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:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

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:

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 [6]. There are also some other questionable activities, perhaps to suppress free expression of views about this casee [7][8] 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)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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."[9] 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)

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)

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. [10]) 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 ([11], [12])... 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)

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

Update

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)

Extended content

This sections is empty per the explanation above. 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 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 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:

Comment by others:

WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEAlex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 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:

Comment by others:

Loosely based on meatball:ForgiveAndForget Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 20 September 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 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 [13]. 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)

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)

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:

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)

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.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:38, 22 September 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:

Comment by others:

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

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)

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:

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)

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)

Piotrus desysopped

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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."[14] 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)

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:

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)

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)

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:

Oppose (no surprise here, is it? :). 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? --_{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 follow me in search of material to use against me at the opportune time. I explained it multiple times, both at my evidence section and my talk. --Irpen 21:08, 22 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)

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)

Template

2) {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 (I resent the "black book" framing where the very name implies wrongness) 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.--_{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 [15] [16]; example 2 [17] [18], example 3 [19] [20]). 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)

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)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by ...

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

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)

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: