Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn

User:Otto ter Haar objection moved from page dor misplacement

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

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

"Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a mathematician. Call it professional cretinism, if you will.

Everything about the 'I believe' and 'here's what I propose' I consider implicit in the 'short form'. I can see mainly three reasonable kinds of responses to such a form:

1. The respondent may discover faults in the complaint, and point them out.
2. The respondent may review the complaint, find it to be valid, and correct himself accordingly.
3. The respondent may review the complaint, find it to be formally valid yet failing to take into account important other considerations, and point out what they should be.

I can't even imagine a proverbial book in which [3] would be a reasonable response to a behavioural complaint. Digwuren 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested that Pan Gerwazy has already concluded that I "sound like a lawyer". Digwuren 21:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, such "implicitness" ("All my statements are true, so there is no need to present them as an opinion") usually leads to flame wars, not conflict resolution. There is also a fourth possibility: the respondent may consider things like "weird fantasies" trolling and not respond at all, per the appropriate policy. --Illythr 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. The implicit impliedness is "All my statements are generated by me, and thus, I happen to believe them, and insomuch as they represent opinions, they are my opinions." Your "fourth possibility" is certainly not reasonable approach. Digwuren 07:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're talking to a telepath, such an implication will be deciphered correctly only in your mind. Ignoring trolling comments is actually suggested. If you believe your comment was incorrectly identified as trolling, consider rephrasing it in a less hostile manner. --Illythr 23:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a moot point, since Bishonen has asked on Petri Krohn's talk page whether he wants to waive mediation and continue with the RFC to air these matters, since these matters will likely end up in ArbCom anyway. Martintg 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn's behavior

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

What actually is most worrying is that Petri isn't even trying to discuss things, he just keeps pushing his POV without discussion. For example, see [4] or [5]- there are more. If asked on his own talk page, the best we can get are insults such as "do not feed the trolls".

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

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

DLX 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The second link added by User:DLX is a typical example of Digwurens (and his supporters) behavior, that I consider trolling and personal attacks. The section is titled Petri Krohns continued attempts of reverting. Digwuren has at least five times posted discussion sections titled Petri Krohn's weird manipulations. I told him the very first time, that I would not be discussing substance in sections dressed up as personal attacs against me. I would also consider any so called "consensus" reached in them as null and void. -- Petri Krohn 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The example here is in fact posted by User:Alexia Death. It is weird, how she has inherited not only Digwurens interests and attitude, but also his editing style. -- Petri Krohn 00:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg you, please stop the "sock tossing", its getting very old, I have in no way "inherited" anything from Digwurren. I am SO tired of this constant mess. If you would stop accusing people of random things, I promise you, you would find much more cooperation than now. So heres my attempt at dispute resolution. Please state clearly and honestly what would it take to to make you happy and not keen on bashing us at every opportunity? what is it that you want?--Alexia Death 09:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing?

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

Actually, after [6], somebody might accuse you of hypocrisy if you made a biased selection of whom to "warn". Digwuren 08:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I noticed on their talk pages, except for Camptown, the 3 editors I warned have had "differences" with Petri Krohn in the past. And on Meta, I and Petri Krohn are not exactly the best of friends. There is no hypocrisy involved.--Pan Gerwazy 14:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

That is the main part of my question. What do you consider relevant? Just having a brief look at the first page I looked at for people involved in the dispute nets me: Colchicum, Digwuren, Turgidson, Martintg and Pēters J. Vecrumba. It was NOT a Baltic page, and User:Anonimu was being attacked there. Coming back to my question: what was your basis for warning non-Baltic editors? Did you e-mail about it? Again, the reason is I would not want to be accused of canvassing when I warn people involved on such subjects about this RfC. --Pan Gerwazy 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is a question to me, please clarify it. Digwuren 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not really feel like looking through all these difs you provided (the sheer size of it is bugging me) to know whether this request also involves the continuation war, Romania-Moldova and even Holcaust denial. Did you invite people who had problems with Petri Krohn on those topics or not? --Pan Gerwazy 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been only marginally active in issues of Romania, and not traced the Continuation War issues. Consequently, I believe I have not added diffs regarding these subjects. As for Holocaust denial accusations, a number of diffs are provided. (To the best of my knowledge, all of these accusations listed are baseless.) However, I was not the only one gathering evidence, and the sheer volume of the diffs being rather staggering, I might also have made an unintentional mistake.

I didn't "invite" anybody. I distributed notices to people I believed might have interest in this matter; primarily, people whom I recalled as having been involved in the discussions I knew to be referred. I did it from memory rather than compiling any lists; thus it is likely that editors of little contributions didn't get any notices at all. (I consider it OK, actually; I wouldn't have wanted to go for indiscriminate spamming.) As an anecdote, DLX has been so successful in distancing himself from these issues I almost forgot to notify him.

For a complete list of the people notified, take a look at my edit history of the period. Digwuren 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That does not tell whom you e-mailed. FYI, I have warned User:Camptown, User:Roobit, User:Irpen and User:Grafikm fr - three others I was thinking about having already shown up anyway. Three of them seem to be inactive now, although they were very involved in the discussions between you and Petri before. I have not warned or e-mailed anybody else, so, please, take that into account when you ask others on their talk pages how they landed here. --Pan Gerwazy 10:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically for purposes of later scrutiny, all these notifications were handed out on Wikipedia talk pages. Of the four you mentioned, I would have considered notifying (but didn't, as they appear to have been away recently) Camptown and Irpen. Digwuren 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I appear to have been wrong about Camptown's being away, or perhaps he's come back. I just saw an edit of his in my watchlist. Digwuren 10:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Anonimu has been involved in peculiar discussions regarding issues about Romania. In fact, some of these have been so peculiar I have sometimes found it hard to take him seriously. Digwuren 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As a comparison, you might consider another infrequent contributor, Otto ter Haar. By volume, he and Anonimu are somewhat comparable. I tend to disagree with both. However, Otto ter Haar displays sufficient consistency for me to see him as a serious contributor despite that; Anonimu does not. As a reasonably recent example, take a look at the 'discussion' at User_talk:Dc76#Fântâna Albă. Digwuren 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know i was important (it's really helpful to check "what links here" on your userpage). First, let me remind you "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a personal attack.Anonimu 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

But how seriously can anyone take someone who cannot learn that the pronoun I in the English language is written I, not i? Turgidson 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, harassment is also against wiki rules.Anonimu 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Apologies accepted. Good to see that at least this issue has been cleared up, it has been sticking in my throat ever since it happened. I still have a problem with another sequence of edits (our very first contact at WP). I may bring it up later, but at least for now I am happy to see that a small step has been taken in this discussion towards clearing up the air, and some of the accumulated bad blood -- which is not good for anyone, I think. Turgidson 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Timestamp

Due to concerns raised during the AN/I prelude, I rushed moving the finalisation preparations here from User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn as a display of a good faith RFC action. As a result, the physical creation of this page here happened about five hours before the RFC got actually filed, listing the RFC's initiation timestamp some five hours too early. I have fixed the timestamp. Digwuren 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... physical? I can't say I'm swallowing this reasoning, as you're supposed to have the attempted dispute resolution on the road "within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page." There's no mention of the filing of the page. But five hours isn't a problem, you can have them. Just use them for dispute resolution, please. The links you've added here are frankly useless. You're making a hatchet job of the dispute resolution, and you're not listening to me. The accusations of bad faith and vandalism templates (!) that you offer as evidence are clearly going to escalate, not resolve, the conflict. Look, you're wasting time. Getting an experienced neutral user to mediate is rapidly becoming your only option. If I were you, I would pursue it. Really. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

I can remove the vandalism templates diffs. Actually, I didn't add those; Martintg did, as evidence that the issues have been raised before.

As for listening to you -- unfortunately, I'm not sure what it is exactly that you're proposing. I keep trying figuring it out, but more precise guidelines would presumably help me a lot. Digwuren 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As a more specific problem (which may have been the one that Alexia Death kept in mind in her 'content dispute' remarks) is that both WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM are clearly geared towards resolving differences of opinion regarding particular articles. The basis of this RFC is no one such article, but a long-term pattern involving dozens of articles. I guess I could fill out a request for each of them, but a reasonable person would easily see it as unconstructive and spammy, and it would likely be unconstructive, too.

There's the WP:3O process, but it is clearly restricted to problems of only two parties. To the best of my knowledge, everything listed in this WP:RFC/U has more parties, even if they're centered around a particular user -- thus, the applicable policies explicitly exclude WP:3O from the list of WP:DR activities that apply here. Digwuren 07:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some of those links, which show the attempted resolution in the following form: Description of alleged behaviour, then a request for either explanation/references or desist, absence of response. If Petri Krohn refuses to engage in any discussion in relation to these matters, what more can be done. Compared to other approved cases, for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah777#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute which has only 4 diff presented as evidence, you seem to be placing the standard very high in this case, why is that? Martintg 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish more admins were interested in trying to keep RFCs even remotely appropriate, as I'm not in the business of fixing them all. That's not what admins do; they fix what they see. RFC:Sarah777 has unimpressive dispute resolution, I agree. Still, it's better than this one, since it has ONE diff--this diff--that's actully calculated to help de-escalate the conflict, rather than to inflame it. That's exactly one more than you have here. How many irrelevant diffs are offered in evidence has nothing to do with anything. If you don't believe me, I suggest you consult some other uninvolved admin. Unless you take on board my request for serious DR by tomorrow, I'm going to delete this page. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

I fail to see how this [7] or this [8] could be in any way be considered inflammatory. It takes two willing parties for mediation, and if one party refuses to discuss it and vilifies the other party in return, (see the massive amount of evidence here: [9]), similar behaviour that has been previously documented here: [10], I don't see how sweaping this whole issue of disruptive editing under the carpet because you don't believe that the form of the complaint was not strictly followed. How do you mediate with someone who holds views considered by any standard as extremist? Martintg 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Deleting this RFC and thus preventing the scrutiny and comment on Petri Krohn's behaviour by his peers will not make mediation any easier nor de-escalate the conflict, but rather enbolden and encourage Krohn to believe these legitimate complaints are frivolous and meritless, and thus continue his disruptive edits with renewed vigour. Martintg 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears Suva is now attempting to discuss some of the issues, but on a previously untouched article, with Petri Krohn: [11], [12], [13]. I wouldn't call the current outlook great, but at least he got a response. Digwuren 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be pointed out explicitly that User:Suva has not been active recently, and appears to not have involved in any disputes with Petri Krohn before he expressed his disapproval of the way Petri Krohn handled my complaints. The latter was probably a result of my request to assess the situation, which I presented to a number of editors -- a request that appears to count as an attempt (as it was, a successful one) to bring in outside mediators. Digwuren 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline and history

This latest escalation in accusations started when I updated my user page by adding Liberation of Europe (a redirect to Allied occupation of Europe) to the Redirects section. Half a day later User:Digwuren started a massive attack against the Category:Allied occupation of Europe by first removing all articles from it, then nominating the category and its main article Allied occupation of Europe for deletion.

I commented on the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe:

“ The nomination is part of a personal vendetta by the nominator, whose contributions to Wikipedia so far are limited to WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:ATTACK, WP:POV, WP:3RR, WP:TROLL and other forms of disruptions. The POV he is trying to push is narrow nationalistic agenda of "my country was more occupied then yours", or more generally "some countries of Europe were liberated by the Western Allies, while others were occupied by the Soviet Union", a nonfactual rewrite of the history of WWII and the Holocaust. ”

Some time later, he responded by an "comment" on my talk page, with an even fancier collection of shortcuts to Wikipedia guidelines, which I dismissed as trolling.

Digwuren has presented the rest of the timeline someplace else. -- Petri Krohn 23:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What is Bishonen asking for here?

On the RFC page Bishonen stated quite categorically that This RFC will be deleted unless some real attempt at dispute resolution is made within 48 hours of posting it. You are saying you require evidence that a new attempt being made within 48 hours. Other approved articles seem to have a lower burden of proof, for example the approved RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah777#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute presents only 4 diffs of past attempts as evidence. Can you clear up this confusion. Martintg 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue above. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Just to make it clear, what you are asking for is evidence of a new attempt that is made or started within 48 hours, rather than asking for additional evidence of any previous attempt to be posted within 48 hours? Is that interpretation correct? Martintg 02:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Alexia.) I don't care if it's old or new, in principle. But the additional evidence that has been proposed so far has been evidence of the wrong kind of thing: of perpetuation of conflict, of attacks and aggression. I've been offered, as examples of dispute resolution, some very angry and uninhibitely rude and insulting messages to Petri Krohn. That's what's been wrong with what I've seen of what you call previous attempts—not the fact that they're "previous," as such. From what I've seen, I do believe that there are no acceptable previous attempts, or they would have turned up by now. Therefore what I'm asking for is in practice a new attempt, yes. The nominators involved here seem to be new users—that's my impression, I haven't checked—and, well, to have difficulty encompassing this aspect of wiki culture. (I know you're not new yourself, but perhaps you're new to this kind of thing.) That's why I keep saying they should enlist the help of somebody with experience, and with more feeling for what "dispute resolution" involves, to contact Petri on their behalf. The nominators have had no comment on this advice, or given any sign of trying to follow it, but I hope they have been. I'm always ready to give newbies special consideration, but I wish these would take on board my best advice. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

I actually looked in on the rules involving mediation Cabal as soon as you suggested it. they presume theres an article debate is about. There is no such one article here. If you could suggest an experienced mediator for this, Id love to take the problems to him/her for help. All I personally care about is that these hostilities stop... I did not and still do not know what methods other than this procedure and ArbCom(that Petri has threatened us with for a month) exist for making the current situation end.--Alexia Death 09:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive made a request on administrators noticeboard to look in on this. Bishonen, It is not an action against you. Just a request for some more people to look in.--Alexia Death 08:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good, Alexia, I was just thinking of asking for input on WP:ANI myself. And thank you for letting me know. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Problem dispute resolution is the fact that conflict has spreaded over wide area including numerous articles. Discussions have generally been about certain articles not over full conflict. And its understandable that its problematic to expect two sides to sit down and reach some conclusion over so wide area of disputes(some disputed events have more than 100 years between them), especially if one side thinks that other one is pushing hate speech and holocaust denial and other side sees its opponent pushing radical Stalinistic propaganda and anti-Baltic xenophobia. Although I do not think its very tragic if this RfC gets deleted, Petri has repeatedly promised ArbCom and if he fulfills his promise then this will simply go there.--Staberinde 10:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive actually been waiting for him to fulfill his threats of ArbCom For some time now. I just hope he does it soon.--Alexia Death 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments to "Outside view by Beatle Fab Four"

Taken from the project page:

1. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) The sheer length of this complaint is evidence of a snow job.

To which the comment was added:

**comment On the contrary, the length of the complaint, the large number of diffs shows how far Petri has gone this time . E.J. 06:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC) 

Please do not complain about people taking away incorrectly placed comment that is very difficult to copy into a talk page and then put the same incorrectly placed comment back. Try to solve the problem yourself, instead of disturbing the discussion further (this one obstructed the count, by the way). Thank you.--Pan Gerwazy 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. --Alexia Death 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by DrKiernan

Some of Petri's edit summaries and edits, as he himself has admitted in his response, can be interpreted in a negative way. So, this claim of his accusers has some merit. But, the actions of his accusers can also be seen as negative. Consequently, Petri's claim that he is attempting to address POV issues by removing or editing material also has some merit. It is unfortunate that some of both Petri's and his accusers' actions have served to goad the other party rather than seek neutral moderation.

Colchicum has suggested a very fair way forward, which I would paraphrase/modify as follows:

1. Both parties should agree not to add information, internal links and redirects unless those additions are supported with inline references to verifiable and reliable sources
2. Both parties should agree not to delete text from articles, unless it is unsourced. Text accurately supported by inline-references should not be deleted, but attribution can be made more explicit (According to…) and contradicting information from reliable sources may be added.
3. Both parties should attempt to discuss content, avoid talk pages of their opponents, be civil, and work towards neutral presentation of facts.
4. Neither party should react to incivility directly, although single cases of clear breaches of policy may be reported for admin action, without referral to previous incidents.
5. Both parties agree that any contentious sourced statements may be balanced by up to the same number of sourced rebutting statements.
6. Both parties agree that any information whose relevance to the article is incapable of resolution by discussion on the article's talk page, is referred to an independent third party, whose identity is to be agreed by both parties, for an assessment of whether the information should or should not be included. And both parties agree to abide by the decision of the independent assessor.

Items 1 and 2 should prevent edit warring, and items 3 and 4 should prevent personal attacks or animosity.

I am pleased to see that Digwuren (who I presume is leading the accusing party as their name is first in the list, and their user space hosts the draft RfC) has partially accepted this plan for resolution [14], as has Petri: "some of my edit summaries may have been open to interpretations, some may even have offended or provoked other users. In the future, I will try to be more careful with my edit summaries."

My recommendation is that both parties agree to implement the plan as outlined above, and that, at this time, no further action be taken. If either party breaches the conditions of the agreement, then we will have to re-examine the case on the merits of that breach only citing as examples, in the new complaint, edits made since the acceptance and implementation of the agreement. DrKiernan 10:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:UNDUE?

You should probably outline a content discussion way for dealing with it. A strict interpretation of the current specification, unfortunately, makes removal of material that by itself is sourced but does not fit into the context it is placed, impossible. Digwuren 11:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this argument might work against you as there are 140 million Russians and 1 million Estonians. So, it could be argued (unfairly, of course) that your view was the minority one and it is currently given undue weight. I would propose that you phrase as much as possible in neutral language, and when you have to balance opposing views, you provide one quote from one side, and one from the other. DrKiernan 11:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not demacracy. In theory at least, reputable sources matter, not always the number of supporters for a particular claim. E.J. 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving content issues aside (considering the average level of Wikipedia it is fair enough, if a user knows wehere this country is located), I must emphasize once again that Petri Krohn's repeated accusations of Holocaust denial adressed against different users are SLANDER which should have stopped. Because he has refused to stop, he should BE STOPPED. The same goes for his general ethnic slur, e.g. that Estonians are Nazis or racists or sth. This is no longer a content issue but that of behaviour.E.J. 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Faaaaaar from all the Russians are anti-Estonian. Colchicum 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I have actually seen DrKiernan's hypothetical argument used online. Thankfully, not yet so in Wikipedia, though.

There's an interesting psychological phenomenon related to this, the false consensus effect. Sadly, it does not yet appear to have an article in Wikipedia. Digwuren 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bandwagon effect? Yes, but how many of those 140 million are really able to contribute to English Wikipedia? The majority of them neither have access to the Internet nor speak English. Colchicum 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, these two are related. But I was wrong about false consensus not being described in Wikipedia; there's False consensus effect. Accordingly, I created the redirect.

It is not likely that millions and millions of people will come to Wikipedia just to vote in any particular way. The hypothetical argument DrKiernan is referring goes roughly this, with the names changed: "There are about a billion people in PRC and only twenty millions in ROC. Thus, the mainstream position regarding ownership of Taiwan is that of the government of PRC, and the position of government of ROC is a minority POV not meriting any mentions at all." Needless to say, the argument is fallacious. Digwuren 12:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not proposing a voting system. I'm merely pointing out that a system for dealing with WP:UNDUE is necessary, and trying to get the issue addressed before it will become urgent. Digwuren 11:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the responses to my suggestion. I am neither proposing nor implying a vote. I have suggested that one statement is balanced by another statement, that is all. DrKiernan 12:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren meant the fact when in article "Bronze Soldier" is added facts like: "Estonian Jaan Tamm sometimes reads nazi newspapers." which are referenced. Although the information may even be correct, it's not the topic of this article, and is probably TOO MUCH information and should be in different article or shouldn't exist at all. Suva 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The obviously proper reaction to such an addition is emphatically not finding detailed peer-reviewed research regarding what newspapers Jaan Tamm reads or does not read, nor a sourced discussion of Nazi newspapers' relation to bronze statues. Both would be thoroughly out of place on this article. The only appropriate reaction is removal of such a remark, its sourcedness notwithstanding, and the proposed schema does not allow such a resolution. Digwuren 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to address that in the cumbersome 6th point. DrKiernan 14:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is better. I will want to ponder on the system for some more time, but I have no immediate comments on it right now.

However, this, if implemented, will only solve the content issues. What about the behavioural problems, such as herds of baseless accusations, and a series of never-made-good ArbCom threats? (I can easily ignore them, and they did not appear at first in my original complaint draft, but other people, such as Alexia Death, have harder time. I certainly wouldn't want her to leave Wikipedia over One Too Many Harsh Word.) Digwuren 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor would I. Isn't this concern covered by the third point, "be civil"? DrKiernan 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a precedent regarding continuous threats of ArbCom being considered a breach of civility. If you are, I'm probably going to be satisfied with it.

Although I want to mention that the proposed schema is rather guideline than hard rules. Important thing is good faith. Suva 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

After having painstakingly proven my opponent's bad faith, I would have considerable trouble trusting his good faith again. Digwuren 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposition Both parties should agree not to delete text from articles, unless it is unsourced => Both parties should agree not to delete text from articles, unless it is both unsourced and contradicting some reliable sources or it has been added in violation of the agreement, because the burden of proof should be on the contributor, otherwise we will inevitably stubify the majority of the articles. It is also not clear to me how we are going to fight with tendentious rewording, redirects and internal links, which cannot be called deletion. Colchicum 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your second qualification "and contradicting some reliable sources" will work. There can be two reliable sources which disagree. Our job is to present both and let the reader decide. "it has been added in violation of the agreement" is already a given and does not need to be re-stated. In answer to your final question: by employing point 3 (neutral wording) and point 6 (further mediation in the event of specific content disputes not resolved on the discussion page). DrKiernan 15:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There can be two reliable sources which disagree -- exactly. That's why I say both unsourced and contradicting, otherwise massive deletion of unsourced information is a threat, even if the information doesn't contradict sources. We cannot source every single word. Colchicum 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All statements should be sourced, and unsourced material may be removed. This is policy, and can not really be debated. DrKiernan 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We cannot expect every new article to be sourced to the level of Estonian war crimes trials, especially not to be born with this level of sourcing. The correct response to poor (inline) sourcing is not deletion, certainly not edit warring for deletion, but tagging and discussion. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Without currently assessing the old discussion, I'm proposing an amendment for the attack clause. Specifically, I'm proposing that a special category of attacks -- accusations -- get treated specially: every accusation that gets made must be backed up or, if that can not be done, or possibly can not be done to the satisfaction of a neutral outsider, must be explicitly withdrawn. I'm fine with other kinds of attacks going ignored, but these can grow problematic if ignored. Digwuren 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Response by Petri Krohn

The proposal assumes that we have similar edit patterns. They are however diametrically opposite. I add new content. Digwuren stalks me, and systematically removes my contributions; or he tendentiously edits them to reflect his narrow POV. Accepting stricter guidelines four sourcing, than on Wikipedia on general puts me at great disadvantage.

I can accept, that we place a high target for references and sources. I do not accept that bad sourcing can be used as an excuse for removing content. What should be done, is that the disputed content should be tagged, and up to a week should pass before anything is removed.

Also, badly formated references should not be removed. In Estonian war crimes trials, a valid reference to a named document with a document ID was removed, because the weblink to the on-line version at the archive had a session time out, and the previously linked cached version on an Internet forum was considered “unreliable”. Sources and documents must be named, they do not need to be available on-line. -- Petri Krohn 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they certainly don't need to be available on-line, but they should be reliable. This is all covered by the policy. Perhaps we could rephrase point 1 to: "Both parties agree to adhere to the policy detailed at Wikipedia:Verifiability."?

The purpose of point 2 is not to force the deletion of unsourced material, its purpose is to prevent the removal of accurately reported sourced material. We can re-phrase it as: "Both parties agree not to delete text which is accurately supported by inline-references. Attribution can be made more explicit (e.g. According to…) and contradicting information from reliable sources may be added." DrKiernan 07:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your formulation is that it ignores official Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, to quote: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." Martintg 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. My formulation ensures balance because one statement is matched with another. DrKiernan 09:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which to my mind implies giving equal weight to all statements regardless of the POV it promotes. This is not what NPOV is about. NPOV is about articulating all significant POVs, but weighted according to how widely held it is. So a majority held view is given prominance, a significant minority POV less space and an insignificant minority is given no space at all. How widely a POV is held is not based upon the billion Chinese versus million Taiwanese criteria, but by what is published in reputible sources. To the question of whether to include a source, we have to look at what is the POV that this source is promoting. Scanning through the edit comments and the various article talk pages, it seems to me that Petri is promoting the POV that Estonia is an illegitimate Holocaust denying ethno-fascist state, thus the edits and sources he would add would tend to support that POV. But how widely held is that POV, can he point to reliable main stream sources that support this POV, can he name any notable adherents to that POV? On the other hand, Digwuren, et al, hold the POV that Estonia is a legitimate democratic state ruled by law, thus edit and add sources that support that POV. How widely held is that POV? Certainly the institutions of the EU also shares that view, as membsership to the EU testifies. So when anyone makes an edit or adds a source, we need ask what is the POV this edit is attempting to support. So if an accurately reported sourced material supports a clearly thinly held view, then that source material has no place in the article, and should be deleted. Martintg 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered by point 6. Please make a constructive proposal as to how point 6 of the revised proposal needs to be phrased in order to assist moves towards agreement. DrKiernan 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the parties acknowledge and agree to abid by the principles of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, and agree to resolve issues of weight by applying the test suggested by Jimbo Wales:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

I await Petri Krohn's take on WP:UNDUE below with interest, however he appears to be MIA. Martintg 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue?

I will be commenting on this later, it is getting late! -- Petri Krohn 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Petri Krohn's presence

I'm pointing out that Petri Krohn has completely ignored this thread here. In interests of displaying good faith, I'm proposing that somebody leave a note of it at his userpage. In light of recommendation by Bishonen, I will not do it myself. Digwuren 13:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

His contributions currently indicate that he has not ignored it, merely that he is offline. DrKiernan 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Having some experience with his wikitime patterns, I consider it dubious, although not an unreasonable proposal.

Furthermore, thank you for revising the 'Current developments' section. Digwuren 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that I will be without network shortly. Digwuren 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A WP:UNDUE problem

What should be done with this? I am sure that there are many translations of this book, and this was highlighted specifically to paint the Estonians as Nazis, as Petri writes in edit summaries that he believes this to be the case.Colchicum 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Petri Krohn's contribution declares that the book was translated, but leaves out that the translation has a number of grammatical mistakes in it, and that the appropriate police forces have begun an investigation, although both of these were mentioned in the very same single article he used as the source. Digwuren 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For me as Estonian, this was interesting information, and I would like to know more about why did they translate it to estonian. But I can't argue that the addition and the form of this information was done in bad faith. Suva 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can, by invoking the concept of lie of omission. Digwuren 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If he mentioned it is translated to estonian, he should have mentioned that it is also translated in other languages aswell. Suva 12:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He has merely expanded a stub with neutral verifiable sourced information. There is absolutely no basis for admin action. DrKiernan 12:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reason why I considered it so important to display a pattern of WP:TE was that no one single such omission can be considered sufficient evidence to establish bias. (In fact, there was a statement to that effect in one preliminary draft of the summary. It got trimmed because the summary got too long.) However, this particular instance does not stand alone, as documented in the sections of evidence, and collectively, these many instances are a valid basis for belief of bad faith.

It is true that such individual actions are not easily correctable through the arsenal of administrative tools. That is why it's all the more important for administrators to apply organisatory measures, such as admonishment. Digwuren 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This book (and other publications of Lauck [15]) is also published in Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Portugese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish. The fact the Krohn singled out the fact that this book was published in Estonian is a perfect example of WP:TE. Martintg 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren approves his own page

I just noticed that Digwuren has unilaterally moved the RFC back again from "Candidate pages" to "Approved pages",[16] without mentioning the action in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" or anywhere else on the project page. (Or to, for instance, me.) I have to say I'm not impressed. Clearly nobody doubts that Digwuren finds the dispute resolution sufficient, as he has been arguing all along that it already was. He's not the right person to approve the page. However, I'm not going to revert the move at this point, and I'll ask Petri Krohn if he is prepared to waive further requirement for DR. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Is there anything wrong with that? My understanding is that the move to 'certified' is a question of fact, and the facts appear to be sufficient for such move. Digwuren 14:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If the page is deleted, and Petri hasn't replied positively to the attempt at mediation before then, may I suggest that the accusers write a civil, neutral and polite message to Petri with the proposal and see whether he responds? That should demonstrate an attempt at DR, and may even lead to resolution. DrKiernan 15:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that an important aspect of the clash between me and Bishonen is that our understandings of what we consider 'neutral' differ considerably. Thus, I would appreciate Bishonen pointing me towards three or four similar such attempts from past that she approves of. Digwuren 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As Petri has replied to the proposal, I don't think it is necessary to draft a message. DrKiernan 11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Over and above what you've already posted on his page, you mean? In any case, of course I wouldn't delete anything while things are moving, the way they are now—I'm not a 48-hour bot! Nothing like that will happen until Petri responds, at the very earliest. Bishonen | talk 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

This does seem a smart idea but it is doomed to fail if Petri does not at least indicate a willingness for discussing the issues with us and at least drop the name calling...--Alexia Death 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Digwuren doing the move is politically correct, but for now I agree with his reasons for doing so. If it is reverted I plead Digwurren not to do it again, as it does not help getting the disputes resolved... However I would really love to see Petri's responses to proposals above. --Alexia Death 15:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting and stalking

I could not help but notice that, although "pro-Petri" crowd tend to be different on different pages devoted to resolution of this long-simmering dispute, his attackers are always the same - Korps!, Verkrumba and marting. Not a slightest variation. I guess those pages have to be kept in wikipedia's archive as schoolbook examples of Meatpuppeting and stalking RJ CG 12:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at their edit histories with more attention, and you will see how "unrelated" to each other Petri's supporters are.Colchicum 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing one another. We should be trying to calm each other down and come to a middle ground, not exacerbating matters. It is just making things worse. DrKiernan 13:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As a completely univolved user who hasn't read any of the pages in question in the normal course of wiki reading, the disucssions here in this RfC, the Admin notice, and talk pages indicate that just about all of the involved parties would be better served by taking a month off from wikipedia. I also agree with DrKiernan to stop accusing on another of anything, even somthing nice for the time being. Good Luck Rocksanddirt 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How many Digwurens are there?

In the section Outside view by Cmapm, it is stated:

Since Digwuren joined Wikipedia I see POV pushing in almost each of their edits. This should be not too bad, if they should not delete alternative POV.

Are we talking about a single user here, or several? If the former, why use "they" and "their" when referring to a unique person? If the latter, who are the other users falling under this common name? Turgidson 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of the neutral pro-nouns "they" and "their" is simply preferred by users, such as myself, who dislike grotesque neologisms like s/he and hir. It does not imply, in this case, plurality. DrKiernan 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some have suggested 'person' as the gender-neutral third person pronoun; the possessive form would be 'per'. For future use, however, it may be useful to know that I happen to be male. Digwuren 09:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Digwuren, for the clarfication. And, for the record, what I found grotesque is the use of "they" or "their" to refer to a single person (s/he and hir are equally grotesque). Why sacrifice clarity, logic, and the beauty of the English language on the PC altar? But OK, I digress -- it's just one of my pet peeves. I guess I'm The Last of the Mohicans in trying to hold on to standards on this one... Turgidson 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on outside view by Ghirla

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that. My first (verbal) comment would have probably gotten me banned permanently from Wikipedia.

Firstly, it isn't outside view. Ghirla has been Petri's partner in many of these incidents - to the extent where I considered filing a checkuser on them. He has been pushing blatantly wrong information to Estonia-related articles (see [17], [18] for example. There have been great many more cases, I believe Colchicum, 3 Lövi and Vecrumba can give even better examples). Another excellent example of attempt of misinformation is in this very same outside view, "so as to launch it on June 22, the day when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union". This RfC was not filed on June 22, so I recommend Ghirla to remove that voluntarily... Apology would be nice, too, for thinly veiled attempt to display us as Nazi sympathizers, but I expect it to be too much to ask, considering that last time when I asked evidence on his accusations of meatpuppetry ("coordinating on Estonian Wikipedia"), he just conveniently ignored me.

As for nice phrases such as "attempt at character assassination" and "fun to prepare this attack in the cool of the Tartu classrooms"... what a pile of crap. We have suffered Petri's POV pushing, insults and attempts of intimidation for a long time. It does not matter how long someone has been on Wikipedia or how many contributions s/he has, everyone must still follow Wikipedia guidelines. Petri has repeatedly shown bad faith, inserting misleading/wrong claims to articles, insulting in article talk and edit summaries, acted against consensus and refused to engage to meaningful conversation. Enough is enough. I decided to get less involved with controversial articles, as I did not want to go to this very same RfC process that we are having - exactly because of people like Ghirla. Digwuren had more guts - or perhaps stronger sense of justice - as did Alexia - and they filed this RfC. Which was a right thing to do, no matter what is the outcome. Contributing in this atmosphere of FUD and actually bettering Wikipedia is getting very hard.

Now, once again on accusations of meatpuppetry. They keep saying that, but always fail to show any evidence. Like it has been told before, out of principal four Estonian users in this RfC - Digwuren, Alexia Death, Suva and Erik Jesse - Suva is a musician. Erik Jesse is still in university, only one out of these four, I think, studying law or philosophy. Digwuren and Alexia Death have both finished IT, but on different years, and, afaik, do not know each other outside of Wikipedia. Please note that I do not know any of them outside Wikipedia, not have I communicated with them outside Wikipedia, except one email from Digwuren - to which I replied on his talk page. All my information comes from discussions here or from their userpages.

So... we have four users who have not had "fun to prepare this attack in the cool of the Tartu classrooms", like Ghirla so nicely puts it. Unless you have some real, hard evidence on meatpupperty - or even just discussion outside of English Wikipedia - please remove that claim and apologize. That will go for any others who accuse us - or just those four previously mentioned users - of meatpuppetry. Show the evidence or back down and apologize.

Now we get to this old all-too-predictable agenda to the effect that the Commies were much, much wickeder than the Nazis and their henchmen accusation and always-nice-to-see the notorious "Soviet occupation theory". Please, please, Ghirla, do get involved in this mediation case and give a single source supporting that Baltics happily and voluntarily joined Soviet Union. As you can plainly see from the bottom of the page, occupation "supporters" came up easily with 10+ sources from peer-reviewed scientific journals while the opposing view is still struggling to find even one source supporting the view that Estonia joined voluntarily. As for comparing "Commies and Nazis"... well, so far I have just seen attempts to give good, sourced review of Soviet crimes, not comparing them in articles with Nazis, except when source has compared them. Or are you trying to claim that "Commies" did not commit any crimes, and, in fact, had angel wings and halos attached to them?

Yet another thing... "harrassing their only vocal opponent via this RfC". So nice to know that first real attempt to discuss this is harassing, while repeated checkuser, AN/I, 3RR and so on by Petri Krohn of course isn't harassing, but working nicely and calmly. Very mature of him not to discuss anything and work against sources & community consensus. Paragon of a true Wikipedian!

And now, finally, "group of determined editors based in the same institution attempts to ram through their POV" accusation. As we have seen, "same institution" is pure bs. And that "POV" of theirs/ours has somehow been sourced nicely in peer-reviewed scientific journals. So, in fact, you are accusing us because we want to insert material to Wikipedia from sources that are of highest WP:V degree? Wow, that must be really bad indeed then, somehow we have managed to get whole Western world to be our meatpuppets and write exactly what we wanted in their scientific journals. So good that there are others who represent NPOV by inserting unsourced claims, as, you know, NPOV must be followed. </sarcasm>

I expect this to go fully without any meaningful reply from Ghirla. The best reply I can expect for is that he will accuse me of being troll and that he "knows trolls". Probably "do not feed the trolls", too. Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror, Ghirla, and check if it is a troll who looks back?

DLX 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As a true outsider, it is clear that both you and Ghirla are in the wrong. As I've said before, you should be working towards agreement and consensus, instead you continue to throw tantrums and re-hash the same arguments. If neither side moves towards resolution, this RfC will be thrown out, and you will be forced to raise an RfC for content disputes on every little edit that you make.

Frankly, you are all going about this the wrong way. You should be saying "Yes, I agree that Colchicum's plan is good one, and I will work towards an agreement that we can all sign up to." Instead, you stay entrenched in your own positions; this will not gain any sympathy from the wider community. DrKiernan 09:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please understand, that us, the ones that get these accusations thrown at them, feel that if we leave them unanswered the accuser will have been successful and our image on Wikipedia deteriorates. As you can see, we work actively to create a set of rules that would allow all of us to to contribute in a civil and not hostile environment. DLX has tried his best to say out of our disputes and keep a meaningful dialog, but as you can see it does not work... Each of us has a breaking point when pushed too hard. If this does not stop, I don't think I can contribute to Wikipedia, because my will of improvement can override just so much abuse...--Alexia Death 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Ghirlandajo's jolly thoughts e.g. “I imagine it was fun to prepare this attack in the cool of the Tartu classrooms, so as to launch it on June 22, the day when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The kids might have been unaware that "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process”. It would simply be fun, if it weren't that rude and if many people hadn't endorsed such a view. Evidently, Ghirlandajo has an history of edit conflicts himself, which may explain some things. Edits like this and this also suggest how much we should make out of such people's 'neutral opinions'. E.J. 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that Ghirlandajo can be reasonably expected to have known that his ideas of June 22 being the filing date were false. I left a notice of the RFC's filing to his talk page on June 19, and it is dated as such. (The diff combines two edits, for I made some mistakes in the first notice; however, I corrected them within minutes.) Even if we were to take timezone differences into account, the date of the filing can not be construed any later than June 20.

I would also point out that in fact, no symbolic meaning was intended about the date of the filing. Originally, the preparations were initiated on June 19 and then, I estimated it would take about a week to process the appropriate evidence. However, in the WP:AN/I discussions, concerns were raised that the preparations can be seen as a personal attack. Even though Petri Krohn had maintained a page -- Petri Krohn/Evidence -- that, under these same rules would be a personal attack, for over a month (by the way, as of now, a copy of that page is at fr:Utilisateur:Ghirlandajo/Petri, evidencing a connection between Petri Krohn and Ghirlandajo and contradicting Ghirlandajo's claim to outsider status), I, being holier than him (for example, I voted keep in the MfD discussion), and spurred by assessments of the evidence collected by June 20 as sufficient on the matching talk page, decided to rush the filing. Digwuren 12:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to deflect the current discussion of your inappropriate behaviour by misrepresenting this commentator as having a content dispute with you. I take no interest in any Estonia-related topics whatsoever. I bow down to Petri's efforts to stop their disruption, however. As clear from Bishonen's comments above, this request was certified and became valid on June 22, although some people started posting comments in advance. If somebody is alarmed that evidence against him was moved to French Wikipedia, he is welcome to go there and request deletion of the appropriate page. No amount of noise on the subject in English Wikipedia is going to make that happen. Following my edits in other projects is an archetypal example of WP:STALKing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion that the initiators symbolically filed this RFC to celebrate the June 22 aniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union is pure and simple slander and thus constitutes WP:ATTACK. You should withdraw your remark and apologise. Martintg 22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to deflect the current discussion of your inappropriate behaviour by accusing others. As you have failed to respond in any other meaningful way, except threatening me, I think that Ghirla's "Outside view" can now be safely considered to be bad faith slander and lies, constituting to be WP:ATTACK. DLX 07:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)