Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Scope problem.

Why are arbitrators signing up to a decision that has issues raised about in the workshop witch have not been addressed? At least agreeing Arbitrators should leave a note why they are being disregarded...--Alexia Death the Grey 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Workshop exists to post comments and to propose solution (and other items), but the final say rests with the arbitrators. Rest assured that they have taken into account what people have commented, but still feel the motion should pass. Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I would still expect at least a note in workshop or next to their vote why they have disregarded those questions even if just to signify that they have at least seen them.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Remedy 8

No comment on the rest so far, but I like this remedy very much. It will send a strong message about what isn't tolerated here. But could you please consider extending it to all accusations of national or ethnic groups holding fascist sympathies and all accusations of genocide denial, too? The latter seems appropriate especially in regards to conflicts in the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan issue.

Also, would adding an "any three administrators" clause as an alternative to forwarding the issue to the committee be appropriate, or do you consider this sort of sanction to need tighter control on its implementation? Picaroon (t) 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Second. Enforceable remedies are nice. It's high time to show we enforce our policies.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit asymmetric?

Kirill's remedies seem to be a bit asymmetric for me. Suva and Irpen have about equal amount of otherwise equal incivility, Irpen gets slap on the hand, Suva one year block. Alexia Death has no blocks (one block by Alex Bakharev was an obvious error that was immediately overturned) and her incivilities are minor. RJ CG has five blocks for edit warring (he is blocked at the moment as well) numerous cases of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring - not to mention, almost only activity of that user is to insert POV information to Estonia-related articles - and yet his remedy is same as Alexias. If I err here then never mind, just paranoia born out of constant harassment. -- Sander Säde 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is slightly incorrect to discuss a ban of user without notifying him and giving him a chance to say a word in defence. I mean Petri Krohn.--Dojarca 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • He has been notified of the case.[1][2] Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedies tend to be structured around behavior rather than previous blocks; if you're doing X, and we want to stop you from doing X, we'll have a remedy that prohibits you from X regardless of whether you've been blocked for X before.

(For what it's worth, principles #1 and #5 sum up my own feelings on the case fairly succinctly.) Kirill 02:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, good to get my hands on the knowledge. Get one year ban for one deleted template? Both of these templates were created in good faith. Although the wording might have been not the best. Not because I wanted to offend anyone but because I am having trouble of finding the neutral ground lately. The message to Petris page was asking why he acted like he did on estonian related articles. Right now I have no problems with him, the latest event of Moderated Nuclear Explosion was just coincidence. As of Ghirlas ban, I was already blocked for it and I have apologized repeatedly.

So I don't understand how exactly I have deserved one year ban. Suva Чего? 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that restrictions may be better than ban, but I trust the ArbCom has more experience then I. I would however enquire why a user who has been subject to significant evidence presented - Ghirlandajo - is excused from the remedies? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How curious, why is that you and not somebody else mentionning Ghirla? Coincidence, perhaps, but I don't think so... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be a remedy for Martintg as well. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

While no one has proposed bans as a remedy in the workshop, and ofcourse this is entirely up to the arbitrators to decide, and no doubt will undergo many revisions, having Estonian editors carry the greater burden of the penalties in a case where the locus is Estonian history, may do more harm to Wikipedia than good. A better remedy, if bans are required, could be to ban certain editors like Petri Krohn from editing Estonia related articles, for example, rather than a blanket one year ban. Given the tiny demographic of university educated english speaking Estonians, it would be a great loss to Wikipedia if Digwuren and Suva were banned from Wikipedia, and thus editing Estonia related articles for which they have already made great contributions, such as fascinating articles on Estophilia and Estonian National Awakening, or articles related to the Soviet Union with interesting well sourced articles such as Soviet historiography. Martintg 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'd suggest editing restrictions instead. Although a topical ban on Soviet Union subjects for certain editors may be worth considering, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I propose such a restriction for you Piotrus. After all you're interested in Polish history above all, so I don't think it will damage anything (yes, this is sarcasm). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I already said on the Occupation of Latvia case, editors like that Wikipedia can do without (I would rather call them "POV-pushers" but that's beside the point). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedies are too harsh

Guys, the proposed remedies are too harsh, they involve many very productive editors, there long bans should be the weapons of the last resort:

1. I have been in a number of conflicts with Digwuren and I find many of his edits to be quite disruptive. On the other hand, he certainly is very enthusiastic editor who creates significant non-controversial content. Taking into the account the particular situation around the network configuration in Tartu as found by the checkuser the only way to enforce the bans is to ban all the new accounts from Tartu that show vaguely pro-Estonian government POV. It would certainly generate a lot of collateral damage. Can we instead put him on a sort of disruption parole, there any uninvolved admin (that is basically any admin but me) could block him for up to a week for any editing appearing disruptive? We could add 1RR restriction or something. I think we can find a way for him to make productive editing while limiting the disruption and soapboxing.
2. The same goes for Suva
3. Petri's main area of interests lays outside the Estonian-Soviet-Russian relations, while all the problems found lay inside. Petri also a very productive editor who generate a lot of good content. He also voluntarily stays off the Estonia-related themes for weeks. At the most banning him from Estonia-related articles would solve the problem. It would actually be a pity as he is one of a few of editors independent from the pro Estonian government POV, who is able to check Estonian-language sources. Maybe we can only restrict his editing as per Alexia Death?
4. The conflict between Piotrus and Irpen (or widely between "Russian and Ukrainian mafia" and "Polish Cabal") lays outside the topic of this case. Irpen's main interest is Ukrainian history, Piorus's one is Polish history. As both topics are tightly intersected the editors are bound to communicate with each other. Stopping their communication would hinder the development of many articles.
5. Finally I agree with R8, but can it also include accusations of supporting Stalinism? It can also be quite offensive

Alex Bakharev 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Alex that the penalties are too harsh, Petri's attitude as exemplified by his soapboxing here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_venue_for_promoting_inflammatory_views should earn him a permanent topic ban on articles covered by Wikiproject Estonia. For whatever disruption Digwuren (or Suva) may be guilty of, it can never be said that they have engaged in the kind of ethnically vilifying soapboxing that Petri (or Ghirla for that matter) have done. Martintg 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, In this section I can see only see in the section the materials related to User:Roobit, the only connection to Petri is that he removed a long inflammatory declaration from an article to the Roobit's talk page. I do not see how the diff can justify any action against Petri unless you assume he is Petri's sockpuppet. Anyway I am glad you agree with me Alex Bakharev 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the remedies are too harsh. I understand the principle of symmetry, but it is a false god and, frankly, an abrogation of an arbitrator's duty. If you are judges, then you must judge, and that means not taking the position of, "I don't care who started it! Everyone in the time out corner!" It means you must distinguish the instigation and the response, the piling on and the campaign. In fact, Irpen seems to me to have gone well above and beyond to not get into spitball exchanges. That's just me, though. The point is that throwing enormous, blind blows at the entire group is effectively no arbitration at all. Geogre 10:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Irpen

I have looked into Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Irpen and frankly found no Arbcom-level incivilty there. The scope of the case are numerous conflicts around Estonia-related articles. Not a single diff in the section relates here. Instead all the diffs are part of the discussion Irpen had with Balcer, Piotrus and other Polish users. Most of the diffs are parts of an interesting discussion regarding interpretation of WP:RS. We know that research in certain areas during most of the Russian and Soviet history was compromised by tsarism, Stalinism, communism, Putin's new totalitarianism etc. We certainly cannot consider those sources reliable if they are related to the ideologically driven areas. But does it mean that any scholarship was compromised even if in completely unrelated areas? Irpen considered it to be intellectually dishonest, especially if it leads to disregarding of a side in a historical dispute. I see the discussion to be useful and reasonably civil. If we want to scrutinize it we need to review contributions by Balcer, Pitrus, Tymek, etc. It was not done yet and IMHO is outside the topic of the case Alex Bakharev 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's comment

My comment to the proposed FoF about my conduct if I may. I am not perfect, like all us sinners, but I believe that diffs brought there now is not the best way to demonstrate that. Here they are, all seven from the Irpen FoF as of now, 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC), that are supposed to show that "Irpen frequently engaged in personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith"

Firstly, "assumptions" do not apply to communicating with editors one knows for years. One can make a wrong judgment (please decide) but one does not assume anything here.

First diff of FoF, please click. The content dispute is about the usability of the 86-volume Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary in the article about the medieval history. Without bringing a single source to contest any referenced facts about the 11th century interprincely feud, Balcer wants to impeach the source as a whole. From this huge Russian encyclopedia, he picks an article totally unrelated to the subject at hand. We discuss the medieval history of Slavic princes. Balcer suddenly brings in the article called Jews, knowing the antisemitic bias of the Russian Imperial scholarship at the time. I object to such analysis of the source, pointing out that it has too wide a list of authors from different fields to judge articles on a medieval apolitical topic by the article on another topic, highly political.

In response Balcer posts "Is there something about the POV prevalent in 19th century Russia that is particularly to your taste?"

I am sorry but taking into account that the issue at hand is Russian 19th century Antisemitism, this is an extremely offensive question especially from Balcer, an editor I respected. I indeed reply in shock: I expected better of you, to be honest, but we learn as we go

Please determine how was such diff an evidence of anything? Did I ever accuse anyone of Antisemitic views? Did I express them ever, to see this leveled against myself?

Second diff in "Irpen FoF" (please click!) is self explanatory. It is a mere elaboration of the dispute and a reaction to an attempt to discredit the source in toto without attempting to question a single fact presented there.

Third diff, is a reply to this post. It is exactly the same issue, the reaction to the user's attempt to discredit a source by cherry-picking irrelevant info from another volume of the encyclopedia.

Fourth diff is a reply to this post. It is again the request to cite specific facts the editor questions, while he attempts to dismiss the whole source and refuses to get into details despite being asked repeatedly

Fifth diff is a reiteration that I take a very serious offense when I am accused of Antisemitic or Polonophobic views. I contributed to many articles about anti-Jewish violence and this issue is very personal to myself. I am on the record on proposing "Accusing editors in having xenophobic views is untolerable" even as a separate arbcom ruling.

Sixth diff brought about in "Ipren FoF" expresses my missing the editor despite his offenses directed at me because I appreciated the content he wrote and explains why, although I try to stay away from Piotrus, we occasionally interact. The remedy proposed at this very case also suggests that Piotrus and myself should stay away from each other. In fact that diff explains why and how I am already trying my best to do just that and why there are exceptions I have to make to this self-imposed rule as we edit the same topics, and have much less interest in other topics. Much of the content related to Ukraine and Poland is written specifically by no one else but Piotrus and myself. Are we seriously expected to move to music or sports articles all of a sudden? Within the topics I do try to stay away from Piotrus. As much as I repeatedly find Piotrus commenting at random pages soon after I post, I never ever even click on his contributions as I expleained here. So much for "avoiding each other". And we both do get concerned especially when the article in a very much correction-needed (as it seems to one side) form are about to get to the main page. The neutrality of the articles that appear at the main page are also extremely important to the Wikipedia's overall reputation. Look what happened recently when I inadvertently acted in the total spirit of the proposed ruling and did not interfere with the most recent article that made it through to the mainpage according to Piotrus' proposal!

Finally, the seventh diff refers to Piotrus' refusal to interfere when my legitimate questions about the article's sources were answered in a combative and offensive tone as was even noted by a different admin right there. Piotrus called it both users insulting each other. Take a look at Talk:Adam Lazarowicz! Despite my being insulted where did I insult anyone there? To heal the wounds I long since talked to Tymek in a friendly manner trying to explain myself again. He posted a gracious apology to my talk in response. This issue is settled IMO. Piotrus has repeatedly given support to users who offended his content opponents, giving a Barnstar for good deeds to a user who called Ghirla "a paranoid loon", unblocking Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and repeatedly argued against the indefinite ban of the said editor, refusing to recognize the level of offense to me by Balcer and Tymek (I am happy that Tymek and I have made up after that and I hope to edit again with Balcer). I called on Piotrus a number of times to stop rewarding the incivil users who merely "push" in the right direction. I was appalled when Piotrus resorted to encouraging the newcomer Tymek who was at the time all combative and uncooperative. How did I insult that user to deserve taking that?

Yes, I have also lost my temper on some occasions. But the selected diffs, I believe, all fall within normal discussions. Perhaps I did not mince words in the seventh diff. But note that WP:CIV is not only having everything covered in a wrapper devoid of vulgarities.

I have no objections to Piotrus/Ghirla/Irpen long standing conflict being finally studied by ArbCom in the detail it deserves. This dispute was deeply aggravated by an accidental discovery that for months Piotrus was maintaining a secret online page where he was stacking diffs to use to attack Irpen and Ghirla when needed even when no ArbComs and RfCs were in sight. He did just that by hitting this workshop with those diffs that have nothing to do with the Digwuren's related issues. The discovery of that underground layer caused me such distress that I stopped editing Wikipedia for almost two months, the longest break ever in my many years of contributions.

This long standing conflict. "Russo-Ukrainian vs Polish cabal" as Alex Bakharev puts it, involves editors who write actual content and much of it. That conflict is deep, complex and requires a much more thorough investigation than a side ruling of the ArbCom prompted by the grievous conduct of Digwuren and a couple of other users. I would willingly submit my conduct in the Piotrus' related issues to a thorough review but please do such a study thoroughly and in a dedicated case. In fact, the need for such study is something both Piotrus and I agree upon.[3] We were both begging the ArbCom to sort this out through a serious and dedicated investigation, but the requests were brushed aside since the ArbCom members were usually busy with cases more crucial for the Wikipedia overall than to study the conflicts in this remote and obscure corner of Wikipedia (and the world). --Irpen 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)