situation worse. But that said, these editors and admin need to take stock of the situation, and if their contributions are not helping then they need to reconsider their approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think we should clearly define what is "provocation" and what is not. I think that insertion of properly sourced materials in an article can never be regarded as a provocation and belongs to good faith disputes (see above).Biophys (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Radicalization is unfortunate, but should not be accepted. As soon as it is detected, affected users showing bad faith and similar symptoms should be subject to mentoring and the community should try to revert the radicalization. Of course, "true believers" that are impossible to de-radicalize and whose actions result in increased radicalization all around should be dealt with more harshly.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Per one part of FloNight's comment, I think this isn't a finding that can ever be limited to one area of the pedia - all problem areas will have such heightened tensions. I was going to suggest changing this into a principle earlier for that reason. However, I don't think this is something that necessarily should be specified or else it'll be constantly championed by parties as an excuse rather than as something that uninvolved users excuse/discard themselves when and where appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When people start seeing conspiracy lurking in off-wiki communications and "black books", start seeing "sophisticated incivility" in a thankyou note and start railing against "arbitrators' glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics", I'm thinking "burn-out", and I am thinking there may perhaps be a need for a long enforced wiki-break. Martintg (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At minimum, the wording should interchange the words "understandable" and "regretful". It is much more regretful, and it is hardly-hardly understandable. Per Ncmvocalist above, I also think this can be misused as an excuse. Dc76\^talk 12:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty

5) On 19 August 2007, as part of the decision in the Piotrus [1] case, a general amnesty was granted to "editors who [had] been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe, liberally defined".

Comment by Arbitrators:

More background. Kirill ^(prof) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is violating the amnesty punishable? Some editors have presented much or even most of the evidence based on pre-amnesty diffs (including some brought to arbcom before and ignored). This has not been criticized by clerks or arbcom members and contributes to making the amnesty solution worthless. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, everything that had happened prior to this amnesty should be disregarded here.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to add "but the circumstances of this case are evidence that some forgot to bury the hatchet Dc76\^talk 12:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Piotrus. Clerks should ask to remove all pre-amnesty evidence about people noted in the amnesty.Biophys (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment above. Most editor's contributions must already exceed the 1000 word limit, so if this amnesty has any credibility, the clerks ought to remove all pre-amnesty diffs and related text. Only then will there be a clear picture of what alleged infractions have been committed since that point in time. Martintg (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor findings

Alden Jones

6.1) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alex Bakharev

6.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Boodlesthecat

6.3) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Calgacus

6.4) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deacon of Pndapetzim

6.5) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Greg park avenue

6.6) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Irpen

6.7) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jeeny

6.8) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lokyz

6.9) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M.K

6.10) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

M0RD00R

6.11) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Malik Shabazz

6.12) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Martintg

6.13) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Matthead

6.14) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Molobo

6.15) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Novickas

6.16) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Piotrus

6.17) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Poeticbent

6.18) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Relata_refero

6.19) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sciurinæ

6.20) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stor stark7

6.21) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tymek

6.22) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {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.

Editors urged

1) In the interests of reducing the tensions in this area of editing, all involved editors are urged to voluntarily undertake the following:

(a) to refrain from externally coordinating edits (in particular, but not limited to, making off-wiki requests that certain edits be reverted or re-instated)

(b) to refrain from seeking blocks or other sanctions, both on- and off-wiki, as a method of resolving content disputes

(c) to refrain from maintaining lists of material for the purpose of using them in hypothetical future disciplinary proceedings

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Irpen's comments above; other items may be added later. Kirill ^(prof) 03:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• I think ArbCom should make a ruling/advice about this. My opinion:
  • (a) Agree with the idea, but this is not enforceable; this is good only as a declaration of intentions;
  • (b) Disagree. The entire idea of "block shopping" seems to be wrong. 90% of on-wiki complaints to ANI or individual administrators are made by people who are personally involved in a conflict. This is fine. On-wiki or off-wiki does not really matter. Only one thing matters: if an action by an admin was proper. How this admin had learned about the problem is unimportant. Admins do not penalize users for content disputes; they penalize people only to stop disruption or violations of policies, such as copyright problems, BLP problems, uncivil behavior, etc.
  • (c) Disagree. ArbCom should encourage, not discourage collection of evidence on violators of policies.Biophys (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment on (b). "as a method of resolving content disputes" - certainly, seeking blocks for that is bad. But seeking blocks for users who violate policy with disruptive editing (ex. harassment and personal attacks) is a different thing. However, a lot of savvy harassers will portray themselves as victims of content disuptes - since in fact they did start as content disputers, lost the dispute, started harassing the winners, and when the winners complain about the harassment, the harassers say "we are being targeted because the winners want to silence us in the content dispute". I am sure this can also occur without the winners/losers - the discussion may be ongoing, but as long as one side is harassing the others, the victims complain, and the harassers complain about the victims complaining framing it as a content dispute, not a harassment dispute, the pattern holds.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the points:

(a) I agree with this, but as Biophys says, it is not enforceable.

(b) Does this contradict the intent of the existing discretionary sanction, which is enforced by block? Is there evidence that admins have difficulty distinguishing between a block shop exercise and a legitimate request for assistance?

(c) Thinking outside the box here, perhaps this is what EE needs: each editor could maintain a list of diffs for alleged wrong doings if they wish, with a rolling one month window where diffs older than one month fall off the list and cannot be used for any future complaints. This list would then be a good feed mechanism to help other editors evaluate their own behaviour lest the growing diff list be used to invite admin intervention. Martintg (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) Agree, but it is a pity it is not enforceable.

(b) Disagree. Makes haven for vandals.

(c) Disagree. There was an ArbCom case about Transnistria, in which it was proven that a now banned editor mentained at least 3 accounts, developed them over more than a year with invented identities (one Brtish, one Branzilian, one Indian) and used them very succesfully in "votes". The case was proven only when over 300 (!) diffs were presented to the ArbCom and ArbCom allowed a checkuser. What if it were forbidden to gather that evidence? (Note, that wasn't me.) Look now at the article, there is more than a year without edit warring!!! Dc76\^talk 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Remark: for this remedy to be of any use, the Committee needs to sculpt it a "backbone." Thus far, the behavioural issues rife in the concerned areas of editing have failed to vanish on their own; a plea for the editors to adjust their editing habits would not be out of place in a utopian community, but I cannot reasonably foresee it in practice being effective. Perhaps a clause to the effect of "editors who violate these will have their actions scrutinised by the Committee by means of a future case;" or indeed, perhaps discretionary sanctions, authorising the dispensing of restrictions on those who fail to heed the above requests. As this remedy stands, however: it is on the correct track, but in its current state lacks the gravitas necessary for it to work. AGK 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Ncmvocalist

Proposed principles

Circumstantial evidence

The Committee are unlikely to sanction an editor solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In particular, editors are unlikely to be sanctioned for participating in a collective violation of policy, without direct and concrete evidence of their involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

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

Irpen's discovery of Piotrus' evidence list: evidence of stalking?

Irpen's claim that he "accidentally" discovered this list[133] via some unrelated Google searching doesn't add up. What possible combinations of search terms could reveal this evidence list? Was the list apparent in the first couple of pages of results or did he have to dig down and sift through dozens of pages of Google search results?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps Irpen could post the original google url that contains the search strings that lead him to "accidentally" discover this list. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I was about to leave for a few days but I've got to respond to this vile. Martin, you are effectively accusing me of lying. I can only repeat that my explanation given in this thread is the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Black Book was on the first page of google results. Maybe Pitorus made some sort of a mistake when he left the page in the intermediate condition for several days and it made it googleable at that particular unfortunate time of our unrelated dispute when he challenged me to find the reference to our past discussion claiming he never said what he said. Piotrus took measures to prevent his Black Book discovery by logging out before adding stuff to it. So I would not have been able to find it by stalking. That is on top of the fact that I certainly never ever stalked Piotrus. I really do not remember the exact date nor the google string as I explained here. I have no habit of lying. There must be a limit Martin to the absurd nonsense you keep saying around about myself. It is plain obvious by now that you conduct is egregiously vindictive. Grow up! --Irpen 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So Irpen explains that he has found the black book accidentally doing a vanity search. What are the other theories? The edits were done from a dynamic IP on Polish wiki. Irpen monitors all the recent changes in Polish wiki? Irpen monitors all the anonymous IP from Pensylvania? It looks like extraordinary hypothesises require extraordinary proof. Unless the proof is provided I would ote oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Alex, the hypothesis that Irpen found the evidence page "by accident", with it appearing on the first page of the returned Google results as he claims, is indeed extraordinary. Hence that was why I asked for the Google URL Irpen used so that we can replicate the result. Martintg (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I made at least one edit, early on, logged in ([134]). As I've explained: I wanted to keep this semi-private (hidden from google to avoid offending people doing google vanity search), but if anybody wanted to dedicate considerable time to stalking my pl edits, it was findable. I can think of several other ways one could trace me, too. I was curious if anybody would be that dedicated. Apparently, somebody was. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen's evidence of "Sophisticated incivility"

In presenting evidence of "sophisticated incivility" on the evidence page, Irpen clearly demonstrates how this terminal lack of good faith gets in the way of effective collaboration with some editors, and why Irpen needs to be placed on a permanent "wikibreak" from interacting with some people.

Case in point is this episode Irpen presents from March 2007 (paraphrased below from the evidence page), where any other editor involved in a tough content dispute would have taken Piotrus' initial words of thanks with good grace and even humour (and thus would have ended the matter), however Irpen sees it as "one step to far":

• Here Piotrus makes a completely uncalled for post at my talk "thanking" me for my "bad edits" that prompted him to spend so much time on a particular article. His wish to "Keep it up and I am sure we will see it on FAC in the near future :)" is very civil without doubt. When I calmly respond that this post is just "one step too far" and that he "used to avoid needlessly inflaming matters which this post is nothing but" Piotrus continues his offensive taunting claiming that there was no sarcasm and he finds my actions to "motivate him to work harder on Wikipedia" and that he is "thanking me again for that". I responded that I won't feed him anymore but apparently Piotrus feels he has not taunted me enough yet. He comes back and accuses me of bad faith edits aimed at "disrupting an article pushing my POV" and this is always "feeding" him to spend more time on that. Only when I say that any of his further such entries that are nothing but banal harassment will be simply removed, he stops.

There is nothing particularly wrong with having tough content disputes, as it challenges editors to produce the best possible content particularly when there are competing narratives, which benefits the project in the long run. The problem is that when the content dispute is settled, some editors continue to bear ill will against their opponents long after. This ill-will is manifested in the seemingly never-ending stream of EE cases brought before ArbCom, which is poisoning the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is not isolated, Irpen has on occasion called Vecrumba's good faith comments "vicious". Perhaps a Polish and Baltic topic ban for Irpen may be the answer here. I can't recall any significant contribution from Irpen in those areas anyway, apart from driving away several good editors with his combative attitude. Martintg (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that much of his diffs fall within the scope of Piotrus 1 general amnesty remedy. If I were to ignore the amnesty and present evidence of past wrongdoings on the part of some editors, my evidence would be several times longer... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Preventing the Proton-Antiproton (aka Piotrus/Vercumba/etc-Irpen) collisions can be achieved effectively by limiting the places this can occure. So in view of Irpen's grudge (I infer it from the cited text above) and unwillingness to forget (even when asked by the ArbCom case Piotrus1), a narrow topic ban could help. For example, not on all Polish and Baltic topics, but only on Polish/Baltic-Soviet/Russian interactions (b/c the problems stem from Piotrus creating/expanding articles in that areas, and Irpen attacking them). Contributing to, say bibliography of a Polish scientist or architecture of a building in a Baltic country, is ok. So, they will continue to interact only in places where there is no conflict. Dc76\^talk 08:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "No conflict" between individual parties in this RfA means "where there has been no Soviet presence". This is simply not workable. Editor topic bans in the larger context here are a band-aid on a community problem. I have suggested amnesty and the RfA editor-on-editor moratorium so we can

• never dredge up the past again and
• move ahead with our lives, editorial and otherwise

Everyone has professed their desire to live their WP lives in good faith. This is simply not possible while we drag around past baggage. It only takes one (unfounded) accusation of bad faith to spiral into endless recriminations over everything that has ever happened all taken in the worst light, hashing through everything again. (And without ever posting it I deleted a hashing of the past which I fell into as part of this edit.) As much as I would appreciate the dispensing of punishments or restrictions in certain areas, I'm willing to forgo that if Arbcom can give us the simple (if drastic) ruling I request.

   Should Arbcom note that such a drastic solution and opportunity to move forward does not improve the participation of particular editors regarding particular topics, a specific topic ban would be open to being revisited by Arbcom and NOT at the instigation of an editor-on-editor RfA during the moratorium period. —PētersV (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We have proven over and over again that the "fair" solutions in these conflicts which mete out punishment "equally" to "both sides" to teach "both" to cease and desist from future conflict DO NOT WORK. Equal punishment does not work--in fact, it breeds extraordinarily bitter resentment on both sides, just causing future trenches to be dug even deeper and even larger artillery to be applied to future conflicts in order to avenge the past. So if we are going to continue on the road of equal fairness, let's take the high road and go for equal amnesty and for the moratorium to insure such amnesty has time to "stick." —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of M.K and Novickas

Looking at the articles presented in evidence of conflict, it is obvious they are mostly concerned with areas of shared Lithuanian-Polish history. What they are basically asking of Arbcom here, in a nut shell, is assistance in giving the Lithuanian viewpoint the upper hand in these content disputes over shared Lithuanian-Polish history, by asking Arbcom to sanction one of the most effective and prolific Polish editors Wikipedia has in its stable.

While I have deep empathy with Lithuania and Poland due to my interest in Baltic and East European history generally, I am disturbed by the inability by some to play the ball and not the person and focus on the bigger issue concerning all of EE: that of Russian nationalists and their supporters pushing Soviet era POV. I was involved briefly in the content dispute in Holocaust in Lithuania and disagreed with some of the material written by Piotrus, but I have no bone to pick with him, ultimately the content dispute which Vecrumba helped to mediate was resolved and the article's quality immeasurably improved as a result. Re-opening these past content disputes and bringing them here says more about the complainant than anything else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Exactly. And this attitude is shared by other parties: Boody wants to portray Jewish historiography as one and only and ignore the Polish historiography (since all Polish historians are anti-semitic ethnonationalists...), Irpen wants to cite Meltyukhov to support modern "Putin-approved" version of history and he wants to hide negative reviews of his work, and so on... And it is not suprising: for "true believers", there is only one POV - theirs - and it is the "Truth", to be enshrined as NPOV in Wikipedia, and any who disagree are evil. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A sense of perspective is needed here. Martintg (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The perspective is obvious, imho: "ultimately the content dispute which Vecrumba helped to mediate was resolved and the article's quality immeasurably improved as a result". Ask Vercumba (and others) in the future to mediate again. Dc76\^talk 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading evidence

I'd like to draw attention to the post by a neutral admin (with whom I've never interacted before this arbcom): [135]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment. This is a very, very important point that ArbCom needs to address, being the dishonest editing that happens in ANI and other forums, with the falsification, misrepresentation and skewing of evidence. There needs to be a statement of principle in this regard. Martintg (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; could you propose one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Tag_team_1:_Russian

Comparison of Irpen's and Piotrus' daily new article edit count (averaged over a 12 week sliding window) by mainspace

Piotrus has provided an interesting graph in this section of his evidence, which piqued my curiosity. I have made the following analysis and supply it without comment here for discussion. There are plenty of tools available, so other interested people may make their own analyses if they wish.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Interesting. I'd assume that the last dip in my mainspace contribs (proportional to no-mainspace edits) represents this arbcom. the dip in the middle of 2007 (around Jul) represents Piotrus 1 ArbCom. The second, smaller dip later that year represents the Digwuren arbcom I was not that active in. I honestly have no idea giant dip in the middle of 2006. Do note that from Piotrus 1 arbcom onwards, there is a correlation between my and Irpen editing pattern - we both have the same "dips", which represent participation in the same giant, time-consuming arbcoms - which as the graph shows represent now vast majority of what Irpen does on Wikipedia. PS. see also analysis of Irpen's edits I posted in evidence - more detail available following the link in the heading of this section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard disclaimers apply. Martintg (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Darwinek

Several days ago I suffered a headache. Why? I went through only several percent of this RFARB comments/statements/evidence. I am absolutely cool and neutral about this RFARB, and to be honest with you, I don't really care about the outcome. From my outside point of view it seems to be just a heated, self-accelerating confrontation between two parties. Alex is my friend, Piotrus is my friend, I have good relations with some users who confront with Piotrus, although I must admit some users act frequently below the line of good behaviour. Both parties have positive input in en wp, both create good and valuable articles about Poland or Lithuania (which is btw extremely vital in WP overflowed with articles about Texas or California), both enrich our community, but both also confront each other and from time to time participate in some edit warring (which I was regrettably participant a few times) and heated discussions. It is clear to me that some users feel strong negative feelings towards each other, which rather don't help our community. I would like to see both parties happy and content. But this is not some Pleasantville, WP is a part of real world and various confrontations occur in real world. This process is healthy for any society, as it denotes plurality, so precious. I know, I know, "Wikipedia is not a democracy", I just wanted to remind that 1.) Both parties confront (sometimes in nasty way) and ain't holy. 2.) It is quite normal, although more temperance is definitely needed. One closing remark - I think members of ArbCom and other users who will try to resolve this case should get some huge hug or free beer from all participants, because it's a really huge (amount of text, diffs etc.) case. Regards and good luck to all. - Darwinek (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, you named incorrectly one party: it is not Alex. That's the whole problem. I think Alex is only forced by the circumstances of the case and his country of origin to be part of this.Dc76\^talk 08:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes him a party.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)