Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Workshop/Archive

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Daniel (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Proposals for injunctions have been placed on the proposed decision page for voting; and the discussion suggesting them has been moved to the talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Voting by arbitrators is here (discuss on proposed decision talk page)
• Initial proposals archived on talk page here (and can be discussed there)

Questions to Tymek

1. Have you ever shared your password with anyone? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Has anyone recently sent you a file, or directed you to an unfamiliar web site? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here
• OK, let me answer.

1. Question 2. Nobody has sent me a file, or directed me to an unfamiliar web site.
2. Question 1. Yes, I have shared my password. There have been some changes in my private life, I was going to wrap up some articles I had started, and then abandon the project. I have shared my password with members of the mailing list, but immediately I received several private e-mails from Piotrus and others, telling me it was illegal and wrong, and they are all right, it was very stupid of me. I want to emphasize that nobody has asked me or even suggested sharing my password, I did it all by myself. Furthermore, a checkuser will show that nobody but me has used my account with their edits. I use two computers, both are in Chicago, Il.

One more thing. My Wikipedia account and its password are not connected to the mailing list in any way. It means that all the messages ArbCom members are going to read, have been illegally stolen from somebody's (I do not know whose, maybe my private account). Please do not forget about it, before you start reading private e-mails. I do not regret being a member of the mailing list, the discussion was very interesting, touching several important topics of politics, history and society. Wikipedia-related topics were of secondary importance. I exchanged messages with a bunch of fine, intelligent people, and this I do not regret. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a named party to this case, utilized sysop tools to unblock another party, Tymek (talk · contribs), over my objection. I had blocked Tymek as an apparently compromised account, or else as a disruptive account falsely claiming to be compromised. At the time I asked the Committee to consider the matter. Neither I nor FPaS has Checkuser access, whereas most members of the Committee do. In the block notice I specifically asked that the account not be unblocked without my consent, or else the consent of a Checkuser or ArbCom member. I consider FPaS action to be a serious violation of Wikipedia:Administrators. FPaS could have easily requested a clerk to perform the unblock if an unblock were needed. FPaS posted this message to my talk page upon performing the disputed sysop action. I request the FPaS be directed not to perform any further sysop actions on other parties to this case. I also request that the Committee respond to my message of September 16 so that I can understand whether you have looked into the matter of Tymek being a compromised account. FPaS seems to be concerned that you may have dropped the ball on that issue. I am also concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

On the use of the mailing list archive

To make things clear, the Committee did — and will continue to — examine the list of email that has been received for potential serious violations of Wikipedia rules. In particular, hounding, meatpuppetry and disruptively gaming the rules are all activities that are forbidden and destructive and that can (and usually are) made possible by coordination off-wiki.

In doing so, we are proceeding under a number of (rebuttable) presumptions: that the mail archive has not been fabricated, that most email within the archive have not been altered or falsified, and that completeness of that archive is unknown. Insofar as information in the emails correctly matches verifiable events on-wiki, they can be presumed to be authentic. Evidence otherwise is welcome and solicited, in particular from the participants of the mailing list.

There have been objections to the use of the archive entirely based on the allegation that it has been acquired through illegal or unethical means. It is to be noted that [a link to] the archive has been received independently by a number of editors, none of whom are alleged to have stolen it, who then forwarded it to the Arbitration Committee. Claims that it has been obtained improperly by the original sender are unsubstantiated, and unverifiable by the committee. Other alternatives are equally likely (that it was transmitted willingly by a member of the list or that it was leaked accidentally then forwarded by an unknown third party for instance) and investigating the issue is neither possible, nor within the Committee's remit.

At any rate, even if one ignored the obvious fact that criminal rules of evidence do not apply to the Committee the original provenance of the email archive is entirely moot: the Committee is not bound by an exclusionary rule in the first place. Even if the allegations of the mailing list archive having been taken illegally by an outsider "hacking" were correct, they lie entirely outside the jurisdiction and reach of the Committee, and have no bearing on the propriety of using it.

— Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Proposal by JzG

I believe that much of the problem would be solved if we had a general prohibition on admins using their tools in ethnic disputes when those admins closely identify with one side of the ethnic dispute. Ethnic issues have probably the longest history of dispute, right back to Gdanzig and beyond, and I think that any administrative action should be strictly at arms length for these articles. I don't see how Piotrus, for example, can ever be perceived as an honest broker by the opposing side in these disputes - however carefully he might weigh the neutrality of every action, the mere fact of his involvement will be inflammatory to a deeply entrenched opposing camp - muc more so than would be the case with, say, William and climate change articles, where there is at least an objective standard by which to judge the issue. In many ethnic disputes there never can be an objective single value of truth, which is why they are so intractable. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Proposal by Piotrus

I believe that the Committee should adopt a policy that would inform parties presenting evidence to the ArbCom that they have no right to share private information that is not theirs without permission from other parties whose private information is being shared, and that the Committee will not accept such evidence. The Committee should also adopt a policy that it will not accept evidence obtained by illegal or unethical means (such as, but not limited to, hacking somebody's computer). This should substantially discourage parties from attempting to violate other editors' privacy, and from other illegal actions such as hacking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Proposal 1 by Radeksz

Due to the fact that the case involves off-Wiki material that has been collected and possibly altered in an unknown manner and then disseminated with and without permission of the affected parties, issues of Wikipedia editor’s privacy, on and off Wiki, play a central, and unprecedented role in this case, in addition to the topics discussed on the mailing list or the nationalities or places of residence of its members.

As a result the case shall be renamed to “Eastern European Mailing List and Privacy Issues”.

Proposed by radek (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Proposal 2 by Radeksz

Alex Bakharev is immediately temporarily desysopped.

User:Alex Bakharev, one of the administrators who received the email from Tymek's compromised acocunt with the supposed "evidence", despite the uncertain legal status of this material shared it with other Wikipedia users, notably User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim. He did this despite being previously asked, in a specific and clear manner, more than once, not to share the information [1] [2], as it contained personal and private data about several Wikipedia users, including their real names, occupations and families. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on outing.

As a result of showing bad judgment Alex Bakharev, for the duration of the ArbCom case shall be desysopped and his administrative privileges revoked, pending complete investigation and conclusion of this case.

Proposed by radek (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Editing restrictions proposal

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia NewYorkBrad suggested that I make a proposal on editing restrictions. As this Arbcom is partly centred around the topic of Soviet/Russian/succesor states history in relation to the history of the Baltic States, Poland and Romania, I feel that a fair proposal would be the temporary ban of myself, and all editors named as being on this email list, from editing articles relating to the history of the Soviet Union/Russia/successor states (including the Baltics), Poland and Romania, where the history is based upon any one of the named states interactions with any of the other named states, e.g. Soviet-Polish history, Polish-Ukrainian history, Russian-Estonian, Romanian-Moldovan history, etc. This would allow editing to continue by all editors in areas which are not related to this area of dispute, and where there is likely productive work going on, and for the duration of these proceedings. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Discussion is here

Proposal 2 by Piotrus - to add Deacon of Pndapetzim as a party

Based on the comments and activity of Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) I think it is obvious he consider himself a party to this case, and as such should be added to it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the archive, not the dubious file that was circulated

Would the list administrator agree to let somebody inspect the archives? In real life I occasionally serve as an expert witness and get to peruse through people's highly private (trade secret) data and give my opinions to the court. If you don't trust me, would you trust somebody else to examine the archives and tell ArbCom whether there were nefarious activities going on, or not? Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)