Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Important — please note

The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case:

"Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident."
"Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed."
"All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided."

The Clerk for this case is KnightLago (talk · contribs) who will be assisted by non-recused members of the Clerk team in enforcing the above rules. The Clerks will, wherever it deems necessary, refactor and remove statements where they violate the above directions, or where they violate the general standards of decorum and Wikipedia policies. The Clerks will, where required for particular egregious or repetitive violations, ban participants from the case pages for an appropriate period of time.

Both the refactoring of statements, and case page bans, that are implemented by the Clerks, can be appealed to the Committee.

If any user requires assistance in submitting private evidence to the Arbitrators in the method requested by Committee (see the second bullet point, above), please contact a member of the Clerks or, alternatively, an Arbitrator directly.

—User:KnightLago (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Sandstein

Reposted here from the case talk page as suggested by Daniel.

I was first made aware of the (alleged) existence of this mailing list in the WP:ANI thread of 17 September 2009, and have not seen the supposedly leaked archives.

I have not participated in any off- or onwiki coordination related to Eastern Europe in general or administrative actions in this area in particular. I am not aware of any attempts, as has allegedly been the purpose of this mailing list, to exert any sort of influence upon me (except of course that I have received several onwiki and some e-mail reactions to administrative actions I took with respect to the topic area).

My administrator and arbitration enforcement actions in this area are all based solely on the requests made and evidence presented on the administrators' and arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and this will continue to be the case. Sandstein 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ellol

User Russavia was unfairly topic-banned

First of all, what are the facts. Russavia was topic-banned for 6 months by Sandstein [1] for addressing a member of the Eastern European Mailing List (Marting) in a not generally appropriate manner.

Later, the topic ban was extended by Sandstein for infinity after this Russavia's comment at Russavia's talk page: [2].

Given the new evidence about the Mailing List, the situation looks so.

Russavia told to a member of the Mailing List a single sentence that was treated by the admin as WP:BATTLE (though it was marked with a smile, and could be normally treated a joke). As far as I know, it's a rather harsh decision even without the current evidence.

But given the evidence we have now, I assert that Russavia was not in the situation of the ordinary Wikipedia user-to-user discussion. Instead, he addressed the people acting as a single united team with certain ideological settings. Generally, we see the Wiki relationships as person-to-person ones and insist that people need to stay civil. But in this case, Russavia was confronted by a team.

I had to stand in some situations against edits by users from the Mailing List, and I can say it's a highly unpleasant feeling, when it looked that I don't talk to real alive people, but the wall that behaved regardless of what I do. It looked like the world around was against me. And it looked that I am wrong merely for having a different opinion than the other people -- who as I see now actually teamed against me. So I understand perfectly well what Russavia could feel.

What happened later is what I can't understand at all. Russavia's ban was extended merely because he posted a comment on his own talk page! What does it mean -- he could not even express his opinion about what's going on, at his own talk? How can this be possible?

I strongly propose the Arbitration Committee to review the situation with Russavia's ban, that looks for me very much unfair, especially given the new evidence.

Admin Sandstein shouldn't be let to keep sanctions on Russavia

I see that he made an unjustified decision to ban Russavia even without the evidence we have now. But what strikes me is that Sandstain continues to insist now that his decision was correct: [3].

I am afraid, that now he might be merely proving that he was right that time, as it may matter for his future and current Wikipedia career.

I believe that he is not an uninvolved person to this case. I strongly propose not to leave Russavia's case on behalf of admin Sandstain, who must be suffering from the conflict of interests.

Evidence presented by Durova

After taking a couple of days off it isn't very much of a surprise to see this dispute at arbitration, but it is startling to discover the way it arrived and shocking to see myself compared to a cockroach. If any good can arise from this unfortunate situation let's hope it will be to see WP:CIVIL resume its former significance at this website. For those who prefer name-calling, Usenet is thataway.

These unexpected developments make a statement necessary. As everyone knows, I have a history with regard to offsite correspondence which I am very sorry for. If there had been any reason to guess that this situation could take a similar direction then I would have avoided it completely. I was not aware that the mailing list existed. The ANI thread about Russavia's topic ban appeared to be at the wrong venue and it seemed like a reasonable thing to agree with the people who had already referred it elsewhere.

Shortly afterward, when a community sanction got proposed, I objected procedurally in order to prevent the kind of difficulties that arose after the Bluemarine case: for a quick refresher browse two noticeboard threads that bookend the problem.[4][5] The main lesson to be learned from the Bluemarine example is that it's best to establish clear lines regarding arbitration sanctions and community sanctions. Months of trouble arose from the lack of clarity in that instance. The Eastern European disputes are bitter and longstanding; a similar problem there would likely be worse.

~~Both at ANI and here I have no opinion whether the sanctions on Russavia were appropriate or inappropriate; I simply hope to see ArbCom settle the matter and put it to rest.~~

Until today when this case opened my only offsite correspondence regarding this dispute was a brief gchat with John Vandenberg on 11 September, which I initiated. I mentioned the ANI thread and suggested the Committee might want to look into the problem before it worsened. My final words to him were "It's the type of situation where the cross-accusations tend to accumulate, and ArbCom eventually finds itself mopping a big spill instead of a small one."

Today I received two brief emails from Piotrus and a gchat from Giano, which brought me up to date in a basic way. As the nature of this matter becomes clear please conduct further communications onsite.

Regarding the list emails themselves (which I have not seen nor do I want to), it is currently my understanding that they were obtained via hacking. During the Bluemarine arbitration a computer hacking occurred and the Committee disregarded the information that emerged from it. There are two very good reasons for ignoring hacked information: (1) we don't wish to encourage hacking, and (2) anyone who sinks to hacking is probably not above altering material.

~~In the Bluemarine case the hacking victim's bank account was also emptied. Durova³¹⁹ 19:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking previous evidence, and substituting an update. During the early days of this case I offered to attempt a comparison of list emails from the list members against the version that reached ArbCom. Possibly I was not the best person to extend such an offer, but no one else had attempted it (including the arbitrators, it appears). It was unknown to me until ArbCom declined the request that anyone other than the list members themselves had privacy issues at stake. Simple workarounds could have resolved those issues but they were not pursued. As a fallback I planned to compare the list members' versions against publicly available versions. All members of the list gave consent for me to review their correspondence; I would have deleted and purged any material that compromised anyone else's privacy. Unfortunately, no member of the list actually provided me with any material. Repeated requests since 23 September have gone unheeded; I have not received any emails from any list member, nor has a time frame been established for providing them. Details are available at User:Piotrus/ArbCom. Consequently, I have not read any of the publicly available emails. Other than for purposes of vetting it's none of my business.

I no longer have time to attempt the review and have withdrawn the offer.

A handful of people from both sides of the case have contacted me offsite, offering various rationales for the delay. These range from guilt-induced sloth to well-meaning dispondency and disorganization. I offer no opinion regarding those speculations. What I do wish to refer people to is the underdeveloped article Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, which Mike Godwin won during his time with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Although the relevant Wikipedia articles don't cover the matter sufficiently, Bruce Sterling's book The Hacker Crackdown happens to be available online.[6] The groundbreaking finding of the case concluded that email has the same legal expectation of privacy as postal mail.

It is both ironic and disappointing to watch the most experienced volunteers of Godwin's current employer abandon the privacy concept upon which he built his reputation and career. The current arbitration case was hastily conceived; without vindicating or damning the parties who are currently under scrutiny it remains possible to shiver at the example being set here. Durova³²¹ 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Skäpperöd

Off-wiki coordination of the group was/is not limited to the mailing list

In addition to evidence already forwarded to the Arbcom, I formally include here the evidence concerning off-wiki coordination presented in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. With the mailing list archive, Arbcom has strong evidence and should focus on the analysis of that archive in the workshop, yet as shown in the respective evidence sections of the prior EE case the timeframe of the group's operation and the group's means of off-wiki coordination are not limited to what the archive reveals.

Rumours tell and Arbcom/clerks may be able to verify that

[20090603-1312]: Piotrus, Tymek and Jacurek coordinated their edits before the latter joined the list.
[20090613-0505] and [20090613-0651]: IM, compare to former Piotrus2 Arbcom.

During the Piotrus2 arbcom, Piotrus had a telling conversation with Irpen, which should be re-read in face of the new evidence [7]. Quote Piotrus:

"I can promise you I will not "call in reverts" to create battlegrounds, I will not stack votes with otherwise uninterested meatpuppets, I will not seek to block content opponents I cannot deal with via normal dispute resolutions." (Piotrus, September 2008, [8])

Pending verification by Arbcom/clerk

May Arbcom or a clerk please verify if the following rumours are correct:

Piotrus proxied for blocked Molobo

[20090915-1759] --> [9]
[20090607-0903] and [20090607-2005] --> [10]

Jacurek proxied for blocked Molobo

[20090902-1512] --> [11]

Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo

[20090905-2159] --> [12]

Tymek proxied for blocked Molobo

[20090624-2155] --> [13]

Sock of Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo at Wikimedia Commons

[20090624-2155] --> [14] (proxying sock) and [20090628-2225] (sock was Radeksz. Radeksz had and has an account at Commons [15].)

Jacurek did tasked reverts following selective tendering by Radeksz

[20090626-1934] and [20090626-2029] --> [16], [17] and [18]

Piotrus, Digwuren and Tymek coordinated their actions at WP:AE

[20090205-1849] ff. --> [19]

Radeksz, Digwuren and Tymek coordinated editing

[20090613-0720] (Radeksz) --> [20] (Digwuren) and [21] ff. (Tymek)

Molobo (blocked, via proxy), Radeksz, Piotrus, Jacurek, Tymek: Canvassing, coordinated editing, reverting and baiting into 3RR, coordinated report

[20090606-1316] ff. (whole thread) --> resulting 3RR. Note also Poeticbent's involvement.

Questionable behaviour during this case

Piotrus going after his opponents here on admin boards

Piotrus opened an AN thread on Vlad fedorov [22]
Piotrus going after Giano in a dead AN/I thread [23]

On this evidence page, Molobo presents a faked RfC against me that was circulated, tweaked and composed on the EEML

Molobo drafted an RfC against me during the SPI case I filed against him. The purpose was to discredit me by associating me with the Nazis. I hope that nothing of the defamation campaign is taken seriously. Clerks and Arbs may be able to access the original draft of the RfC and distribution to EEML members here

[20090517-1911] ff, attached file with the first draft: Skap.txt
[20090711-1945], attached file with draft: Skap.txt

In the Piotrus2 Arbcom case, Molobo had badmouthed me and another user in a similar way with out-of-context "Nazi" quotes. The faked nature was revealed in the course of the case eg here and here. Now Molobo is presenting his RfC here as his evidence [24]. One diff (the "...Reich Ministry...1934..." of July 2008) he brought up against me in the Piotrus2-Arbcom already, my response was and is in that arbcom's pages. The other diffs:

Re "Incivility": Molobo dug out a diff from 2008 where I said "Das spricht schon Bände". To interpret that as an "anti-Polish slur" speaks volumes (ext link to dictionary) - that's what it means (Bände=volumes, spricht Bände=speaks volumes, see also Future Perferct's comment; besides that, "Bandit" (the word I did not use) would not even be an "anti-Polish slur": it has the same meaning in German as in English.
Re "Campaign of intimidation...": Well, I guess people with access to the archive will wonder if it was not the other way around? As to the diffs: Yes, I do file reports when I am being insulted and harassed. More interesting for Arbcom may be to compare the Xx236 diff with [20090908-1704] and [20090909-1709]
Re "Persistent edit warring": The diff shows me enforcing the Gdanzig rule in early 2008.
Re "Disregard regarding community consensus": Look at the diffs, compare the names of Molobo's supporters with the names on the mailing list, and look for the plenty of other voices amidst the noise.
Re "Showing Nazi...": The diff [25] is actually evidence to the contrary: Molobo was the one who claimed the whole data of the source to be a Nazi census, the source did not say so, and it later turned out that it wasn't. But with the same change he falsely attributed the RS as Nazi census, he actually introduced a table really based on Nazi sources [26] ...
Re "Trying to ban...": I still think that it is problematic to base half a contentious article on these Communist-era sources and not even have an in-text attribution, the on-wiki discussion is here, for the off-wiki discussion compare [20090517-1145] ff - Communist sources are bad except when used by mailing list members.
Re "Removing information...": This SPA was responsible for the insertion and the mailing list then appeared out of the blue reverting to the SPA's version, maybe user:Thatcher recalls the drama, that made it to AE [27]. The resulting RfC discarded the SPA's/mailing list's version, and who knows if the SPA wasn't someone's sock. Also compare the threads starting with [20090628-1041] and [20090630-1919].
Re "Concealing identity...": calling a living lawyer a Nazi in mainspace w/o RS backing that up is a no-go, and I was not the only one who thought so [28]
Re "...respectable historians": This diff is not only misrepresented, but also the result of a mailing list "trap" for me extra designed for the RfC, compare [20090827-0905] ff

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Email archive

Let's get one thing clear: this list is real, and the amount of incriminating material is breathtakingly overwhelming and thickly spread, so much so that despite the huge size of the archive evidence of gross misconduct is obscenely easy to spot. For instance, in the threads entitled "[WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban" (early days of June), it is revealed that Piotrus, Radek, Biophys and others knew and encouraged Molobo's recent socking (for which he was banned for a year by User:Avraham), conspired more puppetry, pondered how to avoid detection in future, and advocated use of proxies. Other such activities are easy to spot. Conspiring to harass and edit-war is so rampant throughout the archive that ironing out the details is almost pointless, and using this User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads along with the archive saves very little time. I will not post many more comments on the archive until it is clear what ArbCom have and have not spotted, what they intend to do, and so on.

Some of these emails should be required reading for future AE admins. Particularly Biruitorul's post on "[WPM] More cabal theory" June 6 2009 and Radek's long post at "Re: [WPM] It isn't over" on June 21 2009, the former concerning the "political" set-up among nationalist users in eastern Europe and the latter on cabaling strategy in general. Read only though if you can take the smack on your faith in human nature, and can protect yourself from future over-reactive cynicism.

My "involvement" and how this was allowed to happen

Two of the users on this list I've been familiar with for years, namely Piotrus and Molobo. I only encountered them because I inadvertently stepped into a nationalist war on a medieval history article (Jogaila), and, after that dispute was settled everything was amicable, until the Lokyz unblock that is. The others I had never heard of until the period leading up to the Piotrus 2 ArbCom hearing, but know now from AE threads. What an experience it has been to have users like Martintg, Biophys, Vecrumba, Digwuren, and others, who I'd barely heard of and never had a dispute with, attacking me on wiki. Back when I encountered them in 2006 (Piotrus and Molobo are the only survivors from that period on this list), they were doing much of this on wiki, at

Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board (note the top, there is a list of nationalist POV disputes advertised to all members to edit war in "articles needing attention")

(and there after visibly went offline e.g.)

I sought intervention against that board and its activities then,[29] (or see Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs/Archive_01#Aftermath) and nothing would have happened (as I was an inexperienced newbie) were it not for the fact that my concerns were picked up, independently I think, by User:Elonka.

E.g. Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board/Archive_6#Proposal_to_rename_this_notice_board

Elonka's good-faithed activity led to her recusing from involvement in the area once she became an admim, yet she was not "involved" beyond trying to ensure good behaviour, while her Polish ancestry made her no more involved than Kirill Lokshin, the Russian architect of most previous ArbCom decisions. Yet the users in question managed to hound her from the area, just as they later hounded me. And as a result, two admins with insight into this matter were made useless to the community, and instead it was left to more naive admins whom this cabal could and have eaten for breakfast. I've had to watch while good-faithed admins like AGK, Ryan Postelwaite, Sandstein, and others were played like pawns in a game they neither understood nor knew they were playing (Thatcher is an exception, and this should be stated). If these admins think I am being unfair, then they should check the emails and note how the cabalists glory and gloat at their expense.

Why have I been unable to do anything? When I brought Piotrus 2 forward, they depicted me as an involved eastern european editor:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Evidence#Tag_team_1:_Russian], where Piotrus listed me as part of a Russian tag team.

The account User:Koretek was set-up by User:Molobo (as User:Sciurinae has shown since) purely to leave messages on talk pages accusing me of being anti-Polish

I think some of the arbs bought this, sadly enough; certainly that's what the email cabal seem to think (e.g. "Friday, February 06, 2009 5:15 PM"). A frivolous admonition was passed against me as punishment for bringing the case, and since then this "remedy" has been used to undermine everything I've said about this case, whether this was on AE threads (e.g.) or elsewhere.[30] I have also been accused of nursing a grudge against Piotrus (by Piotrus' list pals of course, but sadly also by User:Coren,here soon after a minor dispute I had with him as a clerk, comments which even these mail-listers thought were funny [check the relevant emails]). I was really frustrated at this, but being a little non-networking user/admin I had to accept that this is sometimes the result of trying to protect good wikipedians against abuse. As I said at the time to one of the arbs, ArbCom and the clique around them often inadvertently do more damage to good users than these bad users do.

But if I and Elonka, two admins with AE experience, had freedom in this area, this cabaling would not have had the same effect. I can't speak for Elonka, but I already knew this was happening and stated frequently. As a result I was frequently accused of bad faith and grudge-holding, but my integrity has never been seriously challenged and the plain fact is that I just had more experience and insight. Having no reason to doubt my integrity, there was no reason to ignore me and my experience, as ArbCom did. But if this weren't bad enough, ArbCom had the ability to know itself just by reading the evidence, but did nothing.

You can bring a horse to water, but can't make it drink

ArbCom already had the information to know this was happening, and to know about the character of these users. The Alden Jones incident in question was commented upon in the evidence section of Piotrus 2. Since mine is mostly deleted now, I'll repost the section:

Shortly afterwards a user came out of nowhere and reverted [31], User:Alden Jones, for which effort he was almost blocked for it.[32] The user has only poor English, no interest in the topic and was only reverting to "support" Piotrus, and most of his edits in the past have consisted of little more than reverting to whatever version of an article Piotrus happens to prefer. Funnily enough, Alden had been inactive for more than three weeks prior to that revert, since his 2 day block for revert-warring (along with Piotrus) on Truce of Vilna. Alden Jones has since effectively revealed that he was sent there by another user; the only other reverter was, of course, Piotrus [33]. Piotrus later left this message Long time after the single revert, but 2 hours after Lokyz' comment there. Use your own judgment here. He has since claimed this is a loving follower, and now I'm just waiting for him to claim that Alden's gaff was the result of his poor English.

The diff, presented above, is here.

Evidence showing beyond doubt that off-wiki collaboration was widespread was presented, here, here, and, among other places, here and here. But, despite this, we got:

25.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed by 6 arbs to 0.

You can only bring a horse to water, you can't make it drink. Not only was this FoF a bad summary of the evidence, it was also a misleading message (presumably prompted by Piotrus' disingenuous complaints that he was being misunderstood) that told the admin community that the accusations against him were a natural result of the inevitable enmity he encounters by writing lots of articles, and nothing more. I know some of the arbs actually believed this, from a second hand account of private arbitrator comments. That said, this finding was just one of many absurdities showing the arbs hadn't read the evidence and had little but haughty contempt for those who provided it, a haughty contempt that turned misguided opinion of the matter into damaging action.

It was continually shown that Piotrus and his followers were using offline techniques to co-ordinate edit-warring and harass other users; it was continually shown that Piotrus had a disreputable character unbecoming of an editor let alone an admin (evidence the TigerShark-Lokyz IRC incident, or the [Black Book] whose post_Piotrus 2 history can be seen in the emails), yet those punished were the victims, a list including but not confined to User:Irpen, User:Lokyz, and, in a previous case, User:Ghirlandajo. The last, before he left, was statistically Wikipedia's top content contributor! Irpen joined Ghirlandajo after the case in the long list of productive wikipedians who have been driven off the project. They are volunteers and don't need to put up with this kind of abuse if ArbCom, the only body who could have protected them, refused to and instead victimised them. Having a sense of injustice transforms a person remarkably.

Evidence presented by Offliner

Here I present some evidence which I hope will be helpful to ArbCom when investigating the emails. I will concentrate on editors who according to ArbCom are members of the list. There is a huge amount of evidence of all kinds of dirty tricks and tactics by the list members, including coordinated edit warring, provocations against the list's opponents, coordinated block shopping and defending each other all over Wikipedia.

When did members join the list?

2009-03-21. Miacek joins. (20090321-1644-[WPM] Miacek is now in our little list.eml)
2009-04-14. Biophys joins. (20090414-1421-[WPM] Biophys subscribed.eml)
2009-05-27. Radeksz joins. (20090517-1235-[WPM] Radek should be subscribed now..eml)
2009-06-03. Sander Säde rejoins. (20090603-1317-[WPM] Sander resubscribed.eml)
2009-06-05. Tymek joins. (20090605-1944-[WPM] Tymek subscribed.eml)
2009-06-08. Jacurek joins. (20090608-2054-[WPM] Jacurek joining.eml)
2009-06-11. Ostap R joins. (20090611-2032-[WPM] Ostap subscribed.eml)
2009-06-15. Poeticbent joins. (20090615-0819-[WPM] Poeticbent.eml)

Others seem to have been members from the beginning.

Members of the secret email list coordinate their edit warring

Here are some example incidents about coordinated edit warring by the list members.

September edit warring

I went on a wikibreak on 7 September: [34]. Around the same time, PasswordUsername went on a break due to hardware problems.
On 9 September, Piotrus points out to the team that this is an excellent time to edit war on articles where the list's "enemies" have an upper hand. (On 20090909-1718-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned !.eml)

Alexander Litvinenko

On 9 September, after having made no edits on the article for a long time, Biophys suddenly appeared to edit war: [35] He performed a massive revert to an old version. To see why this is a massive revert, observe how Biophys blindly restores a typo ("persecuition"), that had been fixed many times by other editors (as noted on the talk page by Russavia.)
On 9 September, Offliner reverts Biophys: [36].
On 9 September, Biophys mentions Offliner's revert on the list and calls for help in the edit war. (20090909-2347-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned !.eml)
On 15 September, while Biophys was blocked, Radeksz arrived to edit war on Biophys' behalf: [37]

Russian apartment bombings

After having made no edits on the article for a long time, Biophys arrived on 11 September to edit war: [38]
Radeksz arrived on 13 September to edit war in support of Biophys: [39][40]. Before this, Radeksz had showed no interest in the article's subject. He had only made 1 edit, which also was a revert in support of Biophys: [41] (for this edit, Radeksz was briefly blocked: [42])
Biophys was blocked for edit warring on another article for 31h on 15 September (although he also made 3 reverts in 24h on Russian apartment bombings, and more later) [43]
Radeksz continued to edit war in support of Biophys while Biophys was blocked: [44]
Piotrus arrived on 16 September to edit war in support of Biophys (Piotrus never edited the article before): [45]

Early June edit warring

In early June, there was edit warring in several articles with several members of the list participating.

There were several calls to arms on the secret list.

2 June. Digwuren asks the list members to help him edit war in several articles. (20090603-1647-[WPM] Discrimination.eml)
5 June. Digwuren suggests that they team members should try to overwhelm the opponents' revert count. (20090605-2009-[WPM] tactics re Offliner and PasswordUsername.eml)
6 June. Piotrus suggests that the team should coordinate their reverts, so that none of the team members get too many reverts and their opponents (such as Offliner) gets more. This way the team should be able to report Offliner at ANI/3RR eventually without getting reported themselves. (20090606-0618-[WPM] tactics re Offliner and PasswordUsername.eml)

Ethnocracy

3 June. PasswordUsername edits: [46]
3 June. Digwuren reverts: [47]
3 June. Shotlandiya reverts: [48]
3 June. Radeksz arrives (he never edited this article before): [49]
4 June. Edit war continues: [50][51][52][53]
5 June. Martintg arrives: [54]
9 June. Sander Säde arrives: [55]
11 June. Radesz continues to edit war: [56]

Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia[57]

1 June. Article created by me.
1 June. Martintg nominates for deletion: [58].
5 June. Article is merged to Human rights in Estonia.
6 June. Radeksz arrives to edit war: [59][60]
6 June. Vecrumba arrives to edit war: [61]

Kaitsepolitsei

5 June. Criticism by Amnesty International inserted.
5 June. Radeksz removes: [62]
6 June. Sander Säde arrives to do the same: [63]
6 June. Radeksz continues to edit war: [64]
7 June. Martintg arrives: [65]
7 June. Digwuren arrives: [66]

Digwuren personal attack

Digwuren calls other editors Neo-Nazis (in violation of WP:DIGWUREN): [67] As a result, Digwuren is blocked by Thatcher: [68]

Team members use coordinated action to keep copyvio images

On 11 August, admin User:J Milburn (who is very experienced with image copyrights) nominates several copyvio images for deletion. Example: [69]
At 01:01 on 12 August, Piotrus arrives to accuse J Milburn of disruption: [70]
At 01:42 on 12 August, Jacurec arrives to protest against the nomination: [71]
At 02:09 on 12 August, Poeticbent arrives to do the same: [72]
J Milburn is convinced that the images are copyvio: [73]
See J Milburn's replies here: [74]. Sorry I didn't say this just now, just wanted to add that my head is reeling. I really, really, really can't see why you've turned a simple image cleanup into some kind of war between encyclopedists and deletionists. What are you doing?! Whatever, that image can be decided at FfD now. Seems like an awful waste of time, but it's what you wanted...
It seems very likely that on 11 August, there was a call to arms on the secret list to use team pressure to keep the copyvio images. Especially in light of the extremely fast response time of the team.

File:German Soviet.jpg

This is a remarkable episode, in which the team members through stealth canvassing and abuse of admin tools almost managed to keep a clear copyvio image.

At 21:37 on 11 July. File:German Soviet.jpg nominated for deletion by J Milburn. [75]
Tymek informs the group of the nomination. (20090712-0554-[WPM] To your attention.eml)
At 22:56 on 11 July. Dc76 arrives to argue for keep: [76]
At 05:52 on 12 July. Jacurek arrives to vote keep: [77]
At 06:49 on 12 July. Piotrus arrives to vote keep: [78]
At 11:28 on 12 July. Martintg arrives to vote keep: [79]
At 13:25 on 12 July. Biophys arrives to vote keep: [80]
At 15:53 on 12 July. Vecrumba arrives to vote keep: [81]
Only three non-cabal members voted in the discussion: User:J Milburn (delete), User:Mosedshurte (keep), User:Calliopejen1 (delete) and User:Jennavecia (delete). [82]
The clear conclusion of this is that the swamping of the discussion by cabal members was effective and almost resulted in the copyvio image being kept.
At 17:05 on 12 July. Admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry closes the discussion as speedy delete: "...per NFCC8, or as a blatant infringement of fair use laws." [83]
At 21:48 on 12 July. Piotrus uses his admin tools to restore the image. [84]
At 22:13 on 12 July. Piotrus explicitly exploits the pseudo-consensus that resulted from list members swamping the discussion: [85]
On 12 July. Piotrus announces his action on the secret list. (20090712-2106-[WPM] To your attention.eml)
At 14:48 on 13 July. J Milburn deletes the image again: [86]

Team members are engaged in coordinated attempts to provoke their opponents

Coordinated provocations against Deacon of Dnapetzim

At 06:05 on 4 April, Piotrus initiates a move discussion at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655): [87]

Piotrus asks members to comment on the discussion and try to provoke Deacon into losing his temper. If this happens Deacon can then be reported to AE/ANI according to Piotrus' plan. (20090404-0611-[WPM] Deacon versus Piotrus.eml)

At 09:53, Radeksz arrives to support Piotrus: [88]

At 09:56, Digwuren arrives to support Piotrus: [89]

At 15:56, Deacon of Pndapetzim arrives to oppose: [90]

Jacurec, Poeticbent and Loosmark also supported Piotrus.

Deacon's participation on the move discussion is used against him in an WP:AE report (filed by Radeksz on 8 June): [91]. List members Piotrus, Jacurek, Tymek and Poeticbent make comments on the thread.

Coordinated provocations against PasswordUsername

On 10 June. PasswordUsername edits Jewish Bolshevism. [92]

On 11 June. Vecrumba makes a post at PU's talkpage: [93]

On 11 June. Vecrumba discusses his post on the secret list. He predicts that either PasswordUsername will back of, or he will take the bait, lose his temper and make incivil remarks. If this happens, Vecrumba will try to get PasswordUsername banned. (20090611-0230-[WPM] PasswordUsername_ opportunity.eml.)

Coordinated provocations and attempts to out me

On 24 June, Biophys proposes that the following articles (created by me) are nominated for deletion: Simon Saradzhyan, Ruslan Pukhov, Sergei Markedonov, Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Moscow Defense Brief (20090624-2218-[WPM] Thatcher_ Offliner and others)
The next day, list member Biruitorul nominates one of the articles for deletion.[94]
The aim of this exercise was to check my response and to find out my real life identity, probably in order to out me later.

Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards

2009-03-20. Russavia reported to AE. Commenting against Russavia: Digwuren, Vecrumba, Martintg
2009-04-02. Martintg reported at AN3. Defending Marting: Colchicum, Piotrus, Biophys
2009-04-02. Colchicum reported to An3 . Defending Colchicum: Digwuren, Martintg
2009-05-21. Digwuren reported to AN/I. Defending Digwuren: Martintg, Colchicum, Radeksz, Vecrumba, Piotrus
2009-06-14. PasswordUsername reported at AN/I. Commenting against PasswordUsername: Radeksz, Piotrus, Vecrumba, Martintg
2009-06-18. Biophys reported to AE Defending Biophys: Digwuren, Martintg, Vecrumba, Piotrus
2009-06-18. Digwuren reported to AE Defending Digwuren: Martintg, Piotrus, Jacurek, Miacek, Tymek
2009-06-19. Rejected Eastern Europe Arbitration request
2009-09-15. Biophys reported to AN3 Defending Biophys: Martintg

On 15 September, Biophys was blocked by User:Rjanag: [95] Martintg arrives to defend Biophys: [96] Marting tries to defend Biophys on Rjanag's talk page as well -- Rjanag thinks Martintg's actions are inapproriate: [97]. Rjanag responds to Martintg: "The only reason you think it's unjustified is because in the past I didn't block one of your "enemies" who, in your perception, edit warred just as much": [98]. Piotrus arrives to defend Biophys, saying "I didn't see the unblock request, otherwise I'd have unblocked you": [99]. Caspian blue says: "You'd better not because you're an involved person in regards to Biophys (not in the edit warring). Favoritism should be avoided". [100]. Piotrus claims he is not involved: [101]

Team members used coordinated action to convince an admin to unblock Martintg

2 April, Martintg was blocked for edit warring: [102].
Martintg called for help on the secret list. He asked team members to point out his previously clean block log (20090403-0013-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin.eml.)
Piotrus arrived -- as usual -- to Martintg's defence: [103]. Biruitorul also defended Martintg: [104]. Dc76 also appeared defensive: [105].
Both Piotrus and Biruitorul used the same argument (Martintg's previously clean block log) as requested by Martintg on the secret list.
Afterwards Martintg posted an email on the secret list, thanking Piotrus, Biruitorul and Dc76 for defending him, saying that their comments evidently convinced William M. Connolley to lift the block. (20090403-1015-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin.eml)

Members of the secret email list appear to be involved in stealth canvassing of votes

Most of the members always vote the same way in AfDs. Often editors who never showed any interest in the article's subject will suddenly appear to vote in favour of other members of the group. Especially interesting is the behaviour of Radeksz and Piotrus in the following Russia-related subjects: normally they only edit Poland or WWII related articles, but often they appear out of nowhere to support their friends on Russian articles.

2008-12-28. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend.
- Keep: Biophys, Martintg, Digwuren, Biruitorul, Dc76, Hillock65
2009-03-30. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Ukrainians (2nd nomination).
- Hillock65 nominated it for deletion.
- Hillock65 invited other members to participate in his email 20090330-1348-[WPM] AfD_Proto-Ukrainians.eml.
- Keep: Biruitorul, Dc76, Miacek.
2009-04-19. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings
- Keep: Keep: Biophys, Martintg, Vecrumba, Biruitorul
2009-05-02. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia.
- Keep: Vecrumba, Biophys, Martintg
2009-06-08. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia.
- Delete: Martintg, Digwuren, Sander Säde, Colchicum, Vecrumba, Biophys, Termer, Radeksz, Piotrus, Biruitorul
2009-08-02. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination)
- Reported in 20090804-0059-[WPM] AfD.eml
- Keep: Martintg (through the ip), Radeksz, Piotrus, Tymek, Vecrumba, Jacurek, Poeticbent, Biophys
2009-08-03. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
- Reported in 20090805-0640-[WPM] AfD.eml
- Keep: Piotrus, Martintg, Jacurek, Hillock65, Poeticbent, Vecrumba, Termer, Biophys
- If we count only third-party votes (neither members of the list nor their "enemies", the result is +9 votes for delete.
- The AfD was closed as "no consensus."
- It is clear that without the stealth canvassing by the list members, this article would have been deleted.
2009-08-26. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination).
- Keep: Biophys, Martintg

Piotrus has made unfounded personal attacks

When I filed a report about Digwuren, Piotrus responded by attacking me: I agree with Radek; and I am fed up with the continuing harassment of Digwuren by Offliner. He has started baseless threads here, at user talk pages, at other Wikipedia pages... and has been throwing mud on Digwuren by the bucket, hoping something will stick.[106]

I asked Piotrus: Could please provide evidence that I have done such things? When have I harassed Digwuren or started baseless threads about him? I do not recall starting a single threat about him, except this one.[107]

Piotrus refused to provide evidence for his claims, although I requested this repeatedly: [108][109]

When I filed an AE report of Digwuren, Piotrus responded by attacking me: [110]

He also said that my evidence was "extremely poor." However, based on this evidence, Digwuren was blocked and placed on 1RR.

When I filed an AE report of Biophys, Piotrus again responded by attacking me: [111]

Piotrus has abused his admin status

Piotrus often uses his admin status to defend his team mates.
For example, on 15 September, when Biophys was blocked, Piotrus said: "I didn't see the unblock request, otherwise I'd have unblocked you."[112]
At WP:AE, Piotrus has repeatedly tried to present himself as an "uninvolved adminstrator" on EE threads concerning his team mates or his enemies. As a result, he has been warned by Jehochman, who threatened to ban him from WP:AE: [113].
In an WP:AE thread about fellow cabal member Biophys, Piotrus says: How am I aligned to any sides here? When editor A agrees with editor B, it doesn't mean that they are part of some evil cabal :) Please stop such accusations [114]
I another thread about Radeksz, Piotrus again claims he is not involved, and suggests he should be made a mentor for Radeksz: [115]
Piotrus' actions are in direct violation of a previous ArbCom remedy, which cautions Piotrus "to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent."[116]

Piotrus has abused his admin tools to help team members in edit war

17:19 on 14 September. Hillock65 edit wars at Battle of Konotop: [117]
05:38 on 15 September. Radeksz arrives to help Hillock65: [118]
10:48 on 15 September. Radeksz is reverted by anonymous IP: [119]
On 15 September, Hillock65 informs secret list members of the edit war. (20090915-0524-[WPM] Advice is sought on situation.eml)
18:00 on 15 September, Piotrus arrives to protect the article: [120]
05:53 on 16 September, Martintg -- having never edited the article before -- reverts the IPs edits to last version by Radeksz: [121]

Other abuse of admin tools by Piotrus

Piotrus has abused his admin tools to restore an image that was speedily deleted by another admin as a clear copyvio violation: [122]. After the nomination was reported on the secret list, team members arrived to swamp the discussion and vote keep. (See the corresponding section above)

Team members protect a known sockpuppet of HanzoHattori

On 24 June, Biophys informs the group that User:Ostateczny_Krach_Systemu_Korporacji is a sockpuppet of banned user User:HanzoHattori. Biophys says the team should not contact the account so that it won't be detected. On 1 July, the account was blocked as a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori, thus confirming that Biophys was trying to prevent a sockpuppet from being detected. (20090624-0003-[WPM] To Dig_ Bio and all who are considering leav.eml)

Team members tried to organize a comeback for banned User:HanzoHattori

Biophys and Piotrus have a long history of protecting User:HanzoHattori and have on several occasions tried to organize a comeback for him.
In February 2008, when User:HanzoHattori was indefinitely blocked,[123] Biophys immediately tried to get the block lifted. All uninvolved editors disagreed. [124]
In August 2008, Biophys and Piotrus again tried to get the block lifted. Almost all uninvolved users (including arbitrator Rlevse) strongly disagreed. [125]
On 1 July, 2009 Biophys informs the mailing list group that a sock of HanzoHattori has been indefinitely blocked. (20090701-0203-[WPM] Women and Wiklp.eml)
On 1 July, Piotrus proposes at WP:AN a review of HanzoHattori's community ban. Piotrus says: "Long story short, it appears to me upon a cursory review that his socks have been performing constructive, not disruptive edits" [126]
Uninvolved User:Collectonian says: "No offense but are we looking at the same sock? OKSK has edit warred, been ridiculously uncivil (including after his block), and has not shown a single solitary sign that he has learned from his past mistakes." [127]
Piotrus asks list members in good standing to make comments in HanzoHattori's defence, such as "his socks were productive, I support giving him a second chance" and so on. (20090701-0427-[WPM] Hanzo (was Women and Wiklp).eml)
In addition to Piotrus, Miacek and Biophys commented on the thread in support of HanzoHattori. [128]

Martintg has continued to be disruptive after his 1RR sanction was lifted

Based on this investigation, Martintg was placed on 1RR on 23 June, 2009.[129]
Later, after intense protesting by several editors, the sanction was later lifted by Thatcher for bureaucratical reasons, because no prior warning was given. As a sidenote, it may interesting to ArbCom to investigate the emails of the secret list from this time period.
After his sanctions were lifted, Martintg has continued to be disruptive.
I edited Kuril Islands dispute for the first time on 9 July, 2009: [130]
The next day, Martintg arrived (he never edited this article before): [131]
Martintg started to edit war with me and to insert anti-Russian POV in the article.
Martintg unilaterally moved the article two times without discussing first. As a result, he was warned by an admin: [132]
He then launched a personal attack against me, and attempted the reveal private information about my background: [133][134]
He was then blocked for outing: [135]
Piotrus -- as usual -- arrived to support Martintg's unblock: [136]
I believe this episode was an attempt to provoke me into edit warring or to making incivil remarks. Like I said, Martintg never edited the article before this. The only reason he arrived was because he saw that I had just edited the article the day before.
Martintg has been disruptive in other articles as well. On 10-11 August he broke 3RR at Communist genocide: [137][138][139][140]
Confirmation by William M. Connolley that Martintg broke 3RR: [141]. See this discussion: [142]
Martintg has edit warred at Soviet Story. As a result, he was warned by an admin: [143].

Disruption, baiting, harassment and gaming of the system by Radeksz

Vote canvassing by Radeksz

On 6 August, Radeksz asks team members to vote in his support in a merge discussion. (20090806-1901-[WPM] Jacurek_ Tymek - merge on Prussian estates.eml)
At 19:54, Jacurek arrives to support Radeksz. [144]
At 21:12, Tymek arrives to support Radeksz. [145]

Baiting and harassment of Deacon of Pdnapetzim

On 3 June, Piotrus suggests that list a list member other than himself should try to bait Deacon of Pndapetzim into making incivil comments about Polish editors. Piotrus says that it would be best if Radeksz did this. (20090603-0726-[WPM] Taking on Deacon.eml)
Radeksz then attempts to do precisely that. [146]
Radeksz discusses his attempt on the secret list. He says: "I tried to be sufficiently patronizing that he should be at least irritated. I also tried to feed him a couple of lines that can easily be taken as uncivil if he says it. I think we should wait just a tad before going to AE since we've been frequent visitors there lately. Basically one or two more comments like that and it should be good (the first one you cite probably isn't strong enough)" (20090603-0813-[WPM] Taking on Deacon.eml)
On 4 June, Piotrus joins in to bait Deacon. [147]

Baiting at DYK by Radeksz

On 16 July, Radeksz nominates Conrad Letzkau for DYK. [148]
On 17 July, Radeksz says that he used an intentionally provocative hook in order to bait editors such as Herkus and Skäpperöd. (20090716-2346-[WPM] Conrad Letzkau DYK.eml) [149].

Sockpuppetry organized by Radeksz

On 16 July, Radeksz says: "if there's some revert that needs to be made an anonymous Belgian IP might be able to provide it (like finally removing that stupid "anti-facist organizations" from Nashi)." (20090716-2317-[WPM] Molotov Ribbentrop Pact article_Baltic state.eml).
On 23 July, a Belgian IP really arrives to edit war at Nashi (youth movement): [150]
On 23 July, the same Belgian IP also edit wars at Nuclear Winter, where he edit wars in support of Biophys, doing exactly the same revert as Biophys did earlier that day. [151][152]

Faking uninvolvement at WP:AE by Radeksz

On 27 June, Radeksz says that he is going to play "a neutral party" at a WP:AE thread. He even says that he will mispell Digwuren's name in order to appear uninformed and uninvolved. (20090627-0916-[WPM] Let's give Thatcher some breathing space.eml)
On 4 July, Radeksz makes his post at WP:AE, even mispelling Digwuren's name just like he said: [153]

Blocking and baiting of team opponents organized by Radeksz

On 2 June, Radeksz announces that a block for team opponent User:Smith2006 "can be arranged". He says that hopefully this will also provide enough rope for User:Matthead (another team opponent) to hang himself with. (20090601-2147-[WPM] How to help Molobo.eml)
On 2 June, Radeksz posts a WP:AE report about Smith2006. [154]
On 3 June, Radeksz continues to push for harder sanctions at Sandstein's talk page: [155]
On 3 June, the fishing expedition is successful, and Smith2006 has been blocked for 5 months. [156]

Tag teaming and dishonesty by Radeksz

On 4 June, Skäpperöd edits at Kołobrzeg. [157][158]
At 13:16 on 6 June, Molobo informs the group of Skäpperöd's recent edits. He says it would be good for the team to react soon. (20090606-1316-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
At 15:23 on 6 June, Tymek (having never edited the article before) arrives to revert Skäpperöd. [159]
At 15:29 on 6 June, Piotrus says: "Keep sending us the diffs here, and we will keep reverting him :)" (20090606-1529-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
At 16:20 on 6 June, Radeksz (having never edited the article before) arrives to edit war. [160][161][162]
On 8 June, Molobo says that Skäpperöd has now engaged in reverting "as expected" (20090607-2231-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
On 8 June, Radeksz says that he has already used up his reverts. (20090607-2319-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
On 8 June, Tymek edits[163] and Skäpperöd seemingly reverts.[164]
On 8 June, Radeksz says that Skäpperöd now probably has 4 reverts in 24h. (20090608-0616-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
On 8 June, Piotrus compiles a list of 4 reverts by Skäpperöd. He says he doesn't have time to file a report right now. (20090608-1017-[WPM] Skapperod on the roll.eml)
At 15:39 on 8 June, Radeksz files a 3RR report about Skäpperöd. [165]
Skäpperöd argues that Radeksz & Co. are part of a tag team with a vendetta against himself. [166]
Radeksz, lying through his teeth, denies any tag teaming: "despite your charges of "tag teaming" (asterisk) you are the only one on that page who is reverting everybody else, hence edit warring". [167]
According to Radeksz: "This accusation comes up everytime that more than one Polish editor has the "nerve" to edit the same Poland related topic. It is spurious. It is insulting. It is a violation of the assumption of good faith. It is disruptive." [168]
Radeksz is clearly using WP:AGF here as a weapon.
At 22:16 on 8 June, Radeksz claims that he "has not edit warred at all." [169]
Sciurinae says: "would you mind explaining how it happened that all of a sudden, on such an isolated article, Poeticbent, Tymek and you all appeared without ever having edited this article or it's talk page, in just one hour's time?"
Jacurek says: "Sciurinæ, there is nothing unusual about it." [170]
The 3RR thread is closed by William M. Connolley with no action, since it was not apparent that there was a 3RR violation.[171]

Interesting emails by Jacurek

20090610-2359 (Jacurek suggests that fake disputes between the members should happen for use as fabricated evidence to deny there was a cabal)
20090628-1358 (Jacurek volunteers himself as free proxy for the edits of blocked user Molobo)
20090708-0528 (Jacurek thanks Tymek for volunteering as sockpuppet but recommends it only be used in emergencies)
20090711-2122 (Jacurek volunteers as proxy for Molobo and pretend to have been formerly friendly towards their victim to fake a honest nature of their planned complaints)
20090712-0554 (Jacurek canvasses a deletion vote despite "blatant infringement of fair use laws")
20090729-1911 (Jacurek thanks Tymek again for offering himself as a sockpuppet)
20090819-2300 (Jacurek expresses his joy at baiting)

Evidence presented by Atama

I just wanted to post a response to Ellol above. Per Russavia's block log, Sandstein had blocked Russavia for only 2 days. Russavia had violated a topic ban but later agreed to abide by the topic ban, which led to Sandstein removing the block. It was Good Ol'factory who later blocked Russavia for making legal threats, and that block has only been lifted procedurally to allow for comments regarding this mailing list incident. I don't see why Sandstein's block is being objected to, when the current indefinite block was Good Ol'factory's decision. Good Ol'factory made the declaration of the indefinite block on AN/I and approved the temporary unblock. I just wanted to clarify this as an outside observer.

Evidence presented by Biophys

Massive outing by a mysterious informant

Some bare facts:

Personal information with real names of every member of the group was posted off-wiki, and people are receiving emails with links to that site [172]. This is probably the biggest outing in WP history.
The leak was accomplished quite professionally, through a proxy server in a third country. No traces.
The leakage was made precisely at the moment when Russavia was blocked.
This case is only the latest episode of a multi-year conflict between a small group of Russian users (some of whom were blocked but quickly replaced by others) and users from many other countries (USA, Russia, Netherlands, Baltic States, Ukraine, Poland and many others), some of whom participated in this mailing list.
Our mailing group had no archive. Someone, either within the group, or outside the group carefully collected every single message to release it at the moment of his choosing.
There was no a "dissenter" in our group who would release the archive to retaliate for Russavia and bring him back. As clear from the emails, some participants did not care about Russavia; others did not like him.
Every member of the group publicly asserted at this site that he did not send the archive. Why? That is what Russavia thinks. Do you believe him?
In email dated April 27, I said to other members of the group (perhaps for a wrong reason): "Do you want our correspondence here mailed to ArbCom?" I explained that one of the members of the group suppose to be a Kremlin's informant according to every textbook, and I also explained why our WP activities are important for people who work there. And that is precisely what had happened.

I think Piotrus crossed the line by making this edit on September 16, just before the archive was sent. Having me and Piotrus editing this article was something he/they could not afford for the reasons described in emails. Therefore, he/they released the archive next day.

I am sorry, but everyoone familiar with Russian internet affairs will believe this to be a special operation by their services, unless you know exactly who did it and why. I contacted one such person who told me to leave your project immediately. I marked my account as inactive with appropriate explanation [173]

Sock puppet by Vlad fedorov to evade ban and conduct outing

But this all started much earlier for me. I have reported to old ArbCom a coded death threat which was made to me by pro-Putin editor ellol. He did it using slang Udaff to make translation from Russian more ambiguous and almost impossible by a non-native speaker. He would be blocked right away because I also reported this incident to the ANI, but User:Alex_Bakharev declared that ellol did not mean it.

Being perfectly aware of this threat, another pro-Putin editor User:Vlad fedorov suddenly reappeared as a sock puppet, User:La poet to evade his one -year block by ArbCom (see SPI case [174]) and reported my real life identity to ellol. I send this information with diffs to Thatcher some time ago, but the diff is still sitting right there, and I would appreciate if Thatcher redirected my email to ArbCom if he still has it.

Next wave of outing was initiated by User:Miyokan and supported by User:DonaldDuck and User:Russavia (hence his two-week block by Moreshi), who all know my real life identity and made it clear to me that they know it, and who are strongly pro-Putin editors. I can support this by diffs over the email to ArbCom if needed. I am not sure why they are doing this because I almost never edited article Putin.

What's wrong with mailing lists?

If I only knew any rules that forbid email lists, I would never be a part of it. According to Thatcher, anything I said to another WP user can be viewed as an "off-wiki coordination" and result in serious sanctions. No, I did not realize that, being familiar only with voting fraud instruction (and I was never involved in voting fraud). Yes, I suspected that our correspondence could be intercepted, but I thought this can not be a reason for opening any official case, simply because I would never read your personal emails sent to someone else.

If Russavia, Ezhiki and others are privately talking over the phone [175], which is fine, what's wrong with emails?

I joined the list only to conduct discussions, not deception and conspiracy, and I hope others did the same. This group had no any common "agenda", being composed of people with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and different political views. It included:

Ukrainian users and several others who hardly did anything at all (please use CAMERA guideline at least).
Piotrus and other Polish users who had no conflicts with Russian group but had disputes with German users.
Several Baltic users and me. Why me? Because Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union, and I am interested in the latter.

Why the list was private? Because I followed your recommendations. You said I should not talk here [176], and I talked privately and elsewhere. It was not me who brought this back.

No punishment for talking off-wiki , please

I suggest that everyone should be sanctioned only for real damage that he/she actually did on-wiki rather than for personal opinions or never accomplished intentions expressed off-wiki and privately. I briefly described it here. During all this time, I hardly started more than a couple discussions/threads myself, but mostly commented and replied to questions by others. I said a lot of things about WP policies and practices (e.g. SPI), about situation with articles on Russian politics an history in general and about certain editors. Something has been confirmed later (User:172 and emails filed to Arbcom); something might be wrong, and I do not want to discuss it now. Please realize, I did little beyond conducting a straightforward debate and providing advice to other members of the list, often to moderate their actions on-wiki.

Once again, I explicitly stated that none of my correspondence in the list should be distributed elsewhere, and Piotrus personally assured me of this. Thus, whoever distributed these materials, a member of the list or not, was guilty of computer crime (see also evidence by Durova). But you do not even need these materials to make the judgment. To play it safe, you should simply do not refer to email archive, as I suggested here [177].

No punishment for legitimate and civil talking on-wiki, please

In a number of cases the email discussions resulted in the increased participation of list members on-wiki. However, such participation usually was within the policy. For example, the appeal of discretionary sanctions by Thatcher was within the policy, as has been confirmed by several Arbcom members. Some discussions at the article talk pages and ANI were also legitimate (I am not talking about voting).

No damage to the project

We did not drive away any single person. All blocks and sanctions have been applied by WP administrators, and you will probably support every single action by administrators after looking at the evidence (I clearly stated at the ANI my opposition to the wide topic ban on Russavia and to the outright ban of Petri Krohn, but this is not for me to decide).
Members of the group were not able to influence any decisions by WP administrators, except the appeal of discretionary sanctions by Thatcher, but the reversal of sanctions was done according to the policies and due to comments by several Arbcom members
No private information was disclosed in emails about any wikipedians, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others about themselves in wikimedia space.
No discussions and votes were influenced to produce a clearly incorrect outcome. The members of the group often debated the issues and disagreed with each other. However, they more frequently voted in a similar way, apparently because they share similar POV.

Not guilty of canvassing

I never did canvassing in emails, and started only a couple of threads myself during all this time. I frequently visit AfD discussions on political and scientific subjects, and I did not learn about those discussions from emails. Yes, I visited a couple of other voting discussions after learning about them in mail. But in all such cases I voted oppose like here and debated the issues, in part because I felt an obligation to ensure fair discussion in all such cases. All Polish editors voted support in this case. Why? Because they share common "Polish POV", but I do not.

Sock puppet issues

While dealing with socks, I follow WP:IAR. I can see a number of socks around, but I do not report them as long as they contribute positively to the content. For example, I reported myself a sock of User:Jacob_Peters, and he was blocked (User:Kupredu), but I preserved all valid content he created, as in this case [178]. Same applies to any other socks. No, I did not do anything to protect this particular sock [179] from being detected. But, yes, this is an example of a sock I did not report myself per WP:IAR, since he contributed positively to the content (I am not an admin after all). Instead, I contacted this user by email and tried to convince him to stop socking and contribute positively to other Wikimedia projects where he was not banned. He became inactive since then.

Guilty of edit warring

Yes, I was involved in edit warring on-wiki. Did I make reverts only to support other "members of the team" on subjects I know nothing about? No, absolutely not. All my edits were on the Russia/Soviet Union and human rights subjects (in addition to Biology/Chemistry/Physics), something I am interested in. I did not edit anything of German-Polish issues and even did not read such emails. I studied text of the article in question, looked at the references and participated at article talk pages.

But I did reverts only to preserve relevant and well sourced content per WP:IAR and not to harass anyone. And it was only a matter of time to find wikifriends who would support some of my edits. Next time, I will not be around when someone removes sourced "controversial facts" [180] and places links to Russian wikipedia instead of books [181], Yes, I reverted such blatant deletions of sourced and relevant materials in any articles, even if I never edited them before.

Nashi ("Ours") are coming

Future Perfect asked how certain Russian users are related to each other [182].

They obviously included Russavia, PaswordUsername, Offliner, Ellol (see this report by Shell_Kinney), Igny and LokiiT/Krawdawg (see example with "Nashi" below; both received warnings and administrative sanctions as a part of their struggle) and two more peripherally connected SPAs who conduct edit wars in South Ossetia war articles together with Offliner (FeelSunny and HistoricWarrior007)

Here User:HistoricWarrior007 places Russian song to talk pages of User:FeelSunny and User:Offliner [183], [184] The song begins from describing a wonderful feeling when your "knife-bayonet" penetrates a trembling body of your enemy. The song celebrates actions by the special KGB forces (famous division named after Felix Dzerzhinsky) in Ossetia. The song was written by Krylov who was one of leaders of the first version of "Nashi", originally created by Alexander Nevzorov. That is why Offlier, FeelSunny and HistoricWarrior007 are conducting edit wars in 2008 South Ossetia war and other related articles.

Now let me refer to discretionary sanctions by Thahtcher [185]. Yes, it was for "disgraceful edit warring at Nashi (youth movement)." Yes, this is precisely what Thatcher thinks: a prima facia of an ideological support of Nashi by the following editors (see the content of the diffs below):

What this is all about? This particular organization is widely described in sources as Putinjugend, an extremist organization whose members physically attack their enemies, use bodies of dead animals to make a statement, etc. In Russia it gave name to a new word Nashism because it sounds precisely as "fascism". Everyone in Russia knows that. Every editor who made reverts on the both sides knew that.

LokiiT is a sockpuppet account created for edit warring

This user created at least six alternative accounts - see his SPI case [189].

I am not sure what was his original account; he was also very active as Krawndawg. As soon as User:LokiiT was created, he started from a copyright violation. He first denied this, but finally admitted [190]

Now edit war by the sock begins: Round 1: [191] [192]. Round 2: [193] [194] [195], but he reports another user for 3RR violation [196]

Repeated personal attack: (You are the one who defends Chechen terrorists who kill children and innocent civilians) [197]

Edit war continues: [198]. Now this sock removes tags inserted by another user: [199] [200] [201] [202]

Even more incivility: [203], [204] and edit war again: [205][206]

And he continue reverts and removal of sourced information every day (let's see several last days of his editing): [207], [208], [209] [210]

Of course I traced his edits to make sure that he did not do new copyright violations, which finally led to conclusion that he was someone's sock puppet. But I had Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs on my watch list because I debated and edited this article long time before LokiiT came.

Wikihounding by Offliner

What these people do? Editing by Offliner is a good example. I have filed this AE request about him. Once again, no one asked me to do this by email. I believed the request was justified because Offliner continuously wikistalked my edits. All these articles were created or extensively edited by me. Offliner never edited them before. He suddenly visited a number of such articles (most of the diffs below are in the end of April), and removed a lot of sourced content, together with supporting sources:

Article 1 and again, and again, and again, and again
Article 2
Article 3 and again
article 4, and again, and again
Article 5
Article 6, and again, and again, with offensive edit summary
Article 7, deletion of other sourced information in the same article
Article 8
Article 9
Article 10

And he refused to discuss his deletions:[211],[212],[213],[214],[215],[216].

Also note this offensive suggestion by Offliner at my talk page and endless block shopping by Offliner [217], [218], [219].

User:YMB29 is an SPA who does nothing but reverts

This user made so far only ~500 edits. It is enough to look at his edit history and block log. Just a few examples (note misleading edit summaries): [220] [221] [222] [223]. He was also incivil [224]. The only user with whom he was able to positively collaborate [225] was User:Kostan1, a sock of notorious User:M.V.E.i.

Response to evidence by Russavia

Please see this evidence by Colchicum first: [226]

No, I did not disclose any personal information about Russavia on-wiki or in emails, beyond something he wanted himself to be known about him. The PDF authorization for using kremlin.ru images was openly placed by Russavia himself in Wikimedia. No, I have absolutely no idea who he is in real life, simply because I do not believe any of his own assertions about his identity he wanted to be known by placing this PDF file, as I also said in emails.

I made only two official question/requests about Russaiva at public forums that are relevant to this case, and Russavia received no sanctions due to any of these requests: (a) an AE request about uncivil comments by Russavia with regard to Baltic users (no one asked me by email to file this request); (b) a later thread about 22 hour non-stop editing started by Piotrus (I did not ask Piotrus to start this thread over the email).

With regard to the first request, did I incite Russavia to behave badly by filing this AE request [227]?. No, I only correctly identified the problem and reported it to an appropriate noticeboard. Indeed, Russavia had received a topic ban later for doing precisely the same offense. That was not an unsubstantiated "personal attack" (a claim not supported by evidence).

With regard to the second request (my question at the ANI later), I believe it was wrong on my part, although it was my first question on a public forum on this matter. (Previously, I only asked an advice from Tiptoety, but the response by Tiptoety and others did not dispel my concern; and I answered a question by Muscovite99 who came to my talk page). After the incident at the ANI I promised Rusavia do not comment about him again. The first time I made next comment about him was after his topic ban, when I commented in Russavia favor and agreed with Ezhiki that the broad ban on Russavia should be lifted.

The only bad thing I ever said about Russavia in emails was essentially this: I think he has a conflict of interest. However, I never accused any editor of this in wikipedia space, contrary to claims by Russavia and some others. This is not supported by any of his/their links or diffs.

Since no one challenged the first two-week block of Russavia for outing me (15 September 2008), I have to start later. When Russavia came back from the block, I suggested him to live in peace here and suggested an independent editor who was at the moment at the Russavia side to mediate any potential disagreements. But Russavia responded that "Anyone who thinks I would agree to such a thing would have to have rocks in their head" [228]. and mobilized several users to support him [229], [230].

Although this all sounds bad, I had a serious content disagreement with Russavia in only one article (Litvinenko). I suggested a compromise version here. The compromise was to include all "Criticism" of Litvinenko in a separate section, just like in many other articles, and I had no problem negotiating anything here with Alex Bakharev [231]. Russavia also accused me of BLP violation (see his statement below). He did it during an unrelated AfD discussion, at the talk page of Kirill, at the BLP noticeboard, and WP:RS noticeboard. After such campaign by Russavia, I decided that it would be safer to remove this information even though it was well sourced. I removed it [232] and reported to BLP noticeboard that the problem has been resolved:[233]. And what Russavia does? He re-inserts this claim back!. I am trying to remove it again because I do not want to be accused of BLP violations: [234]. But he reinserts it back again [235]. Why he is doing this? In order to accuse me again during this case?

Other responses

DonaldDuck

This is warning by FaysalF to DonaldDuck with regard to outing me [236]. Actually, I asked blocking admin. for softer sanctions for Petri Krohn: [237]. And I still believe he does not deserve such harsh sanctions.

Viriditas

I am sorry for this incident and apologized to you. Thank you for accepting my apology. I did not know Mosedchurte, but I saw his articles and was strongly impressed by their quality. I saw this excellent content editor unjustly accused at the ANI by you and only wanted to help Mosedchurte. I commented at the ANI and at the article talk pages (rather than "arrived" as you tell) and made a couple of reverts to a more neutral version. Yes, I told about this story over the email, but simply because I honestly debated everything I saw in WP with my friends. I did not ask to attack you.

Commodore sloat

By commenting here Commodore sloat decided not to follow this ArbCom recommendation [238]. If he agrees to follow this recommendation (and I certainly agree), we hardly have any problems. No, I never asked any people who made reverts in these articles to make reverts, and I visited the AfDs because I have these articles on my watch list.

Vlad_Fedorov

The evidence is very old and irrelevant to this case.

Suggestion by Óðinn

I urge the ArbCom to check if the User:Petri Krohn has also been the victim of this alleged campaign of harassment, discrediting and provocation. He is currently blocked for a year over a conflict with one of the parties of this case. Óðinn (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Russavia

Evidence of the existence and purpose of this cabal

Throughout the 3,402 emails there are plenty of accusations that myself and many other editors, whom they deem to be their "enemies", are members of some cabal that they have dubbed the USSR Forever Cabal. There is no existence of any such cabal, and there will be no evidence as no such cabal exists now, in the past, or in the future; at least I am not aware of such a cabal, I am not a member of any such cabal, and I would never be a member of such a cabal. List members dispute that they are a cabal, although on the list, they clearly recognise that they are a cabal, and this is evidenced by the frequent use of terms such as "our cabal". In 20090803-2153-[WPM] HELP!! Radek _ Piotrus_ Tymek and others. Dc76 states the main purpose of the group is "to prevent pro-Soviet propaganda through WP". But I have no doubt in my mind, that this actually means the prevention of any POV which doesn't fit their own agenda. Take for example, Tymek's suggestion that WP should only utilise the writings of western historians. I clearly responded to Tymek that we should be preventing ALL POV and attribute it appropriately. There is also no reason why a historian connected with the Russian Academy of Sciences should be excluded, but any anti-Russian source can be included. This goes against WP:NPOV in a major way, and has nothing to do with whether individual editors agree with Soviet/Russian views, etc on things - which for information, I don't believe a lot of the Soviet propaganda either, but it is notable for inclusion on WP. The other purpose of the list seems to be drawing up lists of enemies, some of whom they stalk and harrass onwiki, and hound into a corner in order to get them to be uncivil, so that they can report and get rid of them. Apart from the stalking on myself presented below, another example is 20090913-0218-[WPM] Lokii - to Vecrumba where Radeksz suggests that they push LokiiT in order to get him to make what they perceive to a personal attack, which they can then report him on. The cabal was also created in order to allow list members to edit war as a group (undetected) in order to ensure that their group POV was the most prevalent, whilst creating a WP battleground in which their opponents could be culled by way of the group acting as sockpuppets and meatpuppets. This is made explicitly clear by Piotrus in 20090908-1810-[WPM] Russavia going nuts on Soviet Story in which he states that it is important that cabal members should make edits, even if they would be reverted by their perceived wiki enemies, as this could used as evidence by this cabal of their opponents POV/revert mentality/edit warring. Piotrus goes on to state that the cabal shouldn't be worried about reverts, as this is precisely why the group was formed in order for them to WP:TEAM, WP:GAME and meat puppet on Wikipedia, and furthermore suggested they make up a list of articles which their wiki enemies have supposedly taken over and take them back.

So in short, the group exists in order to WP:HARRASS and WP:STALK editors, enforce their own WP:POV, WP:TEAM and WP:GAME WP policies, processes and general standards of conduct, engage in WP:NOTADVOCATE, and a host of other things which go against the very collegial nature of Wikipedia, which in turn has only increaed the nature of WP:BATTLE that is evident in this area, and which many editors such as myself would like the project to be rid of.

WP:OUTING and harrassment by list members on myself

Persistent sock/meat puppet accusations

I have good, and sound, reason to believe that I have been subjected to long-term systematic campaigns of harrassment which involved at first User:Biophys, User:Digwuren and User:Martintg, and later more actively joined by User:Piotrus, and other editors at times. I have no doubts that Piotrus and crew co-ordinated at least one campaign of harrassment on this email list. In November 2008, immediately after I received a block for 3RR (which entailed me removing and then rewording very poorly sourced information in the Litvinenko article surrounding claims of Putin being a paedophile - a WP:BLP violation)[239][240][241][242][243][244] (might I add I am disgusted that nothing ever happened despite raising objections at numerous venues) Biophys asked Tiptoety about his belief that I was sharing my account. He was advised that there was not enough evidence to proceed with any checkuser. Due to other accusations levelled against me, which included accusations that I was employed by every Russian state organ from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the FSB/KGB [245], (instead of just being a conscientious contributor who is here to contribute and improve the project), I demanded a checkuser be run on myself in order to put the matter to rest. Even after the results were confirmed that I am but a single editor, it was continued at the checkuser's talk page. On 23 April (my local times I guess), Piotrus posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account what I thought at the time was posted on behalf of Biophys, as a continuation of what myself and others deemed to be harrassment. Due to Piotrus claiming that he was asked about this subject, and after not being able to find any evidence of any onwiki discussion between Piotrus and any other editors, I assumed there was offwiki communication going on in this regard, and hence asked Piotrus for information, but no name or editor came forward. Logically, one can only assume that this was posted either on behalf of Biophys (and others), or was posted by Piotrus in order to give these editors yet another opportunity to harrass myself onwiki. I am certain that if Arbcom checks emails of dates around 23 April 2009, there would more than likely be discussion on this particular harrassment campaign on their email list, which would thereby prove this campaign of harrassment, and the legitimacy of the emails received.

At the same time, so concerned was I that there was serial harrassment and stalking going on, that on 26 April 2009, I contacted a crat on Commons, in order to have my name and other details removed from File:Kremlin authorisation-English.pdf and File:Kremlin authorisation-Russian.pdf. I operate a business in the real world, and am setting up another, and due to what was obvious to me at the time was stalking and harrassment, I did not want my name being linked to any accusations of my being connected to Russian FSB, etc, particularly as one of those businesses is connected to what is deemed to be a strategic industry; the nature of which I believe I have made known to Arbcom in emails in the past.

The outing and harrassment of myself was further enforced in my mind when Biophys posted this on Digwuren's talk page in March, with the comment, "Please read it. I am not going to comment anything further.". On 17 April Biophys included a link to the document on Commons in his userspace; ostensibly as proof of his unfounded accusations that I am employed by the FSB or some other organisation, and am a paid editor, as part of some web brigade. It was in searching for the discussion on Digwuren's talk page that I stumbled across the AN thread; a thread which was allowed to run for two days without my being aware of it. This was an obvious set up by these editors to continue with their campaign of outting and harrassment of myself.

Response to denial by Piotrus

Piotrus asserts that the thread that he started was not harrassment. An uninvolved editor clearly thought it was, starting a subsection on this very assertion. In fact, throughout the entire overall thread there are numerous uninvolved editors and admins who saw it as continued harrassment. Now bringing this back to this case, between "20090422-1543-[WPM] Important categories at CfD" and "20090427-2055-[WPM] Attack on Russavia" there are numerous emails discussing this very subject. Some of the emails predate Piotrus' posting of the ANI thread, and the rest postdate it, and all are around the time of the actual thread. The emails see discussion and plotting by Piotrus, Biruitorul, Biophys, Digwuren and Martintg. All of whom appeared at the ANI thread. In "20090422-1935-[WPM] Important categories at CfD" Piotrus mentions that he has posted the thread, and that it may be useful in this groups campaign to harrass myself, and provides a link to the ANI thread started by himself. In "20090424-0205-[WPM] Russavia", Piotrus reposts the link and advises the team that they are missing a good opportunity to harrass myself further. In "20090424-1635-[WPM] GFDL", Biruitoral claims, blazenly, that any accusations that they make against myself, even if knowingly false, would only help the team. The rest of the emails involve discussions on meatpuppeting, sockpuppeting, discussion of my real life identity, and also discussions on how list members could mess with my real life identity and my real life business. This indicates that my gut feeling back in April on removing my name from files on commons was spot on, as even my paranoia which lead to me removing my name from two commons files[246][247] was discussed in emails from those dates. Given the email posted by Biophys, with links to previous discussions on this subject, and the fact that it was noted in some of those links that the constant accusations of myself sharing my account with others could be deemed to be harrassment, Piotrus is not credible when he states that his posting of this thread on behalf of Biophys, and in order to further harrass myself, is not harrassment.

Additionally in 20090428-0510-[WPM] China_ Digwuren discusses the harrassment on myself by the web brigade. Digwuren states that open harrassment of myself is not a good idea, as the "maddening aspects" of it would be reduced by myself deciding who is behind it. He also states that anonymous harrassers very rarely show up at AN/I threads (my note: my harrassers did show up indeed didn't they), and he goes on to say that if I can plausibly claim that my opponents harrassed me (my note: I have known about the harrassment, and have clearly shown evidence of this, since November 2008) that future DR actions or arbcom will give credence to the idea that my opponents are wrong doers who are worth punishing. In 20090428-1957-[WPM] China_ Piotrus states that Digwuren has a good point, and explains that this is why his position on the thread that he started was now "100% "damage control"", in what he stated was an attempt to torpedo any attempt to create a consensus that Biophys was stalking. In the same email Piotrus also "highly advise(s)" other members of the web brigade to post at the thread that he started to strongly oppose that idea.

In 20090427-0647-[WPM] Attack on Russavia_ Biruitorul states that they should create temporary meatpuppet accounts to harrass me onwiki, but leaving various messages on my talk page, such as "warning: Russavia is actually a team of KGB propagandists team". He also states that he would like to see myself being driven mad by unseen and unknowable forces, the same way as the hero in a Shakespearean tragedy.

It is now obvious that Piotrus is not credible in this situation, especially as it can now be shown that he lied when he stated "This thread was not started by Biophys, nor was Biophys the editor who contacted me with the question that led me to start this thread in the first place, so the entire "stalking by Biophys" accusation is pure libel/slander/harassment in itself."

List members are stalking and harrassing myself

I will let this diff speak for itself, except the part of my edits being so full of POV that one has to stalk me to fix this.
In 20090113-0105-[WPM] Weird reaction by Russavia, Martingtg answers a question from Digwuren, concerning Martintg's recent placing of the recent patrollers usebox on his userpage. Digwuren asks Martintg if this was part of a potential adminship campaign by Martintg. Martintg states that he placed the userbox on his userpage only as a defensive measure against WP:STALKING allegations, in case any of the mud should stick. This is an obvious admission by Martintg that he has, as I have long known and suspected, systematically stalked my edits.
Martintg[248] and Digwuren[249] are warned by User:Jehochman to stay away from my talk page. Digwuren mentions this in 20090321-1545-[WPM] Jehochman's latest move in what he describes as Jehochman pretending that Martintg and Digwuren are harrassing me. At this thread on my talk page I refer to my serial stalkers Martintg and Digwuren. Typically, and we have seen this before, Digwuren claims this is a baseless accusation. This was posted at a time where Digwuren and Martintg were turning up on many articles that I was editing, and which they had never edited before.
In 20090323-2215-[WPM] Why would two people share Russavia's accoun Martintg makes note that I was checkusered in November (it should be noted after I demanded that it be done to stop baseless accusations). Given this, he would also have been aware that it was deemed to be delving into harrassment at that stage.

Discussions relating to stalking/harrassing myself in real life

In 20090615-1727-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Piotrus states that he would be against the above due to it crossing into real life harrassment of myself (as if onwiki harrassment isn't enough), but seems to suggest that an anonymous tip could be given to the Australian security services detailing that I am some sort of Russian spy.

Further evidence of stalking and harrassment

I added information to List of most common surnames after stumbling across an article on RIA Novosti. Several editors, none of whom had edited the article previously soon showed up. Miacek revert. I have re-worded and re-added. Martintg reverts (missing the fact that the referenced article quotes an Estonian media source), I revert, noting the stalking. Digwuren, then starts a talk page discussion at Talk:List_of_most_common_surnames#RIA_Novosti.27s_scope_of_reliability, which is joined by tag teamer Vecrumba in which both editors start attacking the use of Russian sources (a common tactic used by these editors to exclude information from articles). Both editors more interested in creating and fermenting yet another battleground, rather than recognising the source states: "One in every 200 Estonians has the Russian name Ivanov, making it the ex-Soviet Baltic country's most common surname, weekly newspaper Eesti Ekspress reported on Thursday.". Instead of helping to find the Eesti source (I don't speak Estonian), these editors instead stalked myself, obvious tag team, used the talk page as a soapbox and created yet another battle. In 20090130-2021-[WPM] Advance warning_ a possible conflict point created Digwuren directs editors to the talk page discussion he started and states that its possible the so-called cartel will see it as an attack on reliability of Russian media in general, and may take it further. Vecrumba then appears on the talk page as per the above, and they both engage in soapboxing against the use of using any Russian sources; this is very common for both of them.

Suggestions that there was intent to harrass other editors

In 20090910-0238-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! User:Vecrumba suggests that if User:Offliner continue to question User:Sandstein in relation to the email that Vecrumba sent Sandstein, that the group should take the angle that Offliner is acting as my proxy.
In 20090912-1303-[WPM] Sandstein may need support Digwuren states that they should express disappointment in Ezhiki, given Ezhiki's questioning of the extent of the topic ban placed upon myself by Sandstein. In 20090912-1749-[WPM] Sandstein may need support Digwuren suggests that they should not blame User:Ezhiki outright, but to keep him away from questioning my ban with the threat of blame.

Treating WP as a battlefield

Web brigades

January incident

Back in January 2009, Digwuren added information to the web brigades article citing an a previous Arbcom decision. After it was removed by another editor, Digwuren re-inserted it. It was again removed by yet another editor, citing correctly that WP is not a reliable source. Piotrus has instantly reverted. This was again removed by yet another editor. Piotrus has again reverted. At that point, I have reverted, noting discussion on the talk page. Martintg has then reverted me. And I have removed again, after which the article was locked by] User:Vassyana. Discussion took place on the reliable source noticeboard, at which Martintg, Piotrus, Vecrumba, Digwuren and Biophys -- all list members -- argued for it's inclusion, whilst it was evident as per other editors who commented, that it should not be included.

I noted at the time, and with hindsight it was like reading from a crystal ball:

The inclusion of this information into the article, in my opinion, is well co-ordinated continued harrassment of editors by this clique; by linking to the Arbcom they have given readers of the article an opportunity to go and read all the paranoid accusations that User:Biophys has made against MANY editors."

To demonstrate my stance then with current events now; if it is found that these list members have acted in the same fashion as a web brigade allegedly does, i.e. teaming, harrassment, etc, would they object to its inclusion in the article based only on an Arbcom decision. Even under those circumstances I would be removing it for the same reasons as I removed such contentions back in January, i.e. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor is it a battleground, and I hope this would be the same of all Wikipedia editors.

The evidence for this can be found in 20090112-1447-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media in which Digwuren announces that he has entered the information into the article. In 20090113-0209-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media Piotrus points list members to the reliable sources noticeboard, makes mention of battling, and implicity invites list members to join the discussion on the noticeboard, in order to push for including Arbcom decisions as a reliable source.

More recent battleground created by email list members

In 20090915-1859-[WPM] We brigades_ Internet operations by Russian Piotrus asked the list if he is the only one interested in this article; this is a clear invite to participate in meatpuppetry, and edit warring. In 20090915-2143-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian Radeksz suggests that another member of the email list should perform a revert on this article. In 20090915-2223-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian User:Jacurek says that they should perform a revert on the article now, so that they can ensure that any WP:3RR report is not in vain. In 20090916-0100-[WPM] We brigades_ Internet operations by Russian Piotrus informs the list that someone should revert an editor on the web brigades article, with an explicit warning list members to watch their 1RR. The target of this was User:Ellol, whom they wanted to take to WP:3RR. Given this evidence, it is obvious that the email list have not acted as individual editors, and as such their reverts on this article should be regarded as ones which are performed by a single editor, and as such they have as a group breached WP:3RR as a collective group.

Alexander Litvinenko article

Immediately after I was banned under Sandstein's first ban, Biophys has done a massive revert[250] to the Litvinenko article, re-including what I believe is 2 WP:LINKVIO, text which I had verified and changed accordingly, misrepresentation of photos, the same mispelled "Persecuition" and the removal of a huge amount of sourced, NPOV-worded text, to what is often described as a compromise version (code for his favoured version). I posted a long list of problems with the article on the talk page and this basically went unheeded. Offliner, an editor who has long been active on the article and talk pages, and also an editor who had been working with me on User:Russavia/Litvinenko, reverted this, due to the same type of problems. Biophs reverts this. After being unblocked by Sandstein, I have reverted this, pointing Biophys to the talk page discussion. (Note: This edit is one which contributed to me being topic banned from ALL Russian articles). Biophys reverts this. (Note: By this time I had received message from Sandstein on my talk page, and I didn't have a chance to incorporate several minor fixes to the article). Offliner reverts this, again pointing Biophys to the talk page, at which point Radeksz acts in a team like manner and reverts. At this point Alex Bakharev has locked the article, and started a discussion.

In 20090909-2347-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biophys states that he needs assistance in enforcing his reverts in this article. In 20090910-0004-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Radeksz states that he will keep an eye on the article, but won't act right now in case it is seen as a provocation which could be used by the non-existent USSR Forever cabal to get one of them banned in retaliation for myself. In 20090910-0012-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Martintg agrees that they should be careful, so not as to get sucked into some vortex of wikidrama. In 20090910-0018-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biophys states that they can get around all of this, by having another user make a minor fix to the article, in order to make it harder to revert, and claimed that no sane admin would object to this. In 20090910-0021-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Radeksz funnily enough suggests that someone would try to get someone on the "Litvinenko said Putin is a paedophile" line, and that they should make sure that it is sourced the hell out of, then there is no cause for complete. The reason this is funny, is that it was myself who sourced the hell out of it, and made it NPOV in the first place, only to see Biophys reinsert the poorly sourced version (see diffs below). In20090915-0449-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian Biophys directs list members attention to this edit. Immediately after this post, Radeksz reverts making the false claim of consensus. It is obvious that Biophys reverted to his months old version, and Radeksz was making false claims in order to help enforce this, despite there being no consensus for Biophys' massive removal of sourced, NPOV information from the article. In 20090910-0218-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Vecrumba states that he would visit the article in a few days, only to avoid them appearing opportunistic on this article.

Some article history

It should be noted that my issue is not the existence of the accusation, but that the accusation was presented as fact, rather than an allegation, and that it was almost entirely sourced to sources closely linked to Litvinenko, which does not have an established history of fact checking. I remove BLP violating text, with a note on making it NPOV. Biophys reverts, saying there is nothing wrong with it. I remove the section again whilst an NPOV version is worked on on the talk page. It is important to Biophys that this information is present in the article for some reason. Once I have reworded the BLP violation, an uninvolved admin has expressed this opinion that it is no longer a BLP violation (link on talk page link above). But Biophys, who so vehemently was in favour of its insertion, is all of a sudden against its inclusion, and takes it out of the article completely. The only reason I could see is that it contained information which was critical of this guy's accusations. I have reincluded it into the article, noting that Biophys himself argued to have such an accusation in the article. Again consider the reason for him now wanting it out. Biophys again removes the information. And it has finally been reinserted by myself in its non-BLP violating, NPOV form. Now here is where it get's interesting. Biophys again removes the section, then instantly reverts himself, and then incredulously instantly reverts back to his preferred BLP violating version, ostensibly in order to make a shorter version, without any criticism of Litvinenko -- this is often referred to on the talk page as his compromise version (see below). Of course, I have removed the BLP version reinserted by Biophys. From thereon in, it is edit such as this which Grey-Fox and Biophys attempted to game by claiming it wasn't a reliable source (see above links to the RS noticeboard). I tried my damndest to get Biophys to understand what was wrong with his version, and did seek outside intervention, but I was left to my own devices, trying to get this through to editors who wished to write a respectful article (WP:NOTADVOCATE again]]).

It should be noted that Biophys' compromise version is somewhat one of two running jokes on WP amongst editors in this area; for it entails him removing any information which doesn't pertain to his own POV, and will often involve reverting to an old version of an article which excludes edits by other editors; for example Russian apartment bombings as is detailed in evidence by another user, he reverted to a year old version. It is for this reason, and actions on other articles, that myself and other editors believe that Biophys is using wikipedia to engage in advocacy of an often fringe point of view, to the exclusion of other POV, which is against policy.

Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

This was a very contentious article, in which the fact that it is called the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist became a matter of contention, and in which was proven that User:Martintg has committed a gross violation of WP:V, and was backed up by Vecrumba, Biophys and Digwuren. At Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist, one will note that an editor (with sources quoted) has said: "The reason is simply that I've come to the conclusion that for now the sources can only with certainty be used to include the name in relation to the much smaller monument with its tombs, in the center of Berlin: Soviet War Memorial (Tiergarten). see these references: [5], [6]. Apparently Beevor, who is the source for the second link, also refers to the monument in the center of the city, i.e Tiergarten." At Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park)#Tomb_of_the_Unknown_Rapist.2C_part_2, another editor has re-inserted the epitaph, citing the same sources. After a discussion in which Vecrumba attempted to turn the article into one on the war itself....more to come....

In 20090628-2315-[WPM] Offliner barnstaring Shell Kinney_ Biophys brings attention to his edit here, even though it is shown on the talk page as failing verification in all ways. After being reverted by BeatleFabFour, Biophys again reinserts the information. This was again reverted by BeatleFabFour, which was then reinserted by Digwuren, with the laughable edit summary of "Restored sourced material. At what point does WP:V kick in?" This was finally reverted by PasswordUsername. Both PasswordUsername and BeatleFabFour mentioned the talk page discussion in their edit summaries, but this was completely ignored by those two editors, as it seems it was more important to have in the article the epitaph "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist". --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cooperate with Ruavia

I place a message on User:Digwuren talk page asking him if he is able to take a photo of the Russian consulate in Tartu. User:Colchicum posts a message to Digwuren stating "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia." An admin alerts Colchicum to this [251] and Colchicum replies [252] "No apologies from me, feel free to block if you wish. I don't really care much about blocks, DYKs, barnstars, fame and so on. For sure this wouldn't cause me "to pop a blood vessel or two". I did what I did, and a spade is a spade. It is not clear what you would prevent with this, though." Colchicum has a history of such incivility, including referring to User:HistoricWarrior007 as User:HystoricWanker:

Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24 : "# Oppose The war was not confined to South Ossetia, it involved Abkhazia as well. I oppose the canvassing campaign by HystoricWanker007. Colchicum (talk) 6:53 pm, 10 March 2009, Tuesday (6 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+9)
Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26 : "* Comment The Hwanker is back at canvassing :) Colchicum (talk) 12:47 am, 9 June 2009, Tuesday (3 months, 4 days ago) (UTC+8)"

The first time Colchicum called him a WANKER, the editor posted this User_talk:Colchicum/Archive#Trollfest. (Trollfest is what Colchicum named it to). No apology from him there either.

List members acting as sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets

There are many instances of email list members using the list as a call to arms in order for them to stack votes according to their own editorial POV. It is plainly obvious that apart from the harrassment of their so-called enemies, a major function of the group was to enable the group to force thru their POV by sheer numbers, thereby creating false consensus. Example of this include:

20090912-1939-[WPM] Help needed on Anonimu-initiated move reques is a call to arms to list members by Biruitorul to Communist Romania. As has been noted at on the talk page, there was a rapid succession of votes by members of this list, inluding Biruitorul himself, Biophys, Radeksz, Dc76 and Tymek. Vecrumba, whilst not voting, did make comments on the talk page. Please note, that this is a current move request, and editors are aware of this arbcom now taking place. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After posting this message and seeing votes come in, in 20090913-1833-[WPM] Re Anonimu - thanks!, Biruitorul sends a congratulatory message to the list thanking them for their meatpuppeting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 20090326-1736-[WPM] Unimportant_ but pertinent AfD Biruitorul comments that a "Canadian dolt" is stopping consensus from forming, and that the group has ways to get around that. The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albanian-Moldovan_relations, and one would notice that both Digwuren and Martintg have come to the AfD.
In April after Martintg was blocked by WMC for edit warring, in 20090402-2239-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Piotrus tells Martin that he shouldn't do more than 2 reverts in a day, and if more reverts are required he should either ask on the list or via IM (perhaps Gadu-Gadu?). In 20090402-2314-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Martin says that yes, he should avoid getting into edit wars, which is followed up in 20090402-2358-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin by Piotrus reinforcing that of course Martin shouldn't worry about edit warring, as all Martin has to do is to IM Piotrus and ask for a revert. In 20090403-0013-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Martin then suggests that editors post messages on his talk page in support of himself. In 20090403-1015-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin, Martin thanks Piotrus, Biruitorul and Dc76 for the messages that they left on his talk page in response to his request, and stated his belief that it helped convince WMC to lift the block. In 20090403-1312-[WPM] WMConnolly blocked Martin Digwuren notes that once editors use up two reverts, that they should then "call in reinforcement". He also notes his observation that when edit history looks like a checkerboard of two editors edits that administrators like to blame both editors, but when there is one editor against several others, administrators tend to think that the single editor is the one editwarring.
In 20090804-0059-[WPM] AfD Martintg points editors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination). Not long after he posts this to the list, Sander Sade, Piotrus, Tymek, Poeticbent, Biophys, Vecrumba and Jacurek all post their votes inline with each other. As a result of this cabal's voting, the article was kept.
In 20090830-1820-[WPM] Bobanni'd move disruption Piotrus mentions the contributions of a particular editor, and tells editors to go to the talk pages of any moves that the editor has proposed and vote oppose, to stop any of the moves succeeding.

Piotrus: the uninvolved admin

In 20090916-0206-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian Biophys invites Piotrus to unblock him after Biophys breached WP:3RR. This is after Piotrus says that he would have unblocked Biophys and after an objection to Piotrus utilising his tools in relation to Biophys is raised, Piotrus claims he is not involved in regards to Biophys.

Creation of a cabal admin/checkuser

At User_talk:Biruitorul#Admin.3F, User:Tavix suggests that Biruitorul should run for adminship. In 20090407-1548-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA Digwuren notes this, and suggests that due to their unfounded suspicions that I stalk him and Martintg, other list members could vote safely, and that he planned to vote at the very end of the process. In 20090407-1621-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA Piotrus agrees with the idea of voting, and that he would WP:CANVASS amongst Polish editors to get them to vote in support of Biruitorul. In 20090407-1631-[WPM] Biruitorul for RFA User:Miacek also agrees that he would make a good admin. In 20090407-1807-[WPM] My RfA Biruitorul thanks them for support, but says that he wouldn't run for admin at that time.
In 20090606-0919-[WPM] Project CheckUser _ more admins Piotrus discusses what can only be described as a major abuse of trust, in the creation of this groups own check user. He suggests that a group member should use their right to vanish, and then embark on becoming an admin, and then eventually a check user. He discounts two users due to their ban history, and then goes on to suggest several group members who could be likely candidates for adminship in the future. He doesn't go into details in this email why their own checkuser would be required, but given the nature of the mailing list it is pretty obvious that it would have entailed the breach of the community's trust and the breach of the privacy of any editor whom they deemed to be an enemy.

Several list members actively broke general sanctions

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia is still under active sanctions. In 20090407-2342-[WPM] Template deletion alert Martintg alerted the list that their beloved template was up for deletion. This was the second time this template was up for deletion, this is the first. What the template looked like can be found at User:Russavia/Notpropaganda. Martintg in both discussions claimed that the template was humourous, and others joined in the chorus and sang the same tune, but it was obvious that it was created in order to prevent editors from bringing differing POV to the articles on which it was placed, and this is a theme of the entire email list. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia#Neutral_point_of_view states "No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates." During this discussion I removed the template and replaced it with {{controversial}} only to have it replaced, in direct violation of the general sanctions on these articles, at Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 [253][254][255], Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany [256][257][258][259]. It is plainly obvious that throughout these TfD discussions, and elsewhere that some of these editors, particularly Vecrumba do not get the concept of verifiability, not truth. We present all sides of an issue, and let our readers decide. The web brigade is asking how have their actions affected anything on wiki? Things like this template turn potential editors away from WP, as it is overly confrontational, and does not make for collegial editing, if one has to conform with the brigades point of view.

Using WP as an avenue to slander living people

In 20090331-0910-[WPM] Historical revisionists navibox_ Digwuren in true form of someone who is here only to POV-push and engage in advocacy, suggests creating a navbox template to go along with Category:Historical_revisionism_(political). He asks if it is going to be possible to defend such a template against the cartel, and also notes that an advantage of having such a template is that due to connecting links, although it would take time, Google would begin to link people such as Johan Backman and Alexander Dyukov with other well-known historical revisionists such as Miguel Serrano, David Irving, and Harry Barnes. This can only be described as using WP as a battleground to commit libel against public figures. In 20090331-1938-[WPM] Historical revisionists navibox_ Piotrus agrees to the templates creation. Once Digwuren had completed the templates creation, it looked like this. Martintg and Digwuren have then actively edit warred in order to commit BLP violations by the inclusion of certain people [260][261][262][263][264]

Unfair accusations against other admins

Several list members have brought into question the abilities, motives and actions of several admins with whom I regularly have discussions with on WP; namely User:Alex Bakharev and User:Ezhiki. I respect both editors, not because they are admins, but because like myself they are both here to help build an encyclopaedia. Nothing more, nothing less. Insinuations have been made by GreyFox that Ezhiki has intervened on behalf in disputes. This is false. In fact, I did ask Ezhiki for assistance once to do with the stalking and other things which I have presented as evidence. Not because I wanted him to gang up on other editors, but because I regard Ezhiki as totally neutral and uninvolved in most things, he often gives good advice and the like. He tells me when I my editing is good, and he also tells me when I am being a WP:DICK. I respect that. Since Ezhiki is currently in Cyprus on holiday, he likely will not be able to respond here, nor do I believe he even wants to, and I will not be asking him to or forcing to. But I quote something that he wrote to me on his talk page on the one occasion I asked for assistance:

I realize this is not the kind of response you expected, but please try to understand why I decided not to help. In the beginning, things were fairly simple with you and them. Even though I may not have been overly enthusiastic about getting involved then, that was mostly due to various external reasons, and I did try to help when I could. Now, it seems that fires are burning in all directions, and I just can't serve as a one-man arbitration committee; that's not what I signed up to be here for (had I wanted that, I'd just run for an ArbComm seat). I do like you because even though my views of the world are more in line with Biophys' than yours, you nevertheless manage to remain neutral (as is humanly possible) when writing content. You also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a billboard for political statements (although the creation of "eSStonia" did cast some doubts). I cannot in good conscience respect a person who would write something like "phone call to Putin" and not only present it as true encyclopedic material, but fiercly defend it when pointed out that it is, in fact, not, and completely ignore several requests for finding qualified sources. To me, that's a giveaway that the person is not here to contribute, s/he is here to advocate, and no matter how much I agree with the cause being advocated, my duty here is first and foremost to the encyclopedia. In the end, if you want my sincere advice about how to proceed, an advice coming from a human being (rather than a human being in an admin role), it is "fuck 'em". Let them write their idiotic little pieces about whatever flashy neologisms they can find in whatever "sources" they can lay their hands on. Our readers are not complete morons; they will ignore articles where bias is so blatantly obvious. Don't feed the trolls; let them fuckers starve. When they leave due to the lack of attention (and leave they will), the cleanup can commence.

I believe that politically, Bakharev is also more attuned to the way that Biophys thinks (look at Bakharev's user page political compass). User:NVO is another user who is also more attuned to thinking the way that Ezhiki and Bakharev think as per User_talk:Russavia/Archive_13#A_suggestion. Yet I get along superbly with all 3 editors/admins, and we often collaborate on articles/materials/etc where we can. And there is none of the other crap that I have experienced with members of this mailing list. This is what Wikipedia is.

As to Ezhiki's involvement on my talk page when I was topic banned, it was clearly obvious that Ezhiki saw that I was being sandbagged by User:Sandstein's broad interpretation of what constituted history and the like, and also could not understand the way that Sandstein was thinking in this regard. When Sandstein copped out from explaining questions that were being asked of him and simply extended the topic ban from history of the Soviet Union and Russia to ALL of Soviet Union and Russia - so much so that I can not mention the word Russia, or even a Russian name, anywhere on WP in any wikispace (including talk, userspace, etc), then yes Ezhiki did go into bat for me; not because I asked him to, but because he could see what was happening there. When I presented a solution to Sandstein that I believed was fair, after Sandstein fobbed it off, Ezhiki again tried to make see Sandstein see reason, and has since offered to take over the imposition and policing of the topic ban as I proposed to Sandstein (this is contained in the AN/I thread where the existence of the web brigade came to light). By this point, I have seen Sandstein's actions as stubborn in refusing to recognise that he bears some responsibility for what had ensued, and I will note that after I retracted any notion of any legal threat, Sandstein was still not in favour of the lifting of my unblock in order to allow me to edit other articles not covered by his draconian topic ban.

Have any of these two admins acted on my behalf in an untoward manner? Not in the slightest, and there is no evidence of such. I actually appreciate having admins such as this around, who can see a productive editor who is getting sandbagged by process and the like, and will assist in that regard. It has nothing to do with protecting a nationalist Russian editor -- I'm Australian born and bred, with British heritage FFS. So what's all that about? :)

My topic banning

In 20090909-2108-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Digwuren states that any attempts to compare my "obvious misdeeds" with their "not-so-obvious misdeeds" must be deemed by the cabal to be examples of combative attitude. Well this cabals misdeeds are now more than well known, and as per the Cabal co-leader's suggestion, this is exactly the line that editors used at the AN/I thread. In the same email, Digwuren states that Vecrumba's email to Sandstein could be a "useful device" in assuring Sandstein that Vecrumba is concerned with Sandstein's integrity. Digwuren also suggests that Sandstein should be nudged that if he can find something against Martintg to criticise, that he should be pressed to do so in order to demonstrate that Martintg is open to criticism.

Response to evidence by Biophys

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Massive_outing_and_email_theft, Biophys asks if he is paranoid. The answer to that is of course; yes he is. It is a well established fact that Biophys has accused many editors of being in the employ of Russian security services (KGB/FSB/etc) in the past, and the present, and in fact seems to insinuate as such right here on these arbcom pages. He refers to this edit as my calling an editor to arms - when clearly it is a notice to another editor who had long been involved on the article that they may want to join the discussion on the article talk page. Remember this is the same article and at the same time that I covered above. The other call to arms to these supposed web brigade members is this diff. This of course is in relation to this, which I only placed after LokiT was heavily involved in the article and the accusations that kept being inserts of Putin being a paedophile. As one can see from my talk page, LokiT stated that he is staying away from such articles in future, due to the severe problems in this area; problems which are basically summed up by this very case. This diff presented by Biophys is the clincher. I stated very clearly, "I'm not getting into an edit war with you on this, I will ask other ~~members of the web brigade~~ editors for their opinion." What Biophys doesn't make clear here, is that the only place that I asked other editors was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia/Archive_1#Artyom_Borovik - the article is clearly within the scope of the project, and as such it is making perfect use of the project talk page - of course, it's going to be argued that this is inviting editors of WP:RUSSIA to edit war and team and the like, but this is so far from the truth, it isn't funny, because WP:RUSSIA is made up of editors who have varying personal viewpoints, but I think for the most part that most of the active members of the project realise that we are not here to engage in POV-pushing, advocacy and spreading of propaganda, but that we are here to build an encyclopaedia in a collegial environment; something that having to deal with editors such as Biophys, at times, impossible to deal with, due to his obvious misconstruing of events to present a problem as something that it is not, and which almost certainly always comes back to accusations that anyone who disagrees with what he is doing, has to be a member of the web brigades. As all the evidence thus far is showing, there is only one web brigade in this area of editing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal details were discussed

In his evidence Biophys claims that "No any private information was disclosed in emails, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others in wikimedia space". This is a blatant untruth. In 20090615-0538-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Biruitorul posts a google link with my username and surname, and tells the list that I finished high school in 1991, and then provides a link to a linkedin.com link with some of my details (not having ever really finished off that profile, it omits some facts, such as my graduating from university with a double major in Human Resources Management and Industrial Relations), and then provides a link to the website of a family business that I operate and am the Director of. He also suggests making some mischief through the contact us form, or could even get Biophys (in Russian) or Martintg (with Australian accent) to call me. This is followed up in 20090615-0547-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ by Dc76 who posts details of mine from my registration at vedomosti.ru. In 20090615-1909-[WPM] Could this tell us anything_ Digwuren then shares details with the group on which high school I attended, and also questions some details of whether I am who I say I yes. Yes Digwuren, I am who I say I am. I am the Director of the company -- all details of the company are on file with ASIC as required by Australian law. And no Digwuren, we are not in the yellow pages as it is a waste of money, when organic web search is where we get our business. But we are in the White Pages. And in 20090908-2120-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Biruitorul states "xxx xxx of Perth, Australia is not a happy man today." And of course, there is then suggestions for people to contact the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation with an anonymous tip that I am a Russian spy. So my personal details were not only discussed, but it was actively discussed on what could be done to harrass me off-wiki.

Inflammatory accusations of being Nashi members or neo-Nazis

The evidence section by Biophys at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Nashi_.28.22Ours.22.29_in_wikipedia is inflammatory, without a shred of evidence, and should be stricken completely. Biophys has been informed many times that making accusations of such things is not condusive to creating a collegial environment, and he has now moved on from basically accusing myself and others of being in the employ of Russian security services or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is now accusing us of being members of Nashi, or even seems to insinuate that we are neo-Nazis. The entire section by Biophys is not evidence but an unmitigated attack on myself and others.

These types of accusations were included in the general finding at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs. He was found not to be guilty of this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys, and also escaped admonishment, due to a promise not to continue with such things in the future. This is now stepping over the line in a big way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to evidence by Martintg

It is interesting that Martintg raises Kaitsepolitsei, and also commits a potential BLP violation by referring to someone as a neo-Nazi. As one can see from the talk page, I agree that the opinion could be included, but stated my opinion that it was undue in the form it was. Based upon that, I removed the opinion from the article and reworked it. It should also be mentioned that Diguwren was blocked for 5 days by Thatcher for his referring to myself and Offliner as neo-Nazis. One can also note that both Digwuren and Martintg acted in a somewhat tedious manner over where the article should be named - Digwuren called my Google results bullshit, accused me of vandalism, and of acting against "wide consensus" (meaning team members Martintg and himself). In fact, Digwuren's actions on this article were raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42#Digwuren. Note, I did not post into this AE. In 20090621-1802-[WPM] Offliner Martintg notes this AE thread, and suggests that evidence should be included by someone such as User:Miacek. And course, cabal members including Martintg, Piotrus, Biophys, Miacek, and Tymek all post on there in defence of Digwuren. It was as a result of this AE that he was banned for 5 days for referring to me and Offliner as neo-Nazis.

Response to evidence by Radeksz

First off, it should be noted that Radeksz has recently been topic banned from topic Russavia by an admin for the duration of this case. In regards to his evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Re:_Russavia that there was consensus for his revertion of Alexander Litvinenko. This is a fallacy, because before his arrival at the article, after receiving an invite from Biophys on the list, both myself and Offliner had reverted Biophys' massive removal of content; both myself and Offliner have been active on that article for a long time, and have continually been adding information to the article, and NPOV'ing information in it. Just where is the consensus for Radeksz revertions? Have a look at the long list of problems with the article, which included the outright misrepresentation of sources, and potential linkvios, and the like. Radeksz' actions on that article is also a total misrepresentation of what he states below. It was the pedantic revision for a fellow web brigadier - and he didn't bother posting a single thing on the talk page, although myself and Offliner had used the talk page extensively for a long time.

Additionally, I was unblocked by User:Xavexgoem at an earlier stage which was why I was editing again before User:Jehochman said something onwiki. The Arbcom can contact Xavexgoem for further information, as he has complete logs of our discussion.

Response to evidence by Sander Sade

This editor lists a number of AfDs where myself and other editors have entered into discussions. The difference between myself and the email list, is that I was not canvassed to enter the discussion. Rather, I spend a lot of time adding {{WikiProject Russia}} to relevant talk pages. Now that we have WP:Article alerts, any articles with the WP:RUSSIA banner on them will appear on the WP:RUSSIA page. I also regularly peruse User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult and add the talk page banner, and also add certain articles to my watchlist (this is how I found the Communist genocide AfD I believe) not necessarily editing them. I also keep an eye on pages to which articles are added to by way of WP:DELSORT. And lastly, I also often go thru AfD debates for a week at a time. That myself and an editor like User:Offliner may have similar views is not evidence of collusion, teaming or anything of the like; it is simply evidence of two like-minded editors. The list on the other hand is completely different, as some of the AfD debates I have listed have shown.

Harrassment by Radeksz on this very case

The email archive demonstrates that Radeksz has a very combative and battleground attitude. Due to a perceived legal threat, I was indef blocked - the Committee is aware of this. During the discussion at WP:AN where I was addressing the issues, uninvolved admin User:Jehochman deemed that Radeksz's presence constituted harrassment of myself, and topic banned Radeksz from topic Russavia whereby he is "not to comment on, report on, wikihound, or otherwise annoy Russavia." for the duration of this case. The indef block on myself was lifted, and I am still under the general Russia topic ban as set down by User:Sandstein, not an EE topic ban as claimed by Radeksz (see diff to follow). I have gone on to edit articles such as Drukair, Flag of Bhutan, and an expansion of Air Botswana in my userspace. On the proposed decision page, Radeksz proceeds to post this, claiming that I have violated my topic ban in what he deems to be a "controversial" way, and proceeds to continue the harrassment, engages in furthering of battle conditions, wikilawyering and forum shopping. My response to Radeksz is here, and I do believe this has been done here, instead of elsewhere, partly due to his "Russavia" topic ban. I am aware that I am under a topic ban, and I am editing other subjects, and doing other things (such as doing what I can at DYK). I do not need the continuation of the battlefield by members of the web brigade, in this case by Radeksz, by way of their continue stalking, harrassment, gaming and wikilawyering. I wish to, and am trying to, edit in peace, and without the constant harrassment by this web brigade.

Response to further gaming by Radeksz

In response to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Russavia.2C_once_again.2C_violates_his_topic_ban_while_this_case_is_ongoing.2C_and_does_so_in_as_controversial_way_as_possible.2C_thus_illustrating_that_he.27s_only_interest_in_treating_Wikipedia_as_a_battleground

I do acknowledge that the topic ban by myself as placed by Sandstein is still in place (User_talk:Russavia/Archive_12#Topic_ban_extended) pending possible outcome of this case, and whether I decide to seek to have the ban lessened (I haven't decided yet).
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia does state "but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban." Sandstein himself has questioned this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Russavia where he stated "I'd like to note that "remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban" is unclear because I banned Russavia only from anything related to the Soviet Union and its successor states. The injunction can be read as extending this topic ban to all of Eastern Europe, which I believe is not necessary."
Colonies of Poland can't be construed as pertaining to the history of the Soviet Union, unless one is actively gaming which Radeksz is doing. If one follows his line, I would be unable to edit History of Cuba due to it pertaining in part to the Soviet Union. Such interpretation of a sanction which would in effect ban me from any article which mentions Russia or a Russian person is tedious and gaming, and in the context of evidence as presented, shows further battlefield mindset of Radeksz, and I say harrassment.
I have also been participating in helping verify hooks on DYK, such as [265],[266],[267],[268],[269]
This is not provocative. It is questioning subjective editorial comments in the hook which were not verified by any of the sources in the article.
In response to the rest of Radeksz' evidence, I would hope that the Committee understands that I was somewhat under stress at the time of the topic ban, and given this case it can be seen why I would be. I have since apologised for my conduct on my talk page, and have taken responsibility for my edits, and it is for this reason that I am now back to editing.

Evidence presented by YMB29

Biophys' stubborn edit warring

From editing the Human rights in the Soviet Union article, I could tell that there was some kind of team work involved. User:Biophys would have some users show up to support him in edit warring and "creating a consensus". User:Bobanni especially would come and help Biophys avoid 3RR, keep his edits to 3 or 2 reverts.

Recent example:

10:36, 10 September 2009 Biophys (Unexplained revert)

10:12, 10 September 2009 YMB29 (Undid revision 312888591 by Biophys (talk) See edit on 15 June 2009 23:46)

20:49, 9 September 2009 Biophys (rv. Sorry, but that was you who started reverts here)

13:13, 9 September 2009 YMB29 (Undid revision 312804016 by Bobanni (talk) See talk. Don't start a revert war again.)

12:22, 9 September 2009 Bobanni (reverting to an old copy is not the Wikipedia way - see talk)

10:53, 9 September 2009 YMB29 (Reverted sneaky reverts by Biophys, made some statements more clear and neutral.)

And then an admin blocked me because I had 3 reverts, but Biophys only 2...

I can understand how the group could have gotten users blocked after purposely making them lose their cool. It was often very frustrating with Biophys. He would act like he was following the rules and knew what he was editing. However, discussing with him felt like talking to someone who pretends to be silly to make you lose your patience. Often he would ask me to list my problems with the article to discuss, but he was unable to follow on with the discussion, continue to revert, and then again ask to discuss the issues...

Some of his comments from discussion:

You act against consensus here.

I will need a couple of days to look into all the issues and find all additional sources.

I have no time right now.

We had a stable version. You came and started making large changes without discussion.

You are welcome to include citation tags if they were accidently deleted.

Please tell what specific problems do you have with this last specific version.

Please do not fight against consensus using blind reverts.

OK, let's start it all over again, one point at a time.

Comments like that were very annoying in the context of him refusing to fully discuss issues and him reverting everything, including ^{[citation needed]} tags and sourced info.

Based on Biophys' editing, it is no surprise that he was involved in planned actions that are against Wikipedia's rules. He has shown that he only cares about keeping the article how he wants it with his stubborn reverts, which were often sneaky. He would say one thing in the edit summary but would really just revert the article to his version. This was obviously done to mask his reverts. For example, after settling down for seven months, on 15 June 2009 he reverted to his version from 3 Nov. 2008.

19:46, 15 June 2009 Biophys (actually, this is referenced to book by Albats that someone deleted) diff

You can see here that the versions are exactly the same, while his edit summary is nothing about that.

Piotrus defending Biophys

On Sept. 10th, not wanting to get into another long edit war with Biophys and Bobanni, I reported Biophys, specifically his edit on June 15th.[270] The first comment I see to the report was one by Piotrus defending Biophys. Before I could write a response that Piotrus is not impartial when it comes to Biophys (I knew it from here), I am blocked. Another admin blocked me without really looking into what I reported. I have a strong suspicion that Piotrus' comment may have influenced this hasty block. It was also funny to see User:Radeksz come in and protest the block, but then he realized that it was not Biophys who got blocked and apologized.

Furthermore, when Biophys was last blocked Piotrus again defended him and said he would have unblocked him if he would have seen his unblock request (before it was withdrawn) [271]. Also User:Martintg hounded the admin for blocking Biophys.[272]

-YMB29 (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to evidence by Biophys

I don't know what difference it makes how much edits I have. Maybe I would have more edits if Biophys was more cooperative in that article, since he wasted my time and discouraged me from getting into editing other articles. From the misleading edit summaries Biophys claims I made, only in one I did not mention or imply that I was going to revert (I reverted and added links as part of a compromise). [273] I did reply and explain on the talk page [274], so I was not misleading anyone.

I was not uncivil to him; that was regarding a user citing hate websites in another article over three years ago.[275]

As far as User:M.V.E.i., Biophys already accused me of being his sock and was proven wrong [276] (even though there was not any real evidence to start a checkuser request).

-YMB29 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MBisanz

Authenticity of archives

In June/July I was contacted by two people now alleged to be on this mailing list, the discussions I have since forwarded to arbcom. I have now seen a copy of the mailing list archive on a public website and compared the emails around the dates of these two earlier conversations and do see references that lead me to believe that the archive in general is authentic, since it would require non-public knowledge known only to me and the two other parties to re-create these properly timed references in the archive.

Evidence presented by Good Olfactory

Responsibility for block currently in force against Russavia

I want to confirm what Atama has stated in evidence above. The editing restriction imposed by Sandstein is related to, but obviously not the same as, the block I imposed. I imposed the block for Russavia's extensive wikilawyering and for making an ambiguous legal threat while Russavia was challenging the restrictions imposed by Sandstein in a WP:ANI thread. The block currently imposed on Russavia is the block I imposed. This block has been temporarily lifted with my knowledge and acquiescence so that Russavia can participate in this case. Unless the decision in this case decides otherwise, I expect the block against Russavia to remain in force after the case is concluded.

Was not contacted by any of the parties in this case prior to imposing the block

I was not contacted by any of the parties in this case regarding Russavia's behaviour prior to my decision to impose an indefinite block on Russavia. I have had typical Wikipedia "passing interactions" with some of the parties in the case, but I have never experienced any contact with any of them in which a user has lobbied or otherwise requested that sanctions be imposed on other editors.

Evidence presented by HistoricWarrior007

On the Russavia Ban

I believe that the reason Russavia made the comments that enabled Ol'Factory to ban him, was because Russavia was constantly provoked by the e-mail team, and even banned by their resident administrator. Thus the issue here is not Russavia's final action, but the reason that Russavia committed his final action. We are all human. We all err. A single error should not be the reason that a person gets banned. Russavia made a bad post, after being provoked by the e-mail group, that Sandstein used to get him banned for 6 months. Here is the comment: "In his edit notice at [94], Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) wrote that the content at issue was "hardly undue and i willl fight you to the death on this :D." When a Russian user posts a smiley on the end, ahh heck, when any user posts a smiley on the end - that means they are kidding! A six month ban for such a comment, considering the previous provocations against Russavia, and considering that the article in question, is trying to promote a film that shows "how similar Soviet States was to Nazi State" (because we all know it was the USSR and SS going around and committing the Holocaust, or so the film's hypothesis alleges). Russavia wanted to include a Dyukhov, someone who wrote a critique of the film, while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov, and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia. For this, Russavia received a six month ban from Sandstein, which led Russavia to make the comment that was used by Ol'Factory to impose an infinite ban on Russavia. I don't see this as neither fair, nor just.

More to come

Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.

Tymek voluntarily disclosed his password

User:Tymek has publicly admitted he voluntarily disclosed his wikipedia password to his fellow list members [277]. (Arbitrators can check this against the e-mail archive from July, thread titled "vacation".) This means we no longer need to assume any illegal act of "hacking", "security breaches", "information theft" etc either from inside or outside the group at all. It makes it quite likely that the whistleblower e-mails were exactly what they said they were: written by somebody from within the group who felt he could "no longer support this". The whistleblower used his own, legally acquired copy of the e-mails and was merely forwarding them non-publicly to selected individuals, which is entirely legal; by using Tymek's account he was probably just trying to create a false track to avoid detection by his fellow conspirators, but he wasn't even acting illegally in doing this because Tymek had explicitly invited list members to use his account for "whatever they felt necessary".

This also throws some doubt on the sincerity of the loudly professed security fears and concerns over illegal hacking attacks offered by the list members – after all, they all knew Tymek's account was open to this kind of exploitation by one of their own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA precedent

Given the above evidence, it seems safe to assume at this point that the legal status of the EEML e-mails is exactly the same as that of the CAMERA e-mails in 2008: leaked to Wikipedia administrators by somebody who, being a legitimate recipient of the original list, had every right to do so. In the CAMERA case, the following practice was found acceptable by both the community and Arbcom: a small group of administrators who had been given access to the material were free to study them, publicly summarise their contents, publish selected quotations from them, and disclose links between wikipedia accounts and list members, while making certain that personally identifying information in the e-mails was filtered out (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign). Sanctions imposed by us administrators on the basis of this report were explicitly validated by Arbcom (here, see also here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and on-wiki hounding of opponents continues

On 27 September, Jacurek (talk · contribs) followed one of his old opponents, Matthead (talk · contribs) into an article he had never edited before, West Germany, with the sole purpose of joining a revert war. Jacurek reverted 3 times in 12 hours [278], [279], [280], while Matthead reverted twice [281], [282].

Jacurek's behaviour on talk was distinctively less constructive than his opponents (aggressive, restricted to asserting the same point over and over again, and failed to address the points made by the other side [283], [284], [285], [286]). He then made accusations against Matthead on several user talk pages, falsely telling two admins Matthead was under a relevant revert limitation [287], [288] (in reality, Matthead's restriction was topic-limited and didn't affect this article.) As a direct result of this false information, Matthead was in fact blocked [289]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Molobo knowingly submitted false evidence to these proceedings~~: section removed; this has now been rectified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by PasswordUsername

Note: I will be posting evidence for the ArbCom case as User:Anti-Nationalist, as I don't have access to the password for my old login when my laptop hardware got fried on September 7th. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history reviewed

The situation that ArbCom is now looking at is nothing new, and was already apparent to all who bothered to look from the very get-go, such that when I arrived on Wikipedia, I was already besieged by accusations of bad faith, repeated -- seemingly endlessly iterated -- edit warring against the change that I sought to make, threats to expose me as somebody's sockpuppet, attacks on my motives when I sought to complain to an administrator, and denials of any out-and-out coordinated editing by the team members.

When it was continually shown that such users Biophys, Piotrus, and fellow members of the cohort were using what appeared as extremely well-coordinated edit-warring and harassment against other users to get their way, nothing was ever done, while good editors who pointed out the problems with members of this group were driven away by endless harrassment and confrontation from the team members. Both User:Deacon of Pndapetzim and myself pointed out the matter very succintly when we pointed out the politics of the game for ArbCom members in our opening statements [290] for the (rejected) Easterm Europe case in June.

I pointed out the state of things very clearly on May 26 [291], on just one occasion when the whole team showed up en masse to swamp a request for comment section for Human rights in the United States full of their own POV. Rather than actually do something about users who disrupt the productive lives of other editors, both the administrators at large and ArbCom (when prodded to take a closely resembling case back in June) preferred to ignore such warnings. When 1RR restrictions for both list members and opponents were issued by User:Thatcher in June, these were soon rolled back after an intensive e-mail lobbying campaign from mailing list members; the pattern of things returned to status quo ante. Were it not for this sudden whistleblowing and leaking of the evidence to ArbCom, Wikipedia would have simply let Russavia, one of the most productive Wikipedia editors and an outstanding contributor of Russia-related content, be banned for having made one remark in an edit summary without bothering to check the long-time harassment that he has faced from content opponents such as the stubborn editors from the leaked archive of the clandestine mailing list.

Swamping of AFD and CFD discussions

Biophys-created Internet operations by Russian secret police (nominated 27 March 2009). Voting keep: Digwuren, Vecrumba, Martintg.
Digwuren-created category Category:Neo-Stalinism (nominated 9 April 2009). Voting keep: Digwuren, Dc76, Martintg, Biophys, Miacek. (No uninvolved users participated; the semi-involved Petri Krohn–a relatively pro-Russian editor–was subsequently chased off Wikipedia by the same crowd.) (Re: to Radeksz, I meant the category, not the article by GCarty. See the CFD right over here: [292])
Miacek-created Derzhava [293] (older version; nominated 28 May 2009). Voting keep: Digwuren, Miacek, Biophys, Radeksz, Martintg. (The few uninvolved users voted delete.)
Digwuren-created Soviet-run peace movements in the West (nominated 11 July 2009). Voting keep: Piotrus, Biophys, Ostap R, Biruitorul, Jacurek. (Most uninvolved users favored deletion.)

Stalking by mailing list members

Various users, all part of the mailing list, appear to have stalked me at various points in the past six months, although the editing patterns of these users may also be attributable to something else. Worst of all was the following of my edits to different parts of the project by Digwuren, who suddenly took interest in all manner of things never related to his understandable niche of things Estonian:

June 1 - Digwuren twice reverts my edits to Kim Jong-Il, an article he never edited before: [294], [295]–preferring to reinsert Juche as a religion...
June 1 - Digwuren twice reverts my edits to Ilya Ehrenburg, a page he never edited before: [296], [297]–insisting on including an unsourced statement I deleted.
May 27 through June 3 - Digwuren and Biophys show up on the talk page for List of Eastern Bloc defectors to support User:Mosedschurte against myself and User:Yaan in a content dispute [298]. On June 5, Biophys and Martintg help Mosedschurte revert addition of pre-Eastern Bloc and post-Eastern Bloc defectors, well outside the scope of an article dealing with defections from the Eastern Bloc. [299], [300]. Neither of these edited List of Eastern Bloc defectors before.
May 24 - Digwuren reverts me at Benjamin (Animal Farm) [301], Squealer (Animal Farm) [302] (and 2nd revert - 27 May: [303]), and Old Major [304] (and 2nd revert - 27 May: [305]), neither of which he edited before.

From the very beginning of my stumbling upon this team, I asked members (specifically Biophys and Digwuren) not to stalk me around: [306], [307]. User:Vlad fedorov has also noted the stalking performed by Biophys on various occasions [308], as has Russavia [309].

Members of the mailing list defend each other from sockpuppet investigations

Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Digwuren: [310], [311]. Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Radeksz: [312], [313]. Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Martintg: [314], [315]. Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Jacurek: [316]. Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Piotrus: [317], [318]. Comments at the Molobo sockpuppet investigation by Poeticbent: [319]. Molobo's role as a sockpuppeteer was subsequently confirmed.

False accusations of sockpuppetry and persisting insinuations against myself by team members

Within a day of having discovered me after I submitted a Digwuren-made category for discussion in early May, Digwuren came to my talk page to inquire, in a very indirect way, whether I was a sockpuppet of User:Anonimu, who was notably targeted for elimination by team members in 2007: [320]. Being a relative newbie to much of the editing trends and unfamiliar with the drama, I reverted this, and, seeing no basis for Digwuren's accusations after his incivil comments in my address at a CFD, wrote in my edit summary for the talk page rvt: "Deleting bad faith edit" [321]. Digwuren instead came to the administrators' noticeboard, a very public place, with warnings of a "possible return of Anonimu" [322]. As one of his main items of "evidence," Digwuren wrote:

"When, after a little digging, I asked PasswordUsername if he might know Anonimu, he responded in a way rather uncharacteristic for a new user -- by deleting the question from his talkpage within about a minute, claiming it was "bad faith edit". When Anonimu was active, he was very aggressive in removing all criticism -- including warnings -- from his talkpage, going as far as to post a set of rules about how his talkpage should remain blank onto his talkpage."

Additionally, Digwuren misrepresented my editing pattern and contributions, simply trying to tie me to his own portrayal of Anonimu in any possible way, then proceeded to inform administrator (and ArbCom member) User:Newyorkbrad of his suspicions: [323]. After being told that Anonimu came from Romania, Digwuren did not withdraw his complaints from the noticeboard, but hedged his bets and began referring to the case as a "possible return of Anonimu or Jacob Peters." [324] Nobody, of course, took the episode of the ridiculous accusations thrown seriously: when I patiently explained to the admins reading the noticeboard what my reaction was [325] and that Digwuren's reading of my edits was completely and blatantly distorted [326], admin User:Hans Adler responded that Digwuren was abusing ANI and should "stop crying wolf and start apologising" [327]. Rather than having a well-deserved apology or even having the chapter close right there and then, the accusations continued when Biophys showed up to support Digwuren with questions about my editing as an IP (not something I ever denied); Biophys also posted at Moreschi's talk page, which prompted User:Unomi to ask Biophys to go to SPI if he thought the concerns were genuine and to stop with the admin blockshopping [328].

Despite having no case against me and in fact never bothering to go to the CheckUser, both Biophys and Digwuren continued their insinuations in messages to my talk page days after they were told that they had no evidence, both on talk [329], [330], [331], and in edit summaries: [332] (here Digwuren also manages to cleverly accuse me of "diluting the gravity of anti-Semitism" because of my inclusion of material regarding an instance of Estonian anti-semitism). From on-wiki speculation that I was Jacob Peters or Anonimu the current moved toward speculation that I was M.V.e.I. or somebody else–team member Ostap R betting "100 euros" that I was a sock of M.V.e.I.: [333]. Did mailing list members actually convince themselves that this was the case? While this is very representative of this cabal's campaign of Wiki-hounding, I am sure that off-Wiki evidence sheds light on even more material of this sort, and I have every reason there is to believe Alex Bakharev's summary of the nature of these editors' off-wiki conduct. Accusations like these are unreasonable, and there was no reason to be harassing me with them when there was a clear lack of evidence for doing so.

Cases of revert-warring by members of the mailing list

The following incidents and descriptions (which I picked so as not to overlap with the incidents described by others) is a partial representation of the problem, as my serious involvement with the project begins in May, whereas documenting and helpfully annotating every possibility of coordinated editing (I do not have access to the secret mailing list's archive) even from my period of involvement only would take up an extraordinarily Byzantine amount of time. (In any case, note also: [334].)

Anti-Russian sentiment: 8-16 May 2009

Following a chain of reverts of Offliner by Digwuren [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340], fellow mailing list mates Martintg [341] [342], Radeksz [343] [344], and Vecrumba [345] join in edit warring against Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, Kupredu, and myself.

Neo-Stalinism: May 10-18 2009, August-September 2009

May 10-18 - Digwuren and Biophys repeatedly edit war against me while discussion is ongoing, while the only uninvolved editor User:Magioladitis, takes my side at talk.

May 14 - After pointing out problems with the way Biophys edits to an admin, User:Hans Adler and Adler expressing his concern about Biophys' POV, Biophys (all the while telling Hans Adler that I am the one culpable of stalking him) writes that he does not care about neo-Stalinism [346], and actually leaves the page alone from then on. Subsequently, Biophys comes back in order to revert Russavia at August's end: [347], [348], [349]. Vecrumba helps out [350].

August-September 2009 - Edit war as Radeksz reverts my changes. Jacurek and Biophys help edit war. I do one other revert. User:LokiiT attempts to edit the article, but encounters further members of the team–Radeksz [351], Jacurek [352], and Vecrumba [353] (all perform almost identical reverts).

Timeline of antisemitism: 3-10 June 2009

3 June – I make an edit to Timeline of antisemitism [354]. Secret cabal member Digwuren, never having touched the article before, arrives to engage against me in an episode edit warring, removing my addition of an episode of Estonian anti-semitism from the timeline: [355]. Martintg, never having edited the article before, arrives in support of Digwuren: [356].

After edit warring between myself, Digwuren, Martintg, and Offliner, Biophys - never having edited the article before – joins in on 5 June to revert my edits to Digwuren’s version [357]. Dozens of reverts by Martintg, Digwuren, and Biophys follow. (see history [358])

Mark Sirők: 3-17 June 2009

3 June – Shotlandiya creates an article stub for Mark Sirők. Digwuren arrives within a half-hour, demanding a removal of the article based on Shotlandiya’s having misspelled “Russophone”: [359].

4 June – after Digwuren fails in having article deletion proceed, Sander Säde joins Digwuren in their attempts to discredit Mark Sirők -- [360]. Sander Säde and Digwuren begin combating Shotlandiya jointly. Finding the newly-created article, I only make one minor change: [361].

7 June – Radeksz arrives on the scene to make major changes, significantly altering content: [362]. Digwuren continues battling against Shotlandiya.

8 June – Martintg arrives to revert Shotlandiya: [363]. Digwuren’s further massive changes invite revert from Offliner: [364]. Digwuren continues warring: [365]. Offliner doesn’t revert further, but constant reverting by mailing list members against myself and Shotlandiya rages until the numerically weaker party leaves (allowing the last revert for Digwuren on June 17).

Moscow Victory Parade of 1945: 13-14 June 2009

After my initial edit to this page on 13 June, Digwuren [366], Martintg [367] [368], and Radeksz [369] all arrive to combat me, all reinserting the same piece of text. Neither Martintg, Radeksz, or Digwuren had edited the article at all prior to June 13-14.

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II: 15-17 August 2009

In spite of ongoing discussion at talk (quickly concluded in my favor), Jacurek [370] [371], Vecrumba [372], Radeksz [373] edit war against myself over my removal of out-of-scope text about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact agreements from an article about pro-Nazi collaborationism, alongside an image inserted by Piotrus [374] in July.

Dc76 arrived on Rjanag's talk page to make unfounded accusations

Please look at the section PasswordUsername - here we go again in Rjanag's admin talk archive to get the complete picture.

In what appears to be coordinated team battling, Radeksz and Martintg arrived almost simultaneously at an admin's talk page to complain regarding my "edit warring" to Monument of Lihula, where, in fact, I had accidentally passed the 3RR rule but almost instantaneously reverted myself, long prior to these administrator user page reports: [375], [376]. (Apparently, they decided to lobby the administrator, User:Rjanag, in their favor, as a very similar "3RR report" where I had self-reverted was dismissed from the noticeboard a very sort time prior to that.) Rjanag, while noting that three reverts could be considered gaming the system, properly said that with regard to my reverts, no violation of 3RR had been committed and that my edits were compromise attempt. [377])

At that point, Dc76 (also a member of the team) arrived to back up Radeksz and Martintg with very hostile comments, accusing me of doing battleground behavior, making "ad hominems" in edit summaries (that no reasonable person would read from of them and which I never made) and making the accusation that my edit summaries were clear "challenge you"s. [378]. (Quite disingenuously, in the very same comment, Dc76 gives it away that he'd stopped editing the article a long time prior to my changes.)

These very nasty attacks on my edits made no sense at all. Dc76 simply backed up his team's members by accusing me with extraordinary slander: what was written against me was pure provocation, and provocation that occured after Rjanag clearly let everyone know that he wasn't going to sanction me for this, although Martintg's particularly aggressive behavior didn't look at all good for him. At this point, I asked Dc76 to explain his unfounded attacks [379], but received no answer, leading me to think that in all likelihood his characterization of my editing was either deliberately belligerent and frivolous or he doesn't normally arrive to peek at Rjanag's talk. (Both may very well be true.)

I believe that this was an episode of gaming the system in order to make myself look bad in the eyes of an admin; since Dc76 had only very limited contact with me and arrived to support Radeksz and Martintg with such outstandingly careless sophistry, I have no doubt that this was coordinated through the mailing list in e-mails that the members exchanged around September 4th. At least, if Dc76 cared about what I was reverting and did not simply want to be part of a team project, he would have made some actual arguments. And I have every reason to doubt that in the "innocent" scenario Dc76 would have arrived so quickly to make nonsense charges about me on Rjanag's talk page.

Subsequently confirmed that Dc76 arrived after a call to arms against myself issued on the mailing list: see subsequent section on evidence from the archive. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from the e-mail archive

Having now begun looking at the archive, I see that the bonanza of evidence is gigantic. I encourage Arbitrators to read each and every one of the e-mails listed here, as the remarks (quoting them is not permitted here) in many instances give the game away far better than these edit summaries, and the now publicly-revealed "rationales" for them are evasive excuses, by all appearances flying in the face of the reality that went on in secret among its members and as the consequences of these e-mail exchanges on-Wiki. Among other things (I have done my best to avoid the repition of evidence from the mailing list disclosed by other victims of the cabal):

Vecrumba describes his baiting of User:Paul Siebert and a tentative plan to get the team to coordinate on ruining Paul's reputation by means of an RfC, given Paul's strong command of the facts in historical articles: In Re: [WPM] DYK for Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brzesc, 20090907-1906

Martintg circulates an e-mail inviting people to complain about me to Rjanag (as–see section above–he himself, Radeksz, and Dc76 do): In Re: [WPM] PU escapes clear 3RR violation, 20090904-2019 (although it was not found to be a violation)

Piotrus (very blatantly) asks for supporting votes at a Poland-related file for deletion discussion: [380], also nominated by J. Milburn, just as he does in the different incident with J. Milburn described above by Offliner–supporting Piotrus are members of the email archive Poeticbent, Radeksz, Jacurek, and Vecrumba: In Re: [WPM] images being deleted, 20090818-0328

Jacurek calls everyone on the list for help, noting that he's running out of reverts against Skäpperöd: In [WPM] HELP!! Radek , Piotrus, Tymek and others., 20090725-2229

Tymek says that he doesn't follow my edits and he has no idea of what my edits are like, but that anyone who wants to file a report against me can use his username, as everybody on the list knows what his account password is: In Re: [WPM] PasswordUsername edit warring, 20090814-0455

Piotrus presents an AFD to the closed mailing list, violating WP:CANVASSING: In Re: [WPM] AfD of interest: Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States, 20090717-1732

Radeksz suggests that he could do anonymous reverts as an anonymous IP from Europe, as he happens to be doing some traveling: In Re: [WPM] Molotov Ribbentrop Pact article/Baltic states occupation, 20090716-2317

Dc76 asks for help in reverting an opponent, User:Paul Siebert, on Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact: In Re: [WPM] Molotov Ribbentrop Pact article/Baltic states occupation, 20090716-0121; he then again proceeds to call for meatpuppety a short while afterwards: In Re: [WPM] Molotov Ribbentrop Pact article/Baltic states occupation, 20090716-08336

Biruitorul canvasses for a delete on this Christian violence-related AFD [381]; Piotrus and Poeticbent arrive with supporting votes: In [WPM] Interesting AfD - "Christian violence", 20090716-0006

Radeksz suggest making various throwaway sockpuppet accounts in order to revert opponents without bringing attention to the team's members actual accounts while tarnishing their opponents'; he suggests Molobo as a good candidate for engaging in this: In Re: [WPM] Hanzo (was Women and Wiklp), 20090703-1749

Dc76 suggests baiting Anonimu (who's just returned on 1RR parole following a ban placed as a result of his altercations with the same editors) by inserting negative material into articles on Romanian politicians Anonimu has an interest–following this June message, Dc76 and Biruitorul repeatedly show up to revert Anonimu on Traian Basescu throughout the summer of '09: In Re: [WPM] Dealing with Anonimu, 20090618-2344

Vecrumba makes this edit [382], essentially reversing my two sequential edits [383] [384], where I deleted the anti-semitic contention that "Jewish Bolshevism" is an "objective" term. Vecrumba tells the e-mail group that this was designed as a provocation, and could be masked by his previous involvement in another article: In [WPM] PasswordUsername on Jewish Bolshevism, 20090615-0359

Digwuren fashions a thick plot to have Piotrus blacken my block log with false accusations of WP:OUTING, along with coming back as a sock so as to create a clean record for himself: In Re: [WPM] blocked, 20090612-0943

Vecrumba calls for team gameplay in response to my request for a more neutral article name at Talk:Nochnoy Dozor (group)#POV name: In Re: [WPM] PasswordUsername and Jaak Aaviksoo, 20090611-0225; Digwuren then suggests that the group try to block me should I keep persisting with attempts to get the article moved: In [WPM] PU move-warring, 20090614-1128

Piotrus encourages team members to coordinate reverting Offliner to avoid breaking 3RR while waging edit wars: In Re: [WPM] tactics re Offliner and PasswordUsername, 20090606-0618

Vecrumba issues call to arms on Ethnocracy: In Re: [WPM] tactics re Offliner and PasswordUsername, 20090606-1817

Piotrus gives advice to Molobo regarding targeting User:Skäpperöd, suggesting that other team members file Molobo's RFC, listing Tymek or Radeksz as possible candidates–even as he notes in the same e-mail the likelihood of Molobo being banned for sockpuppetry: In Re: [WPM] RfC regarding Skapperod, 20090524-1506 (note Martintg's and Radeksz's defense of Molobo after this: [385] [386])

Biophys sends e-mail supportive of User:Mosedschurte, an editor often discussed as an ally of the mailing list in other e-mails, at the Human rights in the United States RfC and a link to the request for comment : In [WPM] Human rights in the US, 20090525-2315. After supportive mailing list messages, team soon shows up en masse to support Mosedschurte.
- (Although Biophys denies that this was an example of canvassing, just as other opponents misrepresent my editing and even this evidence as regards this ArbCom, Biophys forbade me from quoting verbatim from the e-mail when I prodded him regarding whether I may post a quote: [387]. (And he forbids Arbs from even reading it.) Arbitrators, examine and make your call.)

Digwuren makes an advertisement regarding a proposed "community ban" for User:Petri Krohn, whose remarks were misconstrued as a "legal threat": In Re: [WPM] Estonian embassy interest in Wikipedia, 20090523-1324. The !vote majority that blocks Petri Krohn is made up of Petri Krohn's content opponents–most of them members of the mailing list. He had avoided interacting with Digwuren at all costs until being baited into conflict by on-Wiki action specifically designed to ensnare him, as discussed in the earlier e-mails of the list. Cabal member Miacek also sends an additional e-mail to Petri Krohn's enemies to encourage team !voting, lest anybody on the list missed the !banvoting campaign before then: In [WPM] banning Petr Krohn? [sic], 20090529-1210.

As regards the cabal members' counter-accusations: re. Aaviksoo, etc.

Since Martintg, Sander Sade, et al. have taken on the strategy here that their long-term harassment is justified by my insertion of sourced material into Jaak Aaviksoo and other articles (along with my insistence, together with that of others, of also keeping this material where relevant), I will simply note that I will not indulge members of the mailing list, whose attacks on my editing and my evidence here are baseless and repugnant. If members of ArbCom would like me to discuss my on-wiki conduct or anything else, they are free to contact me personally to discuss or examine my on-wiki work. I am open to any questions on my talk page; I do regard transparency as an inherently good thing–and very much so in this case especially.

Evidence presented by Piotrus

I will just address the appearance of my name. I am not presenting evidence against anybody else; the only person against whom the evidence should be provided is the person who hacked our computer(s).

Re:Deacon

Also, re:PU's "Members of the mailing list defend each other from sockpuppet investigations"

I want to be clearly state that I did not encourage Molobo's socking (and not having seen all the "sikret" evidence in that case I find the public evidence still unconvincing); I encouraged him to find ways to prove he is a constructive editor who should be unblocked.

Re:Offliner

re:my edit to Russian apartment bombings, and re:"Members of the secret email list appear to be involved in stealth canvassing of votes": I think the article was mentioned several times on our discussion list. At some point, despite my relative lack of interest in Russian politics, I decided to read the article. I read it, read the recent talk discussions, looked at the diffs in edit history and reverted to a version I considered better. I see nothing wrong with my action there. Similarly, sometimes deletion or other discussions are annouced; I always read the article in question and consider arguments of both sides before editing/voting, and I hope other members of our groups (and all other editors in all similar situations) do the same. Your argument would be more convincing if I my vote here was pure delete, instead of delete and merge (with rationale). Why don't you mention more examples where the members of our group disagree? Here, for example, Biophys votes keep, I lean towards deletion with my merge. Heck, here you can find an entire mediation with editors from our little group on both sides :) Oh, and here's another recent vote (on merger) I proposed recently and that I am pretty sure I mentioned on our discussion group, where I find myself agreeing with Offliner and disagreeing with Biophys: Talk:Web_brigades#Merge._again. We discuss, sometimes agree, but sometimes disagree (there are no "yes men" among us), and never tell others to do disruptive edits. What's the problem? That we dare to talk to each other off-wiki? That's not against the rules, what's against the rules, to cite our policies and arbcom, is aggressive propaganda campaigns, and that never took place on our group.

re:Early June edit warring

I did and do support limiting the number of reverts per person per day, and I do think that 1RR is a commendable policy to support. On multiple occasions I've suggested, on and off wiki, to various editors, that they should stick to 1RR. And that's wrong because...?

re:copyvio images

I recall I encouraged, on and off wiki, for editors to find sources for such images and to provide proper fair use rationales; I am currently involved in trying to obtain the permission for the entire archive to be made free (see Template_talk:PolandGov#Send_a_request_again). In the end, some images were deleted, some kept. See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg for example, or the new improved rationale at File:CaptMruk recce Soviet Aug1944 Rad-Kie.jpg. I see nothing wrong in discussing such issues.

re:Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Thanks for bringing this up. I do wonder why did Deacon arrive to vote there, on an article that is not part of his usual editing routine and interests? I am sure it was not because *I* initiated the move... I might have announced such a move on the discussion group (as well as on the various public wiki boards), and asked others to comment. I never ask people to "vote yes" or "vote no", and it is not uncommon for members of our group to disagree with one another (see above) or as happens in most cases, not to join the discussion/vote because they had no time to familiarize themselves with the topic, and our ethics discourage taking action otherwise (think for a moment while I, in the Top 50 active Wikipedians, often spending hours on this project, am so inactive on the Russian modern politics (a common subject in our discussion group)? The answer is simple: I don't consider myself to know enough about it to edit the subject, and even if I sympathize with certain side I won't edit the subjects they care about till I am sure I know what I am doing).

re:Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards

Eh? We discuss wikipolitics, and are interested in one another wiki-wellbeing. What is that supposed to prove or disprove? Other editors, such as you (Offliner) and Russavia, for example, also agree with one another and support one another in such threads. Such discussions are not a vote, and admins making the decisions are not swayed by choruses (or at least, should not be), but by reasonable arguments.

re:Piotrus has made unfounded personal attacks

I don't see what this has to do with the email group, other than be a general jab at me; in either case neither comment I made and you cite is a personal attack. Saying that your evidence is "extremely poor" is not a PA (I will also say this again - your evidence here is "extremely poor" - and if any clerk thinks I am being uncivil, please let me know so I can moderate this comment...).

re:Piotrus has abused his admin status

After Jehochman's advice (not a warning), I no longer posted in the uninvolved admin section on AE but in the regular discussion section. At this time we also refined our definition of what an (un)involved admin is (this should be somewhere in the AE talk archives, I think), although I still think this merits more clarifications (my previous understanding of uninvolvement meant no involvement in a given article content dispute, now our practice seems to extend this to interactions with certain users, which makes sense, but needs more refining).

re:Piotrus has abused his admin powers

Re: Battle of Konotop. If anything, power (to protect). But plural sounds better, doesn't it? Anyway, it's simple: I was informed that an article is being disrupted by anon's/reds (whose sudden influx suggests socking or real single purpose canvassing by somebody somewhere...), I looked at it, there was reverting going on, with no discussion on talk from non-estabilished editors who have written most of the article. It's a really simple case; was it reported to ReqForProt it would have been granted quickly. It was reported to me, I was not involved in the editing of the article, I protected it. Nobody complained about my protection since... what's the problem? That this was discussed on our group? If I was informed about it by email, nobody would care. If I was informed on talk, same. But since it was discussed on our group, a normal action becomes evil. QED :)

PS. Please note that the article is now fully protected ([388]). Perhaps I should have fully protected it in the first place.

re:Piotrus -- as usual -- arrived to support Martintg's unblock

Well, yes, I disagreed with it and still do, per my comment and reasoning there. So?

re:Russavia

re:my posting the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account

If it was a harassment thread, don't you think somebody would have spotted it sooner? Investigating if somebody is sharing an account is not harassment, not unless unfounded accusations are repeated over and over. This was brought up once and once analyzed, dropped.

re:my edits to web brigades

See my reply to Offliner, first re. In addition: I am interested in this article due to the Tygodnik Powszechny Polish connection, so I have it on my watchlist, which is an exception as far as the area of "modern Russian politics" and my interest go. I see nothing problematic with me editing that article and discussing it with others.

re:Piotrus defending Biophys

I disagree with the rationale behind his block; but while my judgment wavered for a moment, I decided not to unblock him as. No admin power was abused, so what's the problem here?

re:Response to evidence by Piotrus

Yes, we talked about you a few times. So????

re:More recent battleground created by email list members

[389]: LOL. I am sorry, I think I'll stop replying to those accusations, they are becoming ridiculous enough that anybody can judge for themselves what merit they have.

re:PU

image

I am not sure what kind of argument you can build on my single edit that replaced an unfree and now-deleted image (File:German Soviet.jpg) with a free one (File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg). At least, I am not seeing any argument that the mention of "Piotrus did this, it has to be evil" :>

re:DonaldDuck

DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was and still is indef blocked for his disruption (edit warring, block evasion and sockpuppetry), unblocked only to participate in this discussion. His edits to tsarist autocracy where on the verge of vandalism (removal of referenced text in violation of WP:V, refusal to discuss issues on talk (particularly in December), edit warring - I don't recall the details but he was breaking 5/6RRs a day at some point, if not more (!)). He single-handedly went ballistic on the tsarist autocracy, caused a major disruption in that article and got himself banned due to his refusal to edit constructively. Yes, this article was discussed on our group, as it fits the interest of most members. We have discussed the issue extensively on Talk:Tsarist autocracy as well. Members of our group have helped to prevent disruption in the article, expanded it into a well-referenced DYK (to the obvious benefit of our encyclopedia-building project), and the vandal got blocked for his own actions, after multiple warnings from many editors. Nobody baited Donald, he was given plenty of opportunities to engage in discussion and work on a compromise version instead of reverting, he refused them and kept reverting and reverting to his own version (WP:OWN, anyone?). Vandal edits (removing refs), vandal gets reverted. Discussions on talk are held, vandal refuses to accept edits of others. Vandal edit wars, vandal gets blocked. I see nothing wrong with this picture. Donads' insistence on not seeing any errors in his behavior, even now, and on attacking those who disagree with him makes it quite obvious who is the dedicated edit warrior here. I am curious, however, who asked Donald to participate in this discussion?

PS. Found it. The final revert spree Donald went on that led to his indef had 17 reverts. SEVENTEEN REVERTS. Who are we going to see next, WheelyOnWheels? :) I rest my case.

Re:Donald: I expect every editor to read the article, read the discussion, and edit (revert, vote, whatever) only after they are familiar enough with the topic. I am assuming good faith and trusting now, just like I did in the past, that those few editors who joined in editing/discussing this article did so. You can ask them about that.

Re:Shell Kinney

My apology and explanation.

Re:Skäpperöd

Our discussion group did not exist prior to late 2008 (December I think?), so it could've hardly have influenced prior ArbCom cases our members were involved before 2009 (and I cannot think of any between Dec'08 and now).

Regarding Molobo, I will just point out to what Radek said.

Re:Crotalus horridus

Discussing article of interest to editors is not against policy, per my expectation (based on past experiences) that they would read/discuss, I won't rehash what I said above. Anyway, I want to make an important admission here: I am sure that I have, on occasion, informed of wiki-related discussion (including various votes) not only the "Eastern European" mailing list, but also the following closed lists with no publicly available archive: 1) for Poland-related articles, "Polish Studies List" run by Polish Studies Association 2) for sociology of the Internet article, CITASA list (Communication and Information Technology Section of the American Sociological Association) 3) for social movement articles (such as the one mentioned by Crotalus horridus), CBSM list (Collective Behavior and Social Movement list of ASA) and 4) for Pittsburgh-related articles, various University of Pittsburgh email lists. On other occasions I've informed of such discussions other institutions, in an attempt to increase their interest in Wikipedia (such as Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), as well as individual scholars and experts. On occasion I make comments on such discussions on semi-public Internet fora (for example, I inform members of Baen's Bar of 163x- and Honorverse- related Wiki developments). It was always my expectation that individuals frequenting those lists would be interested to see how such issues are discussed on Wikipedia, and possibly they would offer comments either to me or join the discussion itself, and I would be quite disappointed if I ever found out they were joining those discussion just to support me, without reading the article/discussion and forming their own opinion. Still, if you want to add all of the above to my stealth and evil "sikrit" canvassing, please do.

Re:Thatcher

Discussing content off-wiki is allowed. If you hadn't put an editor on half-a-year 1RR for 3 reverts on one article... in two weeks - a pretty bad judgment call - we wouldn't have discussed your decisions. If you feel offended about comments we made in our private correspondence - hmmm, perhaps you should not be reading it?

That said, in the June/July debate I shouldn't have posted in the uninvolved admin section; in retrospective Jehochman was right and I was wrong. Since then I am pretty sure I have not posted in the uninvolved section on AE again; and I will certainly take even more care to add an involvement disclaimer in the future posts I make concerning users I know.

With a grain of salt

Regarding some emails quoted here, I have doubts about their authenticity. I'll discuss those doubts with the Committee.

A question to consider

I see lots of comments about stuff allegedly said in private email (and a quick count indicates that out of ~3,500 emails under review, about ~10-20 of mine are seen as problematic...). Shrug. I have written 22 FAs, ~300 DYKs and a ton of other content during my 5+ years and >100k edits, mostly in article space. Show me one article that because of my involvement in this discussion group was made worse. Well?

On improper canvassing

To address concerns about improper canvassing, I agree that all articles discussed by us should also be publicly announced on Wikipedia. We lacked a forum that was representative of our interests; hence in the past such announcements were spread at various wikiprojects/noticeboards or nowhere at all (and centralized only on our list). I've addressed this with this workshop proposal. With this, the problem of improper canvassing should go away.

An offer

Those proceedings are very deprived of good faith (on all sides), yet this project cannot function without this crucial ingredient. I am willing to reply to specific good-faithed questions and pieces of evidence; I am also willing to assume good faith about anybody (even if I lost it in the past) and enter a mediation or try to work, collaboratively, on an article they select. Although I have a huge (public) log of articles I want to work on, I am willing, in an effort to show good faith, to work with any editor here and apply my considerable experience in content creation to improving an article they are interested in and working on. It is my hope that by working together to create content we can rebuild the trust and good faith that got lost along the way - and help the project in its primary mission, creating encyclopedic content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Shell Kinney

I was made aware of this mailing list via private email several days ago mainly because someone reviewing the "leak" noticed several of my emails had been forwarded to the mailing list. I can confirm that the emails forwarded to the list by Piotr were not forged or tampered with and I can provide the original mail to ArbCom if needed. This was done without my permission or knowledge and I am frankly outraged that Piotr not only broke trust in this manner, but has yet to offer any reason or apology for such behavior. This is not the sort of conduct I would expect from an administrator. Shell ^babelfish 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant/helpful report in my userspace User:Shell_Kinney/EEreportsreview. Started in response to a number of simultaneous AE reports to examine behavior of many of the parties named here. Covers January through June of this year and outlines actions across a number of articles; may help in comparing against email archives. Shell ^babelfish 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another bit to consider: during my review of the AE reports I was contacted multiple times via email by those listed as begin part of the mailing list; some were being reviewed, some were not. At the time I didn't think much of it, but I think it would be appropriate for ArbCom to review whether or not this was coordinated and intended to influence the outcome of any sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 04:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by DonaldDuck

Edit war, wikistalking and block-shopping by the members of secret mailing list team

On 31 December 2008 User:Piotrus writes to the mailing list asking for help dealing with me in Tsarist autocracy article. Piotrus explicitly writes that this help is needed to circumvent Arbcom warning to him to stop edit warring. On 2 January 2009, when I make edits in this article, coordinated action from the team follows.

03:54 IP user reverts my edits [390] Contributions from this IP from Estonia. This IP was active only from 31 December 2008 to 15 January 2009.
12:18 Second revert from different IP [391]. This is the only edit from this IP from Estonia. No other edits.
13:22 Mailing list member User:Digwuren joins the edit war.
14:21 Mailing list member User:Hillock65, who never edited this article before, joins the edit war, makes 2 reverts 1 2 and places warning at my talk page [392]
User:Piotrus reports me to the administrators noticeboard. I am blocked by User:Spartaz. Efforts to block me are discussed in the several emails in the mailing list. Spartaz fails to notice teamwork, although it is quite easy (appearance of 4 new editors in one day, 2 anonymous IP edits, editor who never edited this article suddenly coming to make reverts), blocks me for a week and warns me of further indefinite block.

On 6-12 May 2009.

Piotrus starts new edit war against me, making 2 reverts 02:20 06:00. He writes to the mailing list, asking for help in edit war. He writes that he would like to avoid more then 2 reverts a day.
Mailing list member User:Radeksz, who never edited this article before, joins the edit war
User:Digwuren joins the edit war
On 9 may 2009 Piotrus writes another letter to the list, reminding that I am still a problem.
I am avoiding 3RR violations, but at last after repeated provocations by members of the team I make 4 reverts in a 24 hours on 9-10 of May. User:Radeksz places a warning at my talk page [393]. After this warning I self-revert my last edit. Technically, I did not even break a 3RR rule in this case
Piotrus reports me to the administrators noticeboard. Two members of the secret team: User:Biophys and User:Digwuren support this report by Piotrus. User:William M. Connolley ( recently desysopped for abuse of admin tools by ArbCom decision) blocks me for 2 weeks, but noticing previous warning of indefinite block by Spartaz, in 5 minutes changes his decision and indefinitely blocks me for edit war that did not even amount to 3RR. He fails to notice offwiki communication between the members of the team.

June 2009.

After some negotiation, William M. Connolley unblocks me. Mailing list member User:Biophys tries to intervene to keep me blocked. My unblock is discussed in the mailing list, there are calls to "look out" for me.
On 9 June I am included to the "fresh enemies list" by members of the mailing list.
User:Biophys runs a campaign to block me again. On June 23, Biophys wrote offwiki email to User:Thatcher. On this secret offwiki request I was again blocked indefinitely by User:Thatcher. Such offwiki block-shopping is strongly discouraged by Blocking policy

In this way, organized edit wars, stalking and block-shopping against me, started by Piotrus despite previous warning by ArbCom to him to stop edit wars, and carried out by Piotrus, Digwuren, Hillock65, Radeksz and Biophys, coordinated through this secret mailing list, resulted in my indefinite block.

Edit war in this aricle quite clearly illustrates methods, employed by this secret group. It was not group vs group, cabal vs cabal. Several commited and experienced edit-warriors attacked single editor, primarily because he did not fit their political agenda.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block-shopping by members of mailing list team (Petri Krohn case)

In May 2009 User:Petri Krohn was blocked for a year after WP:ANI diccussion. Out of 7 editors supporting block of Petri Krohn 4 (Martintg, Miacek, Biruitorul and Biophys) were members of the secret mailing list team, while 4 users opposing the block were mostly uninvolved editors.

20090523-1324-[WPM] Digwuren informs mailing list of this discussion.
20090529-1210-[WPM] Miacek writes another email canvassing the votes to ban Petri Krohn and recommending not to vote in block to avoid suspicions. Very important revelation is that he writes that Petri Krohn did not made much trouble lately. This proves that goal of this group was not even protection of preferred articles versions by the coordinated edit wars, but primarily stalking other editors and driving them out of wikipedia.

Mailing list is serious evidence that this WP:ANI discussion was affected by stealth canvassing of votes by this team.

Re:Piotrus

Hillock65 and Radeksz did not make a single edit in Tsarist autocracy before you called them to join your edit war in your letter to the mailing list on 31 December 2008 (by the way this was already your third letter to the mailing list asking to deal with me). And after I was blocked on 12 May, Digwuren, Hillock65 and Radeksz also did not make a single edit in this article. This proves that they came to this article not to improve it, but with single purpose of taking part in edit war.

I can not believe your expectations of good faith from members of your team or your own good faith after my inclusion into the "enemies list" by member of this team. You did not report creation of this list to administrators. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Biophys

I have no connection to User:Russavia beyond his 5 public messages at my talk page, and 2 my responses to this messages. And I have absolutely no connection to User:Miyokan, I have first known about this editor from Biophys posts.

This is something new, It looks like it is veiled legal threat by Biophys right at the arbitration page.

Re:Radek

Radeksz statement includes direct legal threat to Arbitration Committee and all involved parties.

Re:Vecrumba, Radeksz and Biophys

Vecrumba, Radeksz and Biophys constantly accuse their opponents of being pro-Putin/extremist/chauvinist/Stalinist/neo-Nazist. They do not only show lack of good faith, but also show little understanding that their political motivations are only of secondary importance in this case, whatever this motivations may be. Every editor has his own views and has some bias. The problem is major disruption of collaborative editing process and consensus building done by members of mailing list group.

IP editors

Can someone check IP editors 62.65.238.142 and 90.190.58.112 ? Was it Digwuren or some other member of the mailing list or not?

Evidence presented by Radek

Clerk note: Radek is User:Radeksz. Manning (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminaries and clarifications

Yes, there is a mailing list. No it's not a cabal. No it's not "anti-Russian"

The mailing list in question does exist. However the purpose of the list is not nefarious plotting, but rather frank discussion (the kind that is impossible on Wiki) of Eastern European politics, culture and history, and how these topics are treated on Wikipedia. I very strongly want to stress that the list was not “anti-Russian” or that its purpose was “to make Russia look bad” – one of the members of the list is Russian, we generally agree with many, uninvolved, Russian editors and I’m pretty sure that all of us want Russia to become a strong, prosperous, peaceful country.

Rather, what probably characterizes the list members – the thing that I think we all have in common – is a general opposition to extremist ideologies and in particular the POV pushing of extremist ideology in Wikipedia’s Eastern European articles. This means opposition to all kinds of extremist POV; Neo-Nazism, Neo-Stalinism, and various kinds of extremist nationalism, which unfortunately often make their appearance in this general subject area.

Whistleblowing or hacking. And hey!! There's still privacy issues here.

At the moment I do not know how the supposed “archive” was obtained and distributed; whether through the hacking of one of the members computers, or if it was done by one of the members of the list (personally, I consider the first possibility more likely). I want to note however that either way, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848, third parties are forbidden to read private e-mail [394]. Obviously, this has already been ignored by many folks.

I want to restate that I believe that, per above, upon receiving the link, the people who received them had no right to read them. At most they had a right to forward the link to ArbCom. Further dissemination of the emails, as was done by Alex Bakharev and perhaps some others, was not only unethical, but in clear violation of Wikipedia rules on Outing [395]. At no point has permission to read what very well may be my private emails full of personal information, been given by myself to anyone except Durova.

I also want to note that ALL members of the list signed an explicit statement that none of them was the “leak”.[396] Of course the possibility exists that somebody’s lying. But if that is indeed the case - why should the ArbCom put faith in material which has been supplied by someone who obviously has no second thoughts about lying their ass off? Someone like that would very clearly have no moral compunction about also doctoring the emails.

Another good reason to think that this had to be an outside hacking is that the “archive” apparently contains files from Jan until September. This, combined with the verified fact that there was no real archive means, that the “archive” – based on actual emails – had to be leaked through one of the original members of the list. And these are the individuals who are THE LEAST LIKELY out of the group to have been the leak, given that they started the list in the first place and all.

As a result I believe that outside hacking is the more realistic scenario.

A copy of the supposed "archive"

I posses a copy of the supposed “archive” a link to which was sent to me by Future Perfect. I have not looked at the “archive” in any significant way (I opened up couple of the messages to see if there was anything obvious that would jump out at me). I have not studied this archive for two reasons

The ArbCom has stated that it intends to inquire about specific episodes and conversations. Since I wish to answer these inquiries to the best of my recollection, I do not want my memory of what was discussed to be colored by the material that’s inside this potentially faked archive
If there are some signs in the emails in the supposed “archive” that give away tampering or alterations, at this point, I would much rather that these are discovered by an outside person, like an ArbCom member, rather than by myself or a member of the list, as I think this will help establish my credibility here. I want to note that this has already happened in one way – Future Perfect figured out on her/his own that the list has no “real” archive since it was deleted in April.[397]

I am still considering if I should carry out an analysis of the supposed “archive” myself and might do so in the future.

I also want to clarify one important point which I think a lot of people are completely not getting. No one says that the entire archive is fake. Rather it is more likely that some, perhaps a large number, of the emails were altered in ways which were designed to make the participants look bad. These alterations could’ve been small in terms of word length, but substantial in terms of content. If you’ve ever seen somebody POV a Wikipedia article by inserting or removing various “nots”, adding some “spice”, you should know exactly what I’m talking about.

I am led to believe that this is indeed the case, based on the description of the contents of the “archive” by Alex Bakharev and Deacon. Their descriptions are so widely inaccurate in relation to what was actually discussed on the list that I can only conclude that either they’re making stuff up or they’re looking at something that has been significantly altered.

Misconceptions

I also want to address another silly misconception(s) which I have seen bandied around, although I will deal with it further when I address specific accusations that have been made. This misconception(s) is that:

If something was discussed on the list and something relevant happened on Wiki that proves that the “archive” is real.
If something was discussed on the list and something relevant happened on Wiki that proves that there was conspiracy/canvassing/coordinating/etc.

Both of these notions are false. The first one is obviously false because as has already been stated, part of the purpose of the list was to discuss things which were going on Wikipedia. So of course there’s gonna be some connections between list discussions and Wikipedia happenings. That doesn’t mean that these discussions haven’t been tampered with to appear them to make something that never was said.

The second notion too is false. The members of the list, as I’ve stated before, do have some opinions in common – even though they disagree (sometimes very strongly) on many others. No one was compelled or canvassed to do anything. At most the list discussions served as a notice board for the existence of particular articles or discussions. In many cases, I recall, I’d go edit an article I found some problems with, or to a AfD and vote a particular way, and only a few days later would someone say “look, there’s a vote going on”. All members took their actions individually and are responsible for them as individuals.

The basic error here is the very common mistake of confusing ‘’’correlation’’’ with ‘’’causation’’’.

It was NOT the case that members of the list edited in the same area, participated in the same votes, opposed the same POV pushers and edited similar articles BECAUSE they were on the mailing list.
Rather it’s that the members of the list were on that list BECAUSE they had similar interests, had already been editing articles and topics related to one another and had already run up against various disruptive users individually.

A clear proof of the above is the fact that according to some of the evidence presented by Offliner, HistoricWarrior and PasswordUsername (not to mention Deacon) I have supposedly coordinated my edits with the members of the list before I was even on the mailing list.

In the remainder of the evidence I am going to present I will focus on answering general accusations, specific accusations made by others, as well as the disruptive behavior of some of the accusers.

Against general accusations

Will be expanded later.

Against specific comments

Russavia

Russavia, once again, violates his topic ban while this case is ongoing, and does so in as controversial way as possible, thus illustrating that he's only interest in treating Wikipedia as a battleground

Response to Russavia's latest

There's no gaming here. The article is clearly about Eastern Europe. Furthermore it is clearly about the history of the successor states of the Soviet Union - Ukraine and Belarus are mentioned directly, Lithuania indirectly and Latvia implictly (since Courland is part of present day Latvia). This is Wikilawyering or at best "testing" the ban on Russavia's part
I provided another instance of Russavia breaking his ban [398]
This is not the first time that Russavia has broken his ban or block or both.
While Russavia verified some uncontroversial DYK hooks, he also went after Piotrus' new article by proposing a very controversial POV hook to which Piotrus objected. If this isn't provocative behavior and an attempt to create a battleground I don't know what is. It's also a great disincentive to those of us who actively create new articles to continue doing so - why bother if somebody's going to hijack them with a POV hook?
Finally, we're all under a lot of stress here. But some of us are not using that us an excuse to engage in disruptive behavior.radek (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Russavia has now violated his topic ban [399], [400]. He actually violated it earlier [401] but I didn't say anything, thinking it an isolated incident and not wanting to create unnecessary drama.

(for reference, here's ArbCom: remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban.)

But it's pretty obvious at this point that Russavia is very much intent on violating his topic ban on purpose. And he has done this in about as controversial way as possible - by going after an article by Piotrus - somebody who's repeatedly tried to reconcile with Russavia (even though he hadn't been involved much with him previously) and the corresponding DYK hook (seriously! Now if you write a new article from scratch and try to DYK it, Russavia will show up and write his own POV hook especially for you, just to get back at you).

Even without a clear cut topic ban violation, this kind of behavior would be extremely problematic as it clearly shows that Russavia is interested in nothing but treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Let's recap here:

Russavia gets topic banned by Sandstein for 6 months due to threats to "fight you to the death on this"
Russavia heaps tons of abuse at Sandstein, including threats to "I will fight you on that".
Sandstein warns Russavia that any further inflammatory comments on the talk page are violation of his topic ban
Russavia willfully violates his topic ban [402]
Sandstein extends the topic ban to a block since Russavia's willfully violating it. [403]
Russavia posts "Topic ban be damned" on his talk page [404]
Sandstein warns him some more
Russavia back pedals a bit and promises to observe his topic ban
Sandstein unblocks him, though of course the topic ban is still in place [405]
Russavia immediately begins editing articles in violation of his topic ban [406]
Sandstein warns Russavia again
Russavia, instead, files a AN/I report under Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein (because, you see, the problem is NOT with Russavia repeatedly violating his topic ban, nevermind engaging in behavior that got him the topic ban in the first place, the problem is with somebody having the temerity to actually try and enforce this ban)
In the course of the AN/I report Russavia makes legal threats [407] ""I will in future ... urge them to sue the Foundation"
He is asked to withdraw the legal threat by Sandstein, in which he is supported by Good Ol'Factory
Russavia tries to wikilawyer it by saying "that's not a legal threat"
Russavia is blocked for making legal threats by Good Ol'Factory [408]
Shit hits the fan with the mailing list just as Russavia's blocked
Russavia is unblocked for the purposes of participating in the ArbCom case and relevant discussion only [409]
There's a proposal at ArbCom, to quote may freely edit other articles and pages but remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban. - the proposal doesn't pass and Russavia remains blocked from general editing.
Russavia opens up another case at AN to get his general block removed. He finally retracts the legal threat.
I point out that Russavia has *already* managed to violate his general block [410], [411], which gets me Russavia-banned from all but these ArbCom pages (and Jehochman's). Russavia's general block is lifted by Jehochman while the original topic ban remains in place. Russavia acknowledges that "the topic ban handed down by Sandstein remains"
After a few days of staying quiet Russavia proceeds to edit "just on the edge" of his topic ban: [412] (about Vietnamese Embassy in Moscow - pretty straight up violation of topic ban) and [413] (violation of Eastern European topic ban)

and now the full out topic ban violation I note above.

That's at least ~~FIVE~~ NINE violations of his bans or blocks that he made. Russavia is pretty clearly showing here that he can't help but to violate whatever restriction is placed on him. He is also pretty clearly illustrating that he is incapable of remaining non-disruptive for more than a week at a time. (Never mind that's he's also shown through out this case that he is incapable of avoiding personal attacks and offensive statements that compare his content opponents to "gang rapists" - the kind of behavior that got him banned in the first place)

And note that in this particular case Russavia is jumping feet first into as much controversy as he can:

The article Colonies of Poland concerns Courland (now Latvia), Belarus and Ukraine - all successor states of the Soviet Union, never mind Eastern European topics as stated by ArbCom.
The article was created by Piotrus, so Russavia is going straight for somebody who's involved in this case as well.
Then Russavia proceeds to comment on the DYK nomination made by Piotrus, again in a very provocative fashion [414].

Seriously - this guy can't avoid violating his blocks and bans or staying out of trouble for more than a few days even as this case is ongoing!

Further response to Russavia

I am not stalking you - you're jumping in two feet first into where I'm editing. Even though you're topic banned.
I am not harassing you - I am pointing out that you are violating your topic ban and 'battlin
I'm "Russavia-banned" (for pointing out previous instances of you ignoring your block) but I can still post comments on your behavior which is pertinent to this case. This instance is very obviously related to this case - it highlights the difference between those editors who want to move forward, be constructive and end this whole mess, and those who want to create battlegrounds and drama as much as possible.
Your topic ban, as handed down by Sandstein specifically states "history of Soviet Union (broadly construed)" and that it concerns "successor states of the former Soviet Union", including their history. The article in question concerns Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus.
Per ArbCom's wording: remains banned from Eastern European pages under the terms of Sandstein's original ban - I think it's obvious this is a Eastern European page
Russavia says: such as doing what I can at DYK - This is golden! Doing what he can to POV other editors DYK hooks in order to get back at them is what he's doing at DYK.
Russavia can call this "wikilawyering" or "gaming" or whatever he wants (this is the standard litany of counter accusations made when somebody's caught doing something bad) - the truth is still that he's violating his topic ban and is doing so with the intent purpose of creating battlegrounds.

Finally, I want to say that there is nothing wrong with pointing out when a user is being extremely disruptive and violating his topic ban.

Re DonaldDuck

In response to the section beginning with "On 6-12 May 2009..."

I was not on a mailing at this time and had no off wiki contact with any of its contemporary or future members. How did I come to edit Tsarist autocracy? Simple. DD showed up at Białystok pogrom, an article I had created, and began making very POV edits, removing sources and sourced text and edit warring, against other editors as well [415]. I did what I usually do when I have a significant interaction with an editor - I checked their contribution history to see where else s/he's causing trouble. And I saw that indeed, DD was edit warring like crazy on Tsarist autocracy.

This is a fairly trivial accusation to respond to but I choose to do so because I think it illustrates an important point. Three, actually:

1) All kinds of banned and disruptive users and notorious POV pushers are crawling out of the woodwork here to somehow claim that their bad behavior which led to their blocks and bans was not their fault at all! It was the evil cabal that made them do it! Glad to see that individual responsibility is alive and well on Wikipedia.

2) What a lot of people are objecting to here is not any kind of a mailing list, but simply that some users had the gall to disagree with them in regard to the their editing behavior. This is a straight up attempt to milk this ArbCom for all it's worth in order to get your way in content disputes - delete many painstakingly written articles, POV to the point of absurdity many others and incorporate fringe, extremist views all across this particular subject area (Eastern Europe)

3) Agreeing with other users, and editing the same pages as them is not "coordination" nor is it due to CANVASSING - as this example clearly illustrates. As I've said before, the people on the list were on the list because they edited the same articles, they did not edit the same articles because they were on the list.

Will be expanded later.

Re PasswordUsername

1. Supposed swamping of AfD discussions.

Internet operations by Russian secret police – the thing to note about that article is that list members actually disagreed with each other on a proposed merger [416] and voted on the opposing sides. On the delete vote (I did not take part in it) note that Alex Bakharev also voted keep, as well as two other editors (DGG, Narking). The only people voting delete were Russavia and ellol. If anything this only shows up the common practice by Russavia and co. of making spurious AfDs out of articles they don’t like.

Neo-Stalinism Digwuren-created Neo-Stalinism (nominated 9 April 2009). Voting keep: Digwuren, Dc76, Martintg, Biophys, Miacek. (No uninvolved users participated; the semi-involved Petri Krohn – a relatively pro-Russian editor – was subsequently chased off Wikipedia by the same crowd.)

Oy, this statement’s so full of falsehoods its hard to know where to start. (Note that PU/Anti-Nationalist redacted his "evidence" section after I posted this reply)

First, Digwuren did not create the article Neo-Stalinism. Rather it was created by user GCarty (no idea who that is) on September 16, 2005. [417]. Digwuren didn’t actually get involved with the article until March 2009.

Second, here is the link to the actual delete discussion [418] (funny, how PU didn’t bother to actually provide links to support his claims) from March 2008. 6 users, none of whom has anything to do with this case, voting keep. Only nominator supporting deletion.

But maybe PasswordUsername is talking about the category, not the article. The category just went up for deletion again (perhaps someone trying to milk the present situation for their own ends) [419]. Let’s see, 4 editors, uninvolved in this case voting “keep”, only PU voting delete.

Third, Petri Krohn wasn’t chased off by anyone. He was banned for making threats to Digwuren and refusing to take them down. [420] (again, funny how PasswordUsername failed to provide the relevant link). He was banned for 1 year by a completely neutral admin, in fact, despite Piotrus’ advice to limit the ban to a few months.

Previously he had also been banned [421] for 1 yr.

Another attempt to excuse some very serious disruptive behavior on the “the evil cabal made me do it” grounds.

Derzhava – this one might have been before I joined the list (and had no off Wiki contact with anyone). I voted keep simply after checking for sources [422], as I pointed out at the discussion page.

Soviet-run peace movements in the West – I was not involved in this one. But a clear example of PU making stuff up again: ‘’Most uninvolved users favored deletion’’. Yeah, right, uninvolved users like DGG and Randy2063 voted “Keep”. If it was true that “Most uninvolved users favored deletion” this would’ve been a delete or at least a no consensus. Wonder why PU didn’t link to the actual delete discussion?

2. False accusations of Stalking by mailing list members

A completely ridiculous and wholly irrelevant section, which doesn’t involve me at all. I choose to comment on it because it very clearly shows the quality of PU’s “evidence”.

PU begins by saying Various users, all part of the mailing list, appear to have stalked me at various points in the past six months.

Ok, who are these various users? It appears to be that they are … Digwuren.

And how did they "stalk" PasswordUsername?

Digwuren twice reverts my edits to Kim Jong-Il, Ilya Ehrenburg, List of Eastern Bloc defectors, Benjamin (Animal Farm) (and other characters)’’

Oh no! PasswordUsername’s disruptive edits were reverted! I think this little piece of "evidence" makes it pretty clear that PU believes that he should have carte blanche in his edits, and not be subject to the scrutiny and oversight of the larger Wiki community. Can I list every single instance where somebody reverted me as "evidence"?

Anyway. Since all of this has essentially due to with just Digwuren, how is it in any way relevant to this case? Is PasswordUsername claiming that Digwuren was a one-man cabal?

Generally what PU calls “stalking” is just one or two users disagreeing with him.

3."Members of the mailing list defend each other from sockpuppet investigations"

Uhhh… what? Molobo’s SPI was based on “secret evidence” and many people object on principle. And they were right to do so.

For the record, as far as I recall Molobo never admitted to any sock puppetry on the list. I still don’t know whether or not he is guilty of it since he was “convicted” based on ... “secret evidence” (which, strangely enough, was also made available to Deacon) so I have no idea what the actual evidence consists of.

But while we're here, note the dishonest impression that PU's heading tries to give. Members of the mailing list defend each other from sockpuppet investigations makes it sound like several members of the list were subject to SPI which is completely false. They weren't.

4. False accusations of sockpuppetry and persisting...

Again, an entire section that appears to be entirely about Digwuren and maybe Biophys. Again how is this at all relevant? And the complaint seems to be that some established users noticed a supposedly “new” account which was causing a lot of trouble and wondered aloud about his behavior. ??? As I said before, to clear up all these accusations of sock puppetry going around, everyone listed as an involved party should be subjected to CheckUser. Maybe we'll get some answers.

5. Edit warring by PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist and Offliner

Anti-Russian sentiment: 8-16 May 2009

This one was before I joined the list. Note though how others are “edit warring” but PU conveniently skips all the edit warring that he and Offliner engaged in. [423]

Offliner: May 8th [424] May 9th [425] May 12th [426], [427], [428], then he “tags” PU in order to avoid violating 3RR [429]

And my “edit warring” is the reverting of a sock of banned user Jacob Peters! (Kupredu) So PU is just defending the edits of one of the most notorious sock puppet masters around: [430] and then he “tags” Offliner back in: [431], [432]

This basically goes on and on. Note that my two reverts are just reverting Jacob Peters sock. Then in June, PasswordUser name and Offliner tag team again (note the pretty standardized method of operation – PU does three reverts, then Offliner takes over) PU: [433], [434], [435], and then Offliner takes over: [436], and then back to PasswordUsername, once the 24 3RR restriction expires: [437], [438] (using the reverting of an IP to hide that this is a revert).

And so on. Of course I don't know if this "3 reverts then you take over" was coordinated off Wiki. I also don't think that makes an ounce of difference.radek (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Skäpperöd

Re: "Sock of Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo at Wikimedia Commons"

1) What does what happens on Commons have to do with any of this? 2) At the time I was traveling, not checking my list email but occasionally checking Wiki. I didn’t see anything about the false inflammatory stuff Matthead put as a caption to the picture until after I had already made the change at commons. 3) I edit Commons once in a blue moon and yes, as a result I often forget to sign in. I'll be happy to address that issue - at Commons, not here.

Re: "Radeksz proxied for blocked Molobo"

Per Wikipedia policy Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.

The edits I made with Molobo's advice, I confirmed independently - I checked sources, rewrote text and I certainly had independent reasons for making them; I thought you were/are engaged in a long standing campaign to twist the relevant article with German Nationalist POV.

Can you show how the changes I made are not verifiable or that I didn't have independent reasons for making them?

Re: Russavia

Well, I'm not much in there. But let's see:

“Radeksz suggests that another member of the email list should perform a revert on this article. In 20090915-2223-[WPM] We brigades__Internet operations by Russian”

Ellol had just made 3 reverts in 24 hrs. I was considering reporting him since he was clearly edit warring. But I thought the case would be stronger if he did actually violate 3RR explicitly. I don't recall asking "another member of the email list" to revert, just saying that maybe it'd be better to wait for someone to revert before filing a report.

"In 20090910-0021-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Radeksz funnily enough suggests that someone would try to get someone on the "Litvinenko said Putin is a paedophile" line, and that they should make sure that it is sourced the hell out of, then there is no cause for complete"

Yeah, I don't know what the problem is here. I said to take the Litvinenko line to BLP (said the same thing on talk I believe) and find sources for it. Isn't that what you're supposed to do?

Immediately after this post, Radeksz reverts making the false claim of consensus

Well, there was a consensus and yes I did revert you. This one's in the "oh no! Somebody somewhere reverted me!" category. Can I present every time I got reverted by someone as evidence?

“It should be noted that my issue is not the existence of the accusation, but that the accusation was presented as fact, rather than an allegation,”

That’s not what it appeared like you were saying at the time. You were trying to either remove sourced text, or POV it to the point where it would look ridiculous.

List members acting as sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets

This is another (purposefully?) mistitled section, as there is nothing about sockpuppets or meatpuppets in there, probably because nobody* on the list ever used sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

Rather, this is another section about the fact that list members alerted each other to the fact that there were AfDs going on. As I've already wrote to Bigtimepeace, I think that AfDs need to be publicized way more than they are now (to all kinds of users, regardless of their POV) in order to prevent the sneaky "nominate-two votes-close-delete" tactic which wastes other people's hard work.

At this point I would just like to say that I stand behind every single one of my votes, at the time I voted I checked out the issue in detail, including reading the discussion, all the comments and even looking up sources independently for each vote.

One more that has nothing to do with me

In 20090427-0647-[WPM] Attack on Russavia_ Biruitorul states that they should create temporary meatpuppet accounts to harrass me onwiki, but leaving various messages on my talk page, such as "warning: Russavia is actually a team of KGB propagandists team". He also states that he would like to see myself being driven mad by unseen and unknowable forces, the same way as the hero in a Shakespearean tragedy.

So.... did anyone actually leave a message on Russavia's talk page that he's a KGB propagandist? No? Did anyone create meatpuppets? No?

See, this is what you get for reading other people's private emails. You find out that they don't like you. And you find out specific ways in which they don't like you. And you even find out that they mention completely hypothetical scenarios in which people they don't like are "driven mad by unseen and unknowable force".

But at the end of the day, where's the evidence that Biruitorul actually used his awesome magical powers and managed to summon the unseen and unknowable forces (the Erinyes? Or maybe some old school Githyanki?) which drove Russavia mad and forced him to violate all kinds of Wikipedia policies on civility, threats and so on. Because, you see, it's not really Russavia's fault, it's the unseen and unknowable forces, the Githyanki and stuff, under the control of the mighty wizard Biruitorul (that name does sound sort of Tolkienish, ey?), which are to blame.

For the record I want to state that I never coordinated in any off-Wiki summoning of Githyanki.

Note that...

... none of the accusations made by Russavia have anything to do with what actually got him banned – incivility, vowing to evade blocks and restrictions, making threats and spewing profanity at administrators. All these things - nobody made him do it, he did it himself.

Second response to Russavia (re my response)

Well, if Russavia's going to bring up my "Russavia-topic ban" (thus making it a part of this case) then I'd like to emphasize that I received this "topic-ban" for pointing out [439] that Russavia was violating the conditions of his unblock [440], [441] (he was unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in his case but apparently couldn't restrain himself and began editing regular articles). So ok, maybe the way I pointed that out was a bit confrontational and so I'm 100% willing to stick by the topic ban - don't see though why Russavia should be unblocked as a reward for ignoring his original block (and that was like, what, fourth? fifth? forum he asked for an unblock in?)radek (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Offliner

Re to Latest ... "not quite truths"

The latest round of "evidence" presented by Offliner speaks volumes more about Offliner than myself. Every piece and bit of his posting consists of essentially making stuff up or misrepresenting things - and none of it concerns any violation of Wikipolicy by myself; I was worried my DYK was gonna be messed with and expressed that fear; I said a particular user was being very incivil and was probably going to get banned; etc. etc.

Offliner's attempts to get something here is about dishonest as it gets. And it is probably motivated by the fact that recently I had the temerity to make a (single) edit on a topic related to South Ossetia/Georgia, which Offliner regards as "his territory" (see his user page [442]) - so I guess this latest is just "payback" for me not being cognizant enough to realize that Offliner OWNS those articles.

He's done this before with another topic he feels ... uh, "protective" about, Russian apartment bombings, where after I made a (single) edit on Sept 15, he showed up at Heinz Nawratil, an article I've been editing and made a completely pointless revert [443], restoring a version by another problematic user - just to mess with me. When I questioned him about it [444], Offliner responded with a "I'm looking for new articles to edit" - about as bad faithed response as one can get. It was a pretty clear mafia-style message; "if you dare to touch my articles I will mess up the articles you're working on".

Offliner says: On 17 July, Radeksz says on the secret list, that he used an intentionally provocative hook in order to bait editors such as Herkus and Skäpperöd.

Ahhhhhhhhh.........NO. While I said that while the hook might be "provocative" - I qualified that with "at least somewhat"; meaning that given the controversial nature the hook, like the article, may provoke some people. There's not a single thing I said about baiting Herkus and Skapperod - Offliner is lying. What I said is that there "may be trouble on the DYK page" from Herkus or Skapperod since they started trying to POV the article before I even got done half-writing it (insert extensive background history about the subject of article and its subject here).

Offliner says that I "baited" user Smith2006 - a very incivil user with a history of edit warring and ... an inability to observe his topic ban (gee... sounds sort of familiar).

This is also false. What I said is that Smith2006 kept on making uncivil remarks over and over again, despite all kinds of warnings and sanctions (gee ... sounds sort of familiar) and then I said "I think at this point a block can be arranged". So what? I was going to report him and most likely he was going to be blocked? I did not say I was gonna bait him as Offliner claims (really - doesn't the blatant lying get old?) - there isn't a dang thing about "baiting" in there. And yes, I expected Matthead to show up, do his usual spiel where he insults everybody left and right and makes personal attack on everyone within two page clicks and gets a block himself - AFAIR, he didn't (go Matt!)

And then yes, when Smith2006, despite being topic banned continued to violate his topic ban and kept on with the incivil remarks I pointed it out to the blocking admin. We're still allowed to report disruptive users, right, cuz I'm not sure anymore?

Rest of this new stuff is along the same line - Offliner completely misrepresenting what was said, and on offering completely false "interpretations" straight from his own imagination.

radek (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Alexander Litvinenko

All this supposedly “coordinated” editing involves the multitude of editors … named Biophys. Ok and myself, way at the end – is there an email relevant to the fact that I edited there? And if you want to know how I came to edit the article, well, I just looked at my watchlist one day and saw that Offliner had made a 4000 byte edit-warring POV revert.

Also note how Offliner refers to a single edit as “edit warring”. This is true through out this whole “evidence”. Editors who disagree with him show up to “edit war” even if they make a single edit, while those who agree with him arrive to “edit”, even if they actually made 3 reverts in 24 hrs. This is obviously a not-so-subtle attempt by Offliner to manipulate the reviewing admins here with misleading rhetoric.

Re:Russian apartment bombings

First this part: Before this, Radeksz had showed no interest in the article's subject. He had only made 1 edit, which also was a revert in support of Biophys: [33] (for this edit, Radeksz was briefly blocked: [34])

This is a perfect example of what I said earlier – there was no coordination, in the sense of making edits that we would not have made otherwise, we just happened to agree with each other on a lot of stuff in the first place.

The proof of that is that I wasn’t even on the list. How did I come to edit this article? Jacob Peters’ sock, User:Kupredu. I noticed suspicious activity on various articles, thought that the involved user was a JP sock, Biophys thought the same thing, neither one of us quite knew how to file a SPI report, we talked about it (this was the first conversation I ever had with Biophys AFAIR), turned out we were right.

After that, I did what I always do after a I have a non-trivial interaction with another user, whether negative or positive – I look at their contributions list. I saw the stuff at Russian apartment bombings, went there, noticed that this guy Offliner (whom I never ran across) was up to no good and undid his edit-warring POV revert.

Oh and the “for this edit, Radeksz was briefly blocked” – how honest of Offliner to tell the whole story. Ok, folks, click on my block log. There you will very obviously see the following from Nakon, the admin who briefly blocked me:

“my apologies, the previous block was placed in error”

So Offliner is trying to pull another fast one by pretending that an accidental block that was made in error was a legitimate block.

As to my other edits on that article – there was no edit warring, there was disagreement. I undid an edit by an anon IP which removed huge chunks of text from the lede and reverted Ellol who was not even willing to discuss his changes at talk.

Re:Ethnocracy

Again, a single edit presented as “edit warring”. How did I come to edit there (i.e. remove a blatant attempt to make a POV POINT by insertion of irrelevant category)? I was looking at Digwuren’s contributions list. I don’t recall there ever being an email about this article. And yes, then, a week later, I reverted another attempt to insert completely irrelevant text of the “Estonia iz teh worz place on Ert” kind.

Re:Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia (article doesn't exist anymore. For a reason)

Ah yes. On this one it DOES appear that the Soviet cabal managed to bait me into making TWO reverts in one day - obviously not MY fault. On an article that was later deleted/merged because of all the nonsense and POV pushing, courtesy of Offliner and PasswordUsername (note Ezhiki’s support for deletion). And what were my edits? Why, the removal of text cited to this fine gentleman who Offliner and PasswordUsername insisted was a reliable source. Some choice beliefs of Mr. Johan Bäckman are that Russian anti-Putin journalists had arranged their own murders (to make Putin look bad), that Estonia is an “apartheid” country and that Finland attacked the Soviet Union during the Winter War in order to build a Finish empire from Karelia to the Urals.

Re:Team members use coordinated action to keep copyvio images

Eh. This one was posted about on Poland Notice board on Wiki, and there was a huge discussion about it there. Ain’t got nothing to do with the list. Making up stuff again.

Re:Coordinated provocations against Deacon of Dnapetzim

Yup, another instance where the fact that some people have the gall to agree with each other is used as evidence of “coordination”. Again I wasn’t on the list at the time and neither were other people mentioned in this thread!!!! What does this have to do with this case?

Re:Coordinated (sic) provocations against PasswordUsername

Again, doesn’t involve me, but just got to point out that once again this supposed “coordination” involves one (1), single, unique, solitary, lone, uno, editor, Vecrumba, who apparently is a genius at coordinating with himself.

Re:Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards

First, Offliner, Colchicum wasn’t on any list. But the fact that you include it does nicely illustrate that you’re just trying to smear anyone who’s ever disagreed with you here.

I’m in here:

2009-05-21. Digwuren reported to AN/I. Defending Digwuren: Martintg, Colchicum, Radeksz, Vecrumba, Piotrus

Again, before I was on the list (I think). At any rate, I didn’t see crap about it on the list. I got involved in that discussion because PasswordUsername brought up the Jacob Peters sock I had reported earlier.

Obviously the fact that Offliner, PasswordUsername, Russavia and the rest always agree with each other (hey! We at least actually disagree with each other on many things) is proof that their edits, votes and comments on Wikipedia pagers have been coordinated.

Re:Members of the secret email list appear to be involved in stealth canvassing of votes

See my responses to PasswordUsername and Russavia. If there was a page where one could find out about ongoing Eastern European AfDs that’d be much better.

Comment on AfD for Communist Genocide – please look at how much discussion took place on that one. This very obviously wasn’t people showing up to blindly vote “Keep” (or “Delete”) but rather people who really thought about this issue and had some serious opinions, with or without any mailing list. Please also note that there was plenty of canvassing going on for the “Delete” side. Also I count 14 Keeps by users not on the mailing list and 21 Deletes by users not involved in this case which is +7 for Deletes but still pretty clear “no consensus”.

Re:Piotrus has abused his admin status

Spurious stuff. Piotrus might have said “I would’ve unblocked you” (to Biophys) but then he did no such thing. Likewise if I said to Offliner “I might give you a million dollars” that doesn’t mean that all of sudden I owe him a million bucks. Other than that it's just Piotrus having the temerity to express his opinion.

A lot of this “evidence” stuff is like that – somebody on the list says something in frustration, or it’s pulled out of context, or said in half-jest, nobody does anything wrong but boom! they’re guilty because somebody says so.

Re:Martintg

Again, has nothing to do with me but just wanted to note another instance where Offliner is bringing evidence of a single person coordinating with himself.

Re: Skapperod

At the moment, due to lack of time I will only respond to one aspect of the "evidence" presented by Skapperod, the piece that concerns me directly. It revolves around the use of Heinz Nawratil as a source in the Expulsions of Germans article and his credibility.

Long story short: Nawratil is a writer associated with the extreme right wing in Germany and Holocaust denial, who also publishes inflated statistics in regard to the casualties during the Expulsions. Some of these statistics have been picked up by *some* German politicians (such as Erika Steinbach) as a means of populist rabble-rousing. Skapperod - who obviously speaks German and is very much more familiar with the German political scene and, apparently, the academic literature on this topic, basically tried to pretend and "play dumb" as to the nature of Nawratil as a source. I challenged it, based on RS and Nawratil's own publications in Holocaust denial journals. Skapperod kept playing dumb on this and pretending there was nothing wrong with Nawratil and asking me for sources - knowing that most relevant sources were going to be in German and hence hard to access to non-German speakers such as myself. At that point I actually went and looked for German language sources, using Babelfish and Google translator and asking other users for help (including Molobo). And sure enough, it turns out there was plenty of information as to the fact that Nawratil is 1) associated with the extreme right wing in Germany and 2) writes for Holocaust denying journals. Of course, under any reasonable assumption of good faith, Skapperod, who has way way way more access to German language sources and way way more knowledge of the relevant German language literature than myself or any other non-German speaker, should've been upfront about this rather than cynically trying to pretend that Nawratil was non problematic.

Synopsis of the conflict; or note the blatant misrepresentation

"Molobo states (sorry to quote this again):

Concealing identity of right wing extremist writing for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal ?

Here[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Possible_BLP_issue] Note words „A booksearch has not turned out any matches of the subject's name and right-wing exremism”

Follow up research by others revealed books and publications showing that the person in question published in Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal, and is mentioned as far right-wing activist [505]."

Skapperod responds:

"# Re "Concealing identity...": calling a living lawyer a Nazi in mainspace w/o RS backing that up is a no-go, and I was not the only one who thought so [25]"

First compare what Molobo says to what Skapperod pretends he says. Nobody ever called Nawratil, (a living lawyer) a Nazi in mainspace. It was merely noted that Nawratil was associated with the extreme right in Germany and that he published in the major Holocaust denial journal. Whether or not that makes him a Nazi can be left up to the reader to judge.
Second, compare what Skapperod says with what actually happened. Specifically the part where Skapperod says "in mainspace w/o RS backing" - there was a great amount of RS backing on this!!! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=311225801 (last version before archiving). This is Skapperod thinking that if he lies in a different forum the lie won't get noticed because, again, reviewers and readers won't take the trouble to actually check.
Third, note that the diff offered by Skapperod [445] is merely an admin doing the routine work of protecting the page because there is a conflict going, NOT anyone actually agreeing with Skapperod. And Skapperod IS willfully and purposefully misrepresenting this diff as "I was not the only one who thought so".

Well here's the diffs, that Skapperod doesn't bother to provide which show pretty unequivocally that in fact, Nawratil is "associated with the extreme right wing" and that he publishes in a Holocaust denial journal:

on the talk page

on the talk page, take 2 - please note that the discussion from BLP/N was moved to the talk page on the advice of Rd232 who thought it was significant enough so that it shouldn't be lost to BLP archives.

and here is Nawratil's article in the Journal of Historical Review (whose "subject is primarily Holocaust denial") published by the Institute for Historical Review (Critics have accused it of being an antisemitic "pseudo-scholarly body"[1] with links to neo-Nazi organizations, and assert that its primary focus is denying key facts of Nazism and the genocide of Jews and others.[2][3][4][5][6] It has been described as the "world's leading Holocaust denial organization.) [446]

Of course any of this - particularly Nawratil's article in JHR - was readily available for anyone with ten seconds to do a google search yet, we have Skapperod claiming that:

calling a living lawyer a Nazi in mainspace

- nope, didnt' happen. He was said to be associated with the extreme right wing in Germany and to have published in Holocaust denial journals.

w/o RS backing that up is a no-go

- uh, no, there was a mass of reliable sources provided for the claim. And these sources could've been found sooner and easier by Skapperod if s/he wasn't pretending here.

"and I was not the only one who thought so"

- no, you were the only one who "thought" (pretended) so. The admin who protected the page was carrying out routine work and in no way agreed with you on this. Do you want to go and ask him?

This is more of the "lie my ass off and hope the admins are too busy to follow the diffs" (and don't provide the diffs to make it easier for them) strategy that has become way way too prevalent on this case (and in general on Wikipedia, as unscrupulous editors have realized that the admins are under a heavy workload).

For what it's worth, I don't think that Skapperod is a Nazi him/herself. I DO think - and this is a personal opinion, not a personal attack, and I think we're at a point where we can speak honestly about how we see things - that s/he is a German nationalist, who is cynical enough to be willing to make use of Nazi and other extreme right wing sources when those support the POV s/he is trying to push. So we get this "what Holocaust denial Journal???" "what extreme right wing???" playing dumb in the face of multiple reliable sources and consensus to the contrary.

Quick note on both Skapperod and Offliner

While I'm on the subject. After I edited some article that Offliner regards as his "OWN", all of sudden he showed up at the Heinz Nawratil and made a completely spurious revert [447] even though he has never edited that article before, nor shown any interest in the subject - specifically Offliner removed any mentioned that Nawratil has written for a Holocaust denial journal (hmmm... makes you think about this "anti-fascist" line that Offliner and PU are cloaking themselves in). Here is my inquiry to him about why he did this: [448]. His response was about as well phrased instance of weaseling as you can get (props for eloquence):

I'm looking for new articles where to edit. However, that edit may have been a mistake. I'll look into it.

So Offliner, just keep in mind that every edit I made on some article which I hadn't previously edited was just because "I was looking for new articles where to edit".

Of course he never "looked into it" and never "self-reverted" per my request.

It's hard to see this edit as anything but a Warning: If you disagree with me on articles that are MINE, I will mess around on articles you edit, so stay away kind of threat.

And if you think this kind of thing doesn't happen regularly because we're all AGF here then you should go and snuggle with your care bear rather then edit Wiki.

Statement/Evidence by Vecrumba

The evidence and statements and defamation presented in these proceedings which purport to indict myself and others for all Wiki-collusion crimes imaginable—I won't belabor these—consist mostly of pontificating diatribe, rehash of alleged historical iniquities, and putting Bandags on stale evidence presumed to be relevant to the "list".

I do not yet have the alleged archive to comment on and have asked for an extension based on PL priorities, but I do feel obligated to put a stake in the ground as a good-faith gesture of intent to present evidence regarding that as well when it does come available. Therefore my first presentation of evidence is limited to the "evidence presented" and comments associated with these proceedings and protagonists.

Let's start at the very heart of the matter. If I am blunt, don't blame me. I didn't start this.

These proceedings and Russavia

This is not about cooperation off-Wiki. This is about an opportunity created by one "side" illegally hacking the accounts of their "opposition", finding something they could misconstrue as a vile cabal assembled for the sole purpose of an attack upon themselves, and thus launch their own self-righteous indignation-filled counterattack to once and for all wipe out any editor that stood for fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, i.e., dared stand in their way.

Hacking is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, "hacking" is the most logical claim as it is the one that fits the only logical representations of events surrounding the Russavia meltdown on The Soviet Story. As we are floating conspiracy theories, mine is that Russavia's "meltdown," the hacking of the archive, the purported "attack of conscience" on the part of a "member" outing the "list" as if it were a criminal enterprise, are related events. Unfortunately for all concerned, I shall have to wait until I obtain and analyze the archive to see if my supposition is borne out. I postulate two possibilities:

Russavia had his melt-down and pro-Official Russia swung into action to find a bargaining chip to use against the opposition, the goal being to save Russavia, or
pro-Official Russia finally succeeded in hacking the opposition, after which Russavia had his calculated meltdown at an article guaranteed to bring out all the opposition to comment, at which point the "cabal" was conveniently revealed, the goal being to eliminate the most persistent WP thorns in pro-Official Russia's side. Of course, we then have the campaign to save Russavia as it was he who was "provoked," not the other way around.

Stay tuned.

For now, let us examine some of the lobbying and lobbyists surrounding Russavia:

Editor	Pro- Pro-Russia + Pro-Soviet legacy (i.e., anti-"revisionist" per Medvedev's commission) POV Pushing: Most recently, the campaign to circle wagons around Russavia to save him from his own conduct and to invite past perpetrators of similar poor conduct to return in apparent anticipation of the demise of their opposition as the outcome of these proceedings
Giano	his Messianic return from the wilderness: requests un-banning Russavia and solicits the "return" of Irpen and Ghirlandajo and makes a blunt comment against the blocking admin which can only be taken as a threat of retribution (per Russavia thread) and regularly practices insults and even Jehochman is more interested in protecting tranquil waters than offending Giano...follow the conversation: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7+8) (9): "If Giano is too controversial to block, so be it."
NVO	if Russavia is un-banned he'll be "lynched" in an hour (per Russavia thread)
FeelSunny	Russavia has been "provoked", "clearly" not all his guilt (per Russavia thread)
HistoricWarrior007	"I remember Russavia's edits when I first met him on Wikipedia, and his edits of today. He was clearly, and blatantly provoked. Either that, or he was abducted by aliens, schooled in bashing, and returned by E.T." (per Russavia thread) [As HistoricWarrior007 has seen fit to bring up a perceived change in Russavia's editorial conduct and postulated that it is because he was either "blatantly provoked" or abducted and schooled by aliens, I consider this fair grounds for postulating a third alternative in this regard without threat of sanction for expression of my personal opinion.]
Deacon of Pndapetzim	Per his statement "The last, before he left, was statistically Wikipedia's top content contributor! Irpen joined Ghirlandajo after the case in the long list of productive wikipedians who have been driven off the project. They are volunteers and don't need to put up with this kind of abuse if ArbCom, the only body who could have protected them, refused to and instead victimised them." It was, in fact, Irpen and Ghirlandajo who drove off their opposition: Irpen vociferously denouncing any challenge to his representation of sources as a personal attack; and any contradiction to such receiving warning from Ghirlandajo that, if one pressed the issue, one "will not like the results." WP content control through invective and intimidation, a time to recall with fond reminiscence, at least for Deacon. As both Deacon and Giano have introduced Irpen as evidence, I shall respond. Where past grievances against Baltic and Eastern European editors are concerned, normal WP rules of evidence do no apply; here grievances as evidence mature like a fine wine to relish, never to go stale and grow green mold like bread.
Anti-Nationalist née PasswordUsername	(Wish I had thought of that one, confuses Google to no end) I need say no more than his new user name, ostensibly the result of losing his password: Anti-Nationalist. When I placed an "anti-Stalin" userbox on my page stating: "This user refutes post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda" (later adding " by rigorous application of fact" for clarity) I was attacked for my "inflammatory" comments by Grafikm_fr: "He has an inflammatory userbox on his user page ("This user refutes post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda") [449] Such a userbox is divisive and inflammatory." Yet PasswordUsername's new user name, a clear provocation and insult, is tolerated without comment.

Evidently: One is not responsible for one's conduct. Under the guise of being "provoked," even the most heinous conduct is to be excused—if the editor is on your side (pro-Official Russia).

Giano returns from the wilderness

I welcome the long lost Giano. His gracing of these proceedings with commentary and threats (as documented above) underscores their significance to those promulgating the pro-Official Russia position on WP.

I've read Jehochman's user page. He offers sound advice, for example, Kiss and make up. But under threats and incivility, this becomes "let's not stir the waters." I am dismayed that a calming spot of tea is preferable to the conflict Jehochman predicts to result from standing for integrity. Questions such as these:

"Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further?" (Blocked for incivility thread)

leave me questioning our priorities. This is not a reflection on Jehochman, I've read his off-Wiki interview regarding the lack of due process on Wikipedia—it's thoughtful and informative. This is a reflection on the WP environment that has been allowed to fester, albeit through good intentions on the part of many.

Evidently: Conflict avoidance outweighs defending integrity.

Actually, I won't indulge you to compare me to Chamberlain, nor I will let you compare Giano to Nazi Germany. May I politely ask you to refactor the above. This page is for evidence, not rhetoric. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't comparing Giano to anyone. Please do not put words in my mouth. Furthermore, I believe I made it quite clear that my comment related to WP and not to you personally. Stricken. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, I am severely disturbed by your contention I compared Giano to Nazi Germany. You obviously missed the point I was making. I am sorry you felt it necessary to take administrative umbrage in the middle of my evidence based on your interpreting my "rhetoric" as meaning anything other than what I explicitly stated. This is how mutual recriminations of bad faith start. Please contact me on my talk the next time you believe I called someone a Nazi. I trust this puts an end to these unfortunate unpleasantries and does not prejudice you against me in these proceedings. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threats and intimidation

And why is it that Giano is so feared? That his overt and sneering thuggery is treated with kid gloves? Perhaps I should ask who else he has threatened (as per the clear example provided above) with demonstrated impunity? Perhaps even Jimbo himself?

21:49, February 8, 2009 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Be good)

Giano addresses Jimbo in the same derisive and derogatory manner he addresses everyone he disagrees with. And Jimbo says: "Be good." ἰχθὺς ἐκ ṯῇς κɛϕαλῇς ὄζɛίν ἄρχɛṯαί.

Evidently: Treat everyone you disagree with as a useless worm and threaten to squash them into the hereafter, and you will be respected—even by Jimbo.

Reverence for Irpen

I dealt with Irpen extensively on a number of topics. We even cooperated on Janis Tilbergs. More than once I stated that even though I diametrically disagreed with Irpen, at least he sourced his opinions and I had to respect him for that. Over time, however, his defense of the "Russian position" and insistence on a more positive view of the Soviet legacy shifted. Beyond increasing allegations of tendentious editing and cherry-picking sources, he pushed amelioration of Soviet acts by milquetoasting titles and content. For example, one could not say the Soviet Union "occupied" the Baltic States, even if a source used that word, because "occupied" was a "judgemental" term. This escalating POV pushing eventually came to a head at Holodomor, where Irpen intentionally misrepresented Davies and Wheatcroft's seminal work:

That Conquest was discredited and obsolete; no, Davies and Wheatcroft praised his work particularly in the area of personal testimony; that D&W studiously avoided any discussions of intent regarding the Holodomor was their conscious decision in the creation of their work.
That Stalin took a personal interest in the victims; no, D&W actually wrote about a unique case where an official in Stalin's favor lobbied on behalf of their home town for relief—the only case during the Holodomor where a specific request for aid was granted while other pleas went unheeded.

When I corrected the "personal interest" contention to represent the source, Irpen deleted it, note his edit comment:

"please don't add info to the sentence referenced to a source that is just not there" [my emphasis].

As I had based my edit on an extensive book review of D&W which specifically discussed the Stalin passage, but did not have the source itself, I could not dispute him. $140 later to buy the text, and there it was, exactly what I had written, and what Irpen had deleted as an outright lie because it appears on page 218, not 217 (the ref being to <ref name="DW217">). Irpen had the book, his misrepresentation (Irpen was a master of technically not a lie, it wasn't on page 217) was completely intentional and relied solely on a disputing editor not having the entire source.

That Irpen left is not because he was "run off." Irpen left because editors would not stand for his increasingly blatant misrepresentation of sources to suit his increasingly strident POV.

Evidence: That Irpen is held up here as an avatar of lost WP grace is a searing indictment of those who do so and of those who blindly parrot that contention without checking the record.

Proposed principles as evidence

This is with regard to Coren's posting of September 24, 2009.

Consensus

1) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Consensus as "agreement" is meaningless. Consensus only has meaning when it has as its basis reputable sources, where consensus is the collective editorial representation arrived at through discourse conducted in good faith. Where and how individuals choose to discuss something is immaterial. What is material is that when discourse is conducted on Wiki discussion pages, it is regarding fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, not of personal opinions or political pronouncements.

Participation

2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative representation of the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

This does not address that consensus is a numbers game, per the above, absent of reputable sources forming a basis for discussion.

Consensus in internal processes

3) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Internal processes are designed not to mediate content disputes, that is, have been specifically constructed as to be content and source agnostic. Agnostic consensus serves as the model for edit-warring on article content; those who edit war using this model cannot be countered based on their "editorial" contentions. This promotes content control through attacks on editors, as whether or not the content being proposed, created, or deleted is a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources is, for the purpose of WP conflict resolution, completely immaterial.

Canvassing

4) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

In an atmosphere of bad faith, any notification of any other editor is automatically attacked by the opposition as canvassing. There is no on-Wiki means of notification which is not so attacked.

Not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punished perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.

"Metrics drive behavior." When consensus requires no demonstrable basis, when arbitration cares only about conduct, what other result would we expect. BTW, I hold no grudge against any editor, but it is clear there are those who do.

Gaming the system

6) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.

Same as 5)

Meatpupettry

7) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Same as 6)

Presumption of coordination

8) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

This supposes that editors do not track changes of interest in their sphere of interest and do not check what editors who share their position on one issue might contribute elsewhere on WP. My own involvement on Human Rights in the United States is a classic example, where I unknowingly waded into Viriditas' ownership issues and was denounced as a single purpose account by Hiberniantears. The issue had nothing to do with the editorial veracity—or not—of my position. The issue was solely that—per the points above—that: the basis of my editorial position was in fact immaterial, the only thing that mattered to the warring editor Viriditas and to admins was (a) timing and (b) that I happened to agree with someone other than Viriditas. The litmus test being, had I arrived and supported Viriditas, I would have been welcomed with open arms. "Presumption of coordination" institutionalizes at WP's very foundation that WP assumes bad faith.

Eliminating this principle would force editors to address points regarding content, not who arrived when.

Off-wiki communication

9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Identical to 8). In the end, the points I've made regarding consensus and arbitration are the key ones. The issue is not who arrives to an article when. The issue is, does it even matter if there is fair and accurate representation of reputable sources regarding a topic in conflict? No it does not, hence the need—as here—to build in assumptions of bad faith throughout the rest of the system. Hence the ease with which another can be accused of bad faith. I submit Viriditas' harassment at my user talk page as evidence regarding 8) and 9).

Exclusion of evidence

10) Evidence that has been obtained through unethical or illegal means cannot be used or examined by the Arbitration Committee.

Support: Evidence obtained through unethical or illegal means reflects on those obtaining and using such evidence to their purposes. Use of such evidence rewards unethical or illegal conduct, and given the means by which it was acquired, is likely to be for unethical or illegal purposes.

CLOSING regarding Principles

I hereby submit that:

As long as fair and accurate representation of reputable sources remains:

immaterial to the concept of consensus, and
outside the scope of WP administrative conflict resolution,

and, in particular,

principles include those which are based on an assumption of guilt, not innocence

there will be no extracting ourselves from the quagmire.

Asssumptions and questions not asked

A review of the evidence shows a mix of concerned WP citizens as well as a preponderance of those who have sought to push "versions" of history upon the Baltics and Eastern Europe which are not based on reputable sources—whose diffs indicate a desire to vindicate the edit-warring campaigns they have initiated. There are also those who simply have ownership issues having nothing to do with any alleged activity by the mailing list.
If there is any specific edit of mine anyone would like to discuss in an atmosphere of good faith—that is, discuss fair and accurate representation of reputable sources (sources acknowledged as reputable by scholarly sources)—they are welcome to do so on my talk. My edits are solely my opinion. If I agree with someone, so be it, I don't base agreement with editors on my opinion of them. If I show up in a "timely" fashion, it is because (a) I have a huge watchlist, (b) I regularly look for new articles regarding Soviet, communist, contentions of Eastern Europe anti-Semitism, et al., and (c) check up in general on edits in the Baltic/EE space. Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, I tend to bulk read my personal Email once a day at best, often skipping days—hardly useful in coordinating alleged attacks.
As PasswordUsername has chosen the provocative and bellicose moniker "Anti-Nationalist", I must repeat this observation from my user page:

... Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction. Sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. Here, "NPOV" is demanding that Soviet propaganda be given equal time to reputable scholarship—any such scholarship counter to the Soviet "version" of history labeled as just another "POV.

If someone chose the username "Anti-Lesbian" they would be set upon by a pack of wolves. But disparage the Baltics and Eastern Europe and all one hears is cricket song.

Evidently: Any editor of Baltic or Eastern European heritage is fair game for abuse of the worst sort.

   The diatribes lacing the Evidence and discussions thereof testify to the atmosphere of poison that has pervaded the Baltic and Eastern European article space for years. Russavia's (more recent, not earlier years), Anti-Nationalist's née PasswordUsername's and Offliner's provocations, and anti-Estonian in particular diatribe—there's Offliner's deleted Nazi Estonia article in his user space, and who can forget PasswordUsername's "encyclopedic" content that child abuse is "common" in Estonia—all mirror the vitriolic and baseless diatribe of Official Russia. These aforementioned editors are only the latest in a long succession of provocateurs seeking to paint the Baltics and Eastern Europe as epicenters of human depravity debasing the memory of those lost in the great Patriotic War, ungrateful for their liberation from Hitler, and so forth.
   And what are the harsh realities of this environment? There is no sharing of news stories, discussion of sources, or any other discourse without editors showing up to harass. Then there is the new phenomenon of editors complaining about "stonewalling" Baltic/EE editors to dupe admins into supporting them in longstanding conflicts or getting them to file arbitration requests effectively as their proxy.
   And so I joined a mailing list for a respite from the relentless hounding: to be able to have such discourse in peace, to be able to discuss controversial topics, and to otherwise work together toward organizing articles and content in the Baltic/EE space, including addressing historical Eastern European conflicts (Poland-Lithuania, Poland-Ukraine, et al.).
   Did specific instances of on-Wiki activity get discussed? Inevitably. Organized to wage conflict? No, organized primarily to stay off the WP conflict radar screen. So far these proceedings have served as little more than fodder for witch hunting by those with an axe to grind, as no one has even tendered the question:

why would upstanding editors who value their integrity communicate off-Wiki?

Nor has anyone wondered, did any of this materially impact on-Wiki edits in any way? No, what we have are:

contentions that it is self-evident this was organized for the sole purpose of waging edit wars on WP, and that every instance of editors in said circle agreeing (against "me"/against "them") is the product of their collusion; and
litanies of "I knew it all along"—with the most self-righteous of these coming from some of the worst offenders attempting to bring down the walls of WP integrity—note, no diff in any accusation actually discusses the merit of any edit, as this would highlight that all these editing spats were started by the opposition to provoke edit wars with the editors they now accuse.

Evidence: The unquestioned assumptions made and questions not asked.

Regarding evidence editors have filed against me

In the order presented on the Evidence page. Please note that as I track WP regularly while I batch read Email once every day or two (or three), I will be responding to

general contentions which would also pertain to me, and
specific diffs of my edits.

As I usually read about something after already having found it and responding on my own I will not be addressing

accusations involving any timing of anything—timing is a red herring.

As time permits, I reserve the right to return to comment on edits/articles where I was not directly involved, as quite a number of uninvolved editors have jumped on the bandwagon in the accusation department contending being wronged in some fashion.

Editor	Response
Sandstein	Sandstein is completely not involved in this. If our purpose here is to discern the intent of editors and admins regarding their vision for WP, then, regarding the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Russavia's bans (and the proceedings here): The actions of those who have baited, bullied, berated, threatened, implicated,... Sandstein speak for themselves. Those that have counseled Sandstein to take a break and come back when the storm blows over enable and reward the conduct above. I don't believe Sandstein cares much about the storm or the personalities involved. For that detachment, I commend Sandstein. If anyone quotes this evidence to mean "Vecrumba commended Sandstein, that is proof Sandstein is in league with Vecrumba and his accomplices," I refer you to point #1 above.
Ellol	Russavia's conduct was their choice. Russavia's behavior subsequent to their topic ban, which Ellol conveniently fails to mention, is the most heinous vitriol I have yet witnessed on WP, and that's saying a lot, as I have been personally accused of killing Transnistrian children with my black propaganda. Please note Ellol's innuendo of belief regarding Sandstein's "involvement." See Sandstein, point #1.
Durova	no involvement with myself, reserve future comment
Skäpperöd	no involvement with myself, reserve future comment
Deacon of Pndapetzim	I have already commented on Deacon's bemoaning Irpen's and Ghirlandajo's departure: Irpen = blatant misrepresentation of sources, Ghirlandajo = the "enforcer" behind every characterization by Irpen of any misrepresentation on Irpen's part being a "personal attack." Regarding "...Vecrumba, Digwuren, and others, who I'd barely heard of..." before the since renamed Piotrus 2 arbitration, I was only there because (I felt) Deacon decided to settle a content dispute by filing an arbitration, per my comments here regarding the RFA.
Offliner	Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia First, let us look at the original, a coatrack created by Offliner in keeping with his penchant for anti-Estonian topics, including the now deleted Nazi Estonia coatrack in his user space. Offliner's article featured the widely disputed Amnesty International report followed by the Russian "POV", an unattributed article (which when attributed elsewhere had opposing articles on the same site cited), then "Finnish legal sociologist and criminologist Johan Bäckman..." This in particular confirmed Offliner's creation as an attack page—Bäckman being the very definition of WP:FRINGE, despite having somehow secured a teaching post. He's a conspiracy theorist who contends that Politkovskaya was assassinated to discredit Putin. Clearly, such a contention would be deleted from an article about Putin, yet Bäckman conveniently served Offliner's defamatory purposes here. Article was rightly nominated for deletion Article was not exactly "merged" into Human Rights in Estonia. Human Rights in Estonia was subsequently created on June 5 by Peltmikko, I suspect in response to Offliner's blatant and provocative attack. Offliner arrives and vandalizes the article by deleting all international rankings having bearing on human rights, widely interpreted (rather per the discussions of Human rights in the United States and elsewhere)—as these put Estonia in a rather positive light Peltmikko reverts with appropriate commentary (Rv, See for example Human rights in Greece. Short and sourced.) Offliner then starts to transplant from his attack-rack ...adding FIDH as its own section ..and EC and CoE ...and Development and Transition ...more ...and then a whole pile, starting with Bäckman. ...and shortly thereafter Offliner expands the FIDH and "Latvian Human Rights Committee"—you will note that Offliner has added only criticism so far, not anything about laws, other views, et al. Peltimikko arrives to add balance citing the opposing article, also appearing at Development and Transition and correctly changes Offliner's prior content to indicate that Hughes' article was, in fact, accusatory. Peltmikko eventually removes the extended FIDH content, it was a press release, note, however, the original properly positioned comments regarding the Bronze Night by the FIDH still remain in the article PassswordUsername arrives to blaspheme Estonian human rights, not to mention, now misrepresents the cited source. ... which Peltimikko corrects per his edit summary. "Radeksz arrives to edit war"? Please! More like (at this point) Offliner arrives to edit war deleting context for the FIDH urging (Bronze Night) and restoring the WP:UNDUE FIDH content he created; the "Latvian Human Rights Committee" is little more than Ždanoka's political party, apparently the FIDH will take anyone who says they are "human rights" (this has been discussed ad nauseum in many places) ...then Offliner deletes "press freedom" (being also free speech) with the ludicrous edit summary "(sorry, press freedom has nothing to do with human rights)" ...then Offliner removes the reference that Estonia was #4 of 173 in press freedom (2008) on the planet with no edit summary (that would be vandalism) at which point Radeksz restores an earlier version with a completely accurate and appropriate edit summary (what Offliner positions as "Radeksz arrives to edit war") at which point Offliner edit wars with a quite uncivil "what the fuck" (wtf?) in his edit summary Radeksz also correctly positions Bäckman's credibility as a source and Peltimikko does some restoration cleanup after which PasswordUsername arrives to edit war, supporting Offliner Peltimikko adds another ranking or two as well as a generally balanced account by Freedom House. To Offliner's "evidence" against me, this is when I first arrive to edit the article, adding a section on Estonian law (human rights law being an interest). It is at this point that I delete Offliner's Bäckman content per WP:UNDUE, which it certainly is, was, and will always be, this being characterized by Offliner as "Vecrumba arrives to edit war". No, I had already arrived and was already working on improving the article. Note my next edit, per my edit summary (→Critical views: Umm, where is the section on postive views? De-POV section title; missing "Domestic views" section at the moment) And I also change Offliner's prior characterization of fact to be an allegation, as it clearly runs contrary to fact, edit summary (→Other institutions: this is clearly in error citing Estonian law; sloppy work) Martintg then arrives and adds an extensive section regarding allegations of discrimination. Hardly the act of an editor portrayed as a warring slavish Baltophile. Alas, Peltmikko subsequently undid my Estonian law edit asking that I make it sexier reading, which I unfortunately have not had a chance to attend to. So, what do we have here? An incident started by Offliner creating an attack page, pushing the anti-Estonian agenda he shares with PassswordUsername. I did not "arrive to edit war." Files for deletion, File:German Soviet.jpg I stand by my rather extensive comment which explains my position in painful detail. "Remarkable?" Hardly. The file was already watch-listed because of a prior deletion attempt. Coordinated provocations against PasswordUsername, June 10 "On 10 June. PasswordUsername edits Jewish Bolshevism. (link)" Prior to PasswordUsername's edit, Chumchum7 (don't know them) made a a series of edits arriving at something which Altenmann restores to the prior revision. PasswordUsername arrives (cited edit) to delete half of the introductory paragraph, removing the description of Jewish Bolshevism (per article content) as "WP:OR (first edit, cited)" with some after-cleanup. This was (my perception) nothing but a "I don't like it, I'll use WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete it" on the part of PasswordUsername, which I restored to the prior content with some copyediting. Rather oddly, Altenmann switches to restoring to PasswordUsername's version, now apparently agreeing with the WP:OR contention. This was clearly not worth pursuing further although I considered the description of Jewish Bolshevism as being accurate, but a topic for another discussion. The article had been on my watchlist for a long time. Evidence? Of nothing and unrelated to anything else here. "On 11 June. Vecrumba makes a post at PU's talkpage: (link)" This is the result of activity at Armenia, where I had participated earlier (just read the diff), the article having been on my watchlist since, responding to PasswordUsername's post on a user talk page that I was stalking him. Evidence? Of nothing—rather more of PasswordUsername's disparaging bad faith attitude. "On 11 June. Vecrumba discusses his post on the secret list. He predicts that either PasswordUsername will back of, or he will take the bait, lose his temper and make incivil remarks. If this happens, Vecrumba will try to get PasswordUsername banned. (20090611-0230-[WPM] PasswordUsername_ opportunity.eml." I should also add my post at Hiberniantears' talk (note also Viriditas, whom I will get to later) in addition to my cited post on PasswordUsername's talk. Sadly, PasswordUsername wasn't any more disparaging than usual in subsequent conduct. Check my record for how many arbitration requests I have filed and check Offliner's (et al.) record. And if PasswordUsername had responded with untoward behavior when I asked him to stop commenting about me behind my back, exactly what is the issue here? I ask A to stop behavior, that being accusations against me on user talk pages. If A does not stop behavior and responds with belligerence, I indicate I will ask A be banned. "Coordinated provocations?" on my part? What is "coordinated" here? Absolutely nothing. What is a "provocation" here? Absolutely nothing. The message says, in fact, "Either PasswordUsername backs off, or..." if he's uncivil I'll asked for him to be banned. As for calling my post "bait," that's my characterization after the fact having nothing to do with why I told PasswordUsername to cease and desist in the first place. The problem here is that we are to believe that anything written in private is to be taken at face value—it's written in private so it must reflect the truth, after all. Unfortunately, as here, this leads to the stringing together of completely unrelated events contending they are a "coordinated" attack, meaning, premeditated purpose other than simply responding to an edit and other than simply responding to allegations of stalking being made against me on user talk pages. Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards This one is rich. "2009-03-20. Russavia reported to AE. Commenting against Russavia: Digwuren, Vecrumba, Martintg" Actually, my contribution attempts to ascertain when it was that the bad blod began between Biophys and Russavia, as (my words): "I was trying to determine when the conflict with Biophys started, as before the problems over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russavia was by all counts a productive and constructive editor often doing the kind of thankless drudge work which few volunteer to do but which makes WP usable for the rest of us." When Jehochman attempts to engage me, before I can respond, first Russavia then Alex Bakharev rush to attack my comments and all possibilities of a constructive dialog go to hell. I can respond to all the rest of Offliner's diffs regarding my conduct, but I believe I've spent enough time here for now. I don't expect the results to improve for Offliner. Late breaking evidence.. More bad faith edits pushing Bäckman as a reliable source to plant the same anti-Estonian charges in yet another article. Apparently Offliner thinks it's open season now. His eagerness in jumping the gun speaks volumes. And here Offliner accuses me of a personal attack, deleting my comments on his choice of sources and their inclusion in articles. (15-OCT-2009)
Russavia	Apparently one cannot observe any patterns of group behavior on the part of editors who can be objectively taken to support the position of Official Russia regarding the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I won't be providing endless diffs of said pushing and protection of POV, but rest assured, they are readily provided. There have always been a formal or informal cabals representing Russian interests. The Irpen/Ghirlandajo tag team may be inactive, but the POVs and tactics remain the same. Notably, POV-pushing has become more aggressive coinciding with Medvedev's creation of the historical truth commission. Let's get right to Russavia's campaign to push fringe polemicists as reputable historians, re: "But I have no doubt in my mind, that this actually means the prevention of any POV which doesn't fit their own agenda. Take for example, Tymek's suggestion that WP should only utilise the writings of western historians. I clearly responded to Tymek that we should be preventing ALL POV and attribute it appropriately. There is also no reason why a historian connected with the Russian Academy of Sciences should be excluded,..." In this particular instance, Russavia means Oleg Vishlyov, whose account of Soviet activities in WWII (including invasion and subjugation of the Baltics) is that it was all in self-defense. Vishlyov has also been described in reputable scholarship as someone who works "more on suggestion than evidence." So, not reliable, certainly not by western standards. Note Russavia's use of the "reputable by association" device. This is as good a place as any to mention Russavia's championing the polemics of Dyukov as a reputable accounting of history—recalling Russavia's meltdown at The Soviet Story, where he threatened to fill the article with Dyukov. Let's be clear here. Dyukov is a fringe "historian" who has made his name in anti-Baltic polemics, writing among other things that FSB archives he had access to prove it is a lie that Estonians were taken away to Siberia in cattle cars. No, according to Dyukov's archival evidence, they were taken away in coaches, well fed, and with medical care. Russian state media trucks Dyukov out whenever they need to do Baltic bashing on their 24x7 English "news" channel. You wish to see "POV"? Read the article on Dyukov—based mainly on what Dyukov has blogged about himself and overstating the significance of anything he's ever written, edited, or proof-read. You wish to see "POV"? Nominate the article for deletion because Dyukov is not notable as a reputable historian and see who rushes to defend him as legitimate. Of course, if more than one editor agrees in opposition to Russavia et al., truck out the links to WP:ALPHABETSOUP: WP:TEAM, WP:GAME, WP:MEAT, WP:HARRASS, WP:STALK, WP:POV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:OUTING,... ad nauseum. As for my personal involvement with Russavia in any edits, I should state up-front that my filing of an AN/I regarding his "Propagandic Latvian Republic..." (see above diff) was my own decision unprompted by any on- or off-Wiki discussion. That said, for everyone's sanity, I'll only address Russavia's evidence where it directly pertains to me. If there is evidence of slanting or bad faith or intentional omission in Russavia's case against me, you can be certain of it elsewhere. Tag-teaming with Digwuren at RIA Novosti scope of reliability RIA Novosti is Russian state media. One can report what it says, but as the press organ of Official Russia, it cannot be represented as anything other than being a reliable source for the opinion/position of Official Russia, regardless of topic. Russavia, however, contends: "RIA Novosti meets all criteria for a reliable source, as much as any other news agency such as BBC, CNN, etc." For someone so link-happy in pushing their position, that here Russavia provides no link at all to what he terms "all criteria" is damning. Russavia's own evidence here condemns his own blatant POV pushing. This thread of the overall discussion had nothing to do with the surname discussion Russavia cites in his evidence. As for Russavia crying "I can't read Estonian"... "they could have helped me...", I ask you, how much Estonian do you have to be able to read to understand this list of surnames? Russavia's evidence chains together and misrepresents two separate discussions in a blatant misdirection to accuse myself and Digwuren. Lastly, Russavia's accusation I/we routinely discredit all Russian sources is baseless rhetoric, considering I've used the Latvian SSR Concise Encyclopedia to source content for Wikipedia (and not prefaced with "Soviet sources say..."). Offliner as Russavia's proxy In 20090910-0238-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! User:Vecrumba suggests that if User:Offliner continue to question User:Sandstein in relation to the email that Vecrumba sent Sandstein, that the group should take the angle that Offliner is acting as my proxy. What I actually wrote was (and this is checking my own outgoing mail, which I save, I have not verified that the "evidence" archive is 100% genuine): "Unfortunately I don't seem to have sent myself a copy of my mail to Sandstein, was looking to forward it [to Offliner], oh well. Unless Offliner apologizes, the angle is that he's acting as Russavia's proxy to make accusations if he keeps it up. /Peters" Had I kept my copy, I would have shared it with Offliner. I can only assume it's intentional that Russavia left this part out of his evidence. Not only did Offliner's harassing increase with the release of the list (my talk et al.), but once Russavia was unbanned for the purposes of this proceeding, Russavia then assaulted Sandstein over that same correspondence. This lead to my permitting Sandstein to post it to end the haranguing and clear his good name. Rather illustrates the afore-mentioned harassment by proxy. Web brigades There was nothing factually incorrect wrong with Digwuren's original insertion regarding on-Wiki claims of being Russian agents and no convincing evidence supporting those claims. Let's keep as background that people have been paid to push Russian interests on WP, so this is more than neutral. Mukadderat deletes based on the specific phrase "web brigade" not having been used (though clearly applicable). There is some going back and forth on WP as a reliable source, clearly not applicable as what is written about is what appears in WP, including Russavia's contention upon his deletion of said content, subsequently stated more stridently at his repeat deletion "(Wikipedia is not a published source with a history of fact-checking, and the inclusion of this material is against a core policy)" with embedded links included. This is typical of Russavia's filling his arguments with WP:ALPHABETSOUP when a cogent argument in his favor is not available. Again, WP was not being used as a source here, what was inserted was a report of an administrative outcome on Wikipedia, which report is either true or false. At which point Vassyana prudently edit-protects. Alexander Litvinenko "In 20090910-0218-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Vecrumba states that he would visit the article in a few days, only to avoid them appearing opportunistic on this article." Of course I would state this. Had I appeared expeditiously (the article is on my watchlist and, as mentioned, I check WP far more often than Email), accusations of edit-warring collusion would immediately surface. This is not an attack, is an act of self-protection. Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) Feel free to read the extensive talk page for the article, there's nothing to hide here. My edits at this article were based on Google searches of scholarly material. As some were snippets, I searched before and after the text in question to construct the full narrative, which I subsequently represented in the article. (Note Russavia's contentions along the way that editors had a source in its entirety and were intentionally misrepresenting it.) I should also mention the rape of German (and other Eastern European women) as the Red Army approached Berlin is a topic from which stigma is only now lifting. Communist Romania et al. regarding timing More ">1 disagrees with Russavia = meatpuppet." I felt, per my comment, it was little more than Anonimu's attempt to remove "Communist" from the title. Again, found first on WP not in my Email as I recall. The same editors would have all showed up and all voted the same way on both sides of the aisle. Red herring. As with everything else presented regarding collusion, the assumption is the list had a material on-Wiki impact. It did not. Several list members actively broke general sanctions Russavia's personal attack that I "do not get the concept of verifiability, not truth" bears a response. What is Russavia advocating here? In summary: it's a matter of Official Russia opinion that the Baltics were not occupied, it's a matter of Official ("Propagandic" per Russavia) Latvia opinion that the Baltics were occupied. And so, these two "opinions" should be presented as such without preference or prejudice. This seems like the usual "conflicting opinions" on history. It is not. It is, in fact, the deliberate and willful insistence that a position (Russian) which has no basis in fact and a position (Latvian and the rest of the planet) which has a complete basis in fact are equally valid opposites. It is, in fact, the position of Official Russia: the Russian Duma "reminding" Latvia it joined the USSR legally according to international law—and hence legally no occupation the protection of history against revisionism claiming occupation by the historical truth commission and the proposed criminalization (up to 5 years in jail) for contending the same which attempts to legislate the "truth" here. None of Official Russia's contentions regarding "not occupied" are verifiable in law, not a single one. What is "verifiable" is only the rhetoric of "not occupied"—rhetoric which Russavia wishes to present as fact, witness his threats over Dyukov (featured regularly on English-language Russia Today cable TV as a mouthpiece for the Official Russia position) at The Soviet Story. If Russavia can provide me with the verifiable basis in fact for the Russian Duma passing its reminder that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law, then I welcome those facts. In the meantime, "not occupied" is just an opinion with no basis in fact. There are no "sides" to present, the facts are the facts regarding occupation. That Official Russia holds to an opposing opinion is duly noted (I've even written some of that content). Russavia's singling me out for denunciation as someone who is hell-bent on their personal "truth" and not on verifiable facts proves conclusively beyond any doubts that it is Russavia who is on a mission fashioning WP into a platform sanctioning the position of Official Russia: the presentation of factually unsubstantiated opinion as encyclopedic fact. There is no "content" dispute here. There is no argument over "truth" here. There are only the facts of occupation with no facts to the contrary. There are many contentions over facts purported to apply to occupation (per Petri Krohn's encyclopedias which wrote during the occupation that Latvia was "part of" the Soviet Union, et al.), but as the Russian Duma made it unequivocally clear that the joining was legal, that's what counts. If any of you are truly interested in this topic, please read this monograph. While a Latvian source, by a justice of Latvia's Supreme Court, all this material and conclusions are seconded in non-Baltic western sources. Russavia has laid down the gauntlet. Is WP to represent opinion based on vapor and narrative of events based on verifiable fact as equally valid, encyclopedic accounts, or not? And so, Russavia, once and for all, please produce the factual basis for the declaration of the Russian Duma regarding Latvia "joining" the USSR, from whence all "not occupied" (legally) flows. You have placed the ball squarely in your court by insisting I'm the one pushing my personal "truth." I will not stand for your vicious and baseless slander. My personal details were discussed So my personal details were not only discussed, but it was actively discussed on what could be done to harrass me off-wiki. While I am not mentioned here, I do have to observe that this neatly sums up the issue of reading someone else's private correspondence. If I had opined it would be simpler to take out a contract on Russavia, I know people, then I would be accused of plotting bodily harm. And had I made such a comment on-Wiki, I would have been summarily banned for personal threats. One cannot equate personal correspondence with "what one will/would do" on-Wiki.
YMB29	no involvement with myself, reserve future comment
MBisanz	no involvement with myself, reserve future comment
Good Olfactory	no involvement with myself, reserve future comment
HistoricWarrior007	I'll just deal with the following: "while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov[SIC.], and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia" No, it's about, as Russavia would put it, observing WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, per my above discussion of Dyukov.
Fut.Perf.	As to hacked or not, I do not have conclusive proof as to hacking. I do find it suspicious that the next message in my inbox after the last message in the "archive" is one shortly thereafter stating the mailing list member list was unavailable (in response to an Email from me), the only time I ever received such an error notice, to me, indicating an external assault. I would request that speculative and prejudicial contentions (elsewhere) along the lines of the archive being revealed through an "attack of conscience" as the "simplest" explanation for the origin of the evidence be refrained from.
PasswordUsername	First of all, I thank PasswordUsername for his new moniker, "Anti-Nationalist", confirming himself as a WP:SPA single purpose account to attack anyone he deems to be a "nationalist." Or have I missed something? More to the real point. Pick "Anti-Lesbian" as a moniker and we would be hearing a cacophony of screeching indignant wailings over gay-bashing. "Anti-Nationalist"? and all we hear... wait... is that a cricket chirping?... no, alas, just my chair creaking. This double standard sanctioning open denigration of anyone labeled as a "nationalist," Baltic and Eastern European in particular, is patently offensive. If I have developed a wagon-circling mentality, don't blame me, it's the product of years of abuse on the part of an endless procession of belligerent editors. Now, to PasswordUsername's mentions of myself. Swamping of AFD and CFD discussions ">1 opposing PasswordUsername's views" = meatpuppet; Petri Krohn was not "chased off." PasswordUsername's evidence here is laughable, as a [450] second nomination also wound up as a keep with uninvolved editors voting 3:1 in favor of keep. This sort of selective editor bashing is typical of all the evidence presented here. Anti-Russian sentiment: 8-16 May 2009 Regarding my "edit-warring" here, it's quite clear that PasswordUsername presents allegations as findings of fact (Amnesty International) and more allegations as fact (Hughes in Development and Transition). My edit simply clarifies the Amnesty International report (which has been widely denounced as not in touch with reality) and that the D&T piece is merely one opinion, adding another article FROM THE SAME SITE as balancing opinion. Adding balancing content is not edit warring, removing it is. PasswordUsename's evidence convicts him of his own POV pushing. Neo-Stalinism: May 10-18 2009, August-September 2009 Regarding my "helping out" here, please, anyone feel free to indicate how the passage in question does not objectively apply. Defense of the Stalinist/Soviet account of WWII, anyone? More evidence confirming PasswordUsername's, Russavia's et al. pushing the POV that Official Russia is not resurrecting Stalin and his account of history. Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II: 15-17 August 2009 Discussion at talk quickly concluded in PasswordUsername's favor? Not really. The only uninvolved comment was that "collaboration" did not apply as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not enemies [indeed, allies] at the time, based on "collaboration" NOT meaning "working together" in general. I stand by my edit, which, by the way, was BEFORE the afore-mentioned uninvolved comment. You will also note that I strove to clarify the definition of "collaboration" to NOT mean merely cooperation BEFORE the afore-mentioned uninvolved comment (and so, actually supporting the narrow view), which Anonimu then jumped in and erased as not applying to the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, as if Jews were not citizens of their respective countries, and expanded in a WP:OR manner which would even include Latvian president Karlis Ulmanis urging Latvians not to go out and get themselves slaughtered opposing the Soviet invasion as a Soviet collaborator—surely not Anonimu's intent! Or perhaps. Evidence from the e-mail archive On J. Milburn's "other" image deletion, already covered, I explained my rationale in the image AfD in great detail. On Jewish Bolshevism undeleting PasswordUsername's deletion of alleged "anti-Semitic" content. Objectively, the term had to originate somewhere. It is well documented in western sources that in Poland between the wars, for example, imprisoned Jewish communists were the chief proselytizers. To note such things is not anti-Semitism, no one equates communism and Judaism as belief systems—that certainly would be egregiously anti-Semitic. As for "designed as a provocation," no it was not, although my stated expectation was that PasswordUsername would take it as such. I counsel other editors to not jump in, only ones with past involvement should participate so as to have "complete deniability" of following PasswordUsername's edits, as he was often wont to complain to anyone, anywhere. The article was on my watchlist having edited it, I didn't need to "follow" or "provoke" anything. And what is my summary (per evidence archive, no confirmation of the whole as untampered with) of said alleged provocation? "We'll see if PU can engage in content dialog based on sources and constructing balanced articles." I'm sorry, but given PasswordUsername's aggressiveness, I'm not describing an offensive editing strategy, I'm describing a defensive editing strategy and clearly leaving the door open to PasswordUsername's engaging in a more balanced approach to the topic even in my private correspondence. There is a difference in making an edit in good faith and observing it will be taken as provocation/bait and making an edit only for the purpose of provocation; all of this evidence makes the same speculation of intent to provoke as opposed to believing the content being added or deleted was being done for good reason (this brought on by PasswordUsername's harassment of myself on Alek Bakharev's talk page) On calling for "team game play" on the evidence (same conditions), this is misquoting and misrepresenting. My only comment is that I hope that "influence group" for Nochnoy Dozor gets us close enough to consensus on naming. On "call to arms" on Ethnocracy, what a load of crap. This is a quick observation on my part regarding the same Hughes in Development and Transition report and Amnesty International report already mentioned earlier, that balancing POVs already appear in other articles, ones which Offliner and PasswordUsername are intentionally omitting in their unbalanced POV format (knowing the balance exists elsewhere) in yet another venue to create yet more Baltic attack content. And while not mentioned in this context, as I did add Jaak Aaviksoo's photo to his bio article, more disingenuous tears over PasswordUsername's "sourced" material. Let's try this here: PasswordUsername writes "Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo and Parliament member Trivimi Velliste were accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols" per a source describing the swastika as such, while my subsequent edit sets the narrative straight. An blatant attempt to portray sources as confirming Aviksoo's willing participation in events festooned with Nazi symbols, a clear violation of WP:BLP, in short, more Baltic attack crap. We won't even go over earlier puerile edits seeking to emphasize that the Estonian defense minister was born in the USSR. And speaking of attack crap, let's not forget the classic at Valeriya Novodvorskaya, misrepresenting an interview to state, in another gross WP:BLP vioaltion: In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa (line 46), per PasswordUsername and Offliner Clearly, the primary agenda here is to attack any person or any nation critical of Official Russia.. Late-breaking evidence... Baiting Paul Siebert Again, we have interpretations of private correspondence and intent. Key points: I felt obliged to make my editorial position known, even though I expected a revert I state that the proper approach is to state the opposing view and open for discussion and argue just as firmly for the opposing position based on sources and in as much detail as necessary, and If all else fails and consensus is not achieved, move for a RfC for outside comment (at least that's how it should work, though it usually becomes just a soapbox for the current participants in the debate) There are times I strenuously disagree with Paul on interpretation but I have always had the utmost admiration for his knowledge and command of reputable sources. I regret this blatant misrepresentation regarding an editor I respect.

To be continued

Evidence/statement presented by Miacek

Statement

There was a mailing list and I participated in it from March to July, 2009, there's no denying of such facts. I left the list when I was running short of wikitime in June-July. I am sure the mails were not obtained via whistleblower, so hacking remains the only plausible way e-mails got leaked and are now circulating on the net, so to say. I became familiar with a number of users in that list, Biruitorul and Dc being especially impressive due to their intellectual level, some of the participants have remained relatively unknown for me, too, since many edit only Poland-related articles that I am not interested in.

What we had in common was the threat of neo-Stalinist/Russian chauvinist POV pushing by accounts like Irpen, Petri Krohn or Roobit (all now justly banned or forced to leave by real consensus). Please don't even try to argue that e.g. departure of the prolific yet extremely biased user Ghirlandajo had something to do with our list. (The editing trio Irpen-Ghirlandajo-Grafikm_fr had their own misdeeds, as already pointed out by others).

On the other hand, issues with users like Russavia or, say, Alex Bakharev, who are constructive yet posed problems for some of the participants of the list - they were discussed, too (as were many different facets of world politics, too, btw), but there were dissenting opinions on which position one should take wrt to them. I personally did not take part in en bloc voting, as far as I remember. Despite having left the list in August, I do not regret my participation. I left for a number of reasons (1) I have very little time for Wikipedia (2) my editing pattern was rather different from that of the other participants (3) while editing Wikipedia I tended to disagree with the participants, e.g. more nationalistic Poles and also Biophys, and wished to be completely independent and to avoid useless arguments within the list. Regardless, I never gave out anything about the list to third parties, neither IRL nor on-line and am perfectly sure no-one else did.

Also, please note I am not going to take part in this arbitration process in any depth. Regards, User:Miacek 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus

AFD canvassing on the mailing list

Someone else posted above that they suspected canvassing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States. I looked at the underlying article and determined it to be a mess of original research by synthesis and POV-pushing. The allegations of canvassing looked plausible, since many/most of the Keep !voters were list participants. I obtained a copy of the list and quickly found a thread discussing this article. In a message posted on "Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:32:23 -0400," User:Piotrus engaged in explicit canvassing, with the following words: "Much weaseling in the article, and the AfD is still ongoing and can use some votes" (followed by a link to the AFD). Note that this had been discussed on the list for several days prior, so even before the explicit canvassing, votes may have been tainted by this participation.

Evidence submitted by Hiberniantears

This is mostly a placeholder for the moment, as I'm late to this (thanks to Viriditas for the heads up). For the moment, I will direct you to the extended threads (many of which placed under a hat by me) on this archive of my talk page. I got into it with many of the editors on this mailing list back and May and June, and have encountered the feeling of a well coordinated group of editors behaving in a tendentious manner. I will readily admit that this entire experience burned me out, as evidenced by my increasing grumpiness around here since then. It was not one of my finer moments, but it does represent the impact that the mailing list editors are having on the project.

I'm not taking sides on content, or behavior, as I believe there is a great deal of antagonism between two groups of editors who are simply talking past each other. I can only speak to the experience of trying to tamp down this bad behavior, and feeling utterly overwhelmed, and lacking any meaningful remedy as an admin. I've directed some generalised vitriol at ArbCom recently, and this stems largely from what I perceive as our inability as a community to contain the types of things that this mailing list was coordinating. I would be most interested to know if there are any emails relevant to my dispute with this group back in May and June.

Again, this is post is rushed, and I will try to expand later this evening if there is still time. If any members of the committee require further background from me, please reach out to me on my talk page, or let me know if I should check my email.

Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difs

It may be worthwhile for those doing the leg work to cross reference the email archive for activity relating to some of the following diffs:

In each case, there was something of a swarm by the editors who appear to be members of the mailing list. Out of fairness, this is not entirely a surprise since the same editors would have probably had this set of related articles on their watch list, and a swarming reaction would have been somewhat expected with or without a mailing list. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my talk page, it appears that my interaction with this group of editors really kicked off on, or shortly after April 26, 2009 following this post from User:Dojarca. My talk page was then a battleground through most of May and June. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email concerning me

So I went ahead and downloaded the emails. I will not disclose specifics, since ArbCom can simply verify my assertions by searching "Hiberniantears" in the zip file's "String to find" search function. That said, the 50,000 ft view of things as they concern me in the emails are as such:

38 emails are in regards to me, discussing ways to get me or desysopped or disciplined.
Comments range from cuationary to incendiary.
There appears to be one current admin present in the discussion concerning me. I found a number of instances where this admin was asked to use his admin rights, and he either agreed, or declined depending on whether said action would expose him as part of the group.
The date range of the emails corresponds to the difs I included above (4/29/09 - 6/28/09).

On one hand, this is somewhat bothersome. On the other hand, it was pretty obvious to me at the time that something like this was going on given the fact that an entire group of editors were able to act in unison without any apparent on-Wiki coordination. As someone who has long tried to neutralize nationalistic editing, I have always encountered combative groups of like minded editors. However, that there is an administrator present in the emails is something of an outrage. As an administrator, you are supposed to prevent things like this, not be a part of them.

Admins should never be a cabal themselves, but when an admin is part of a cabal that actively seeks to undermine objective neutrality, you do considerable harm to the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Commodore Sloat

Canvassing on Communist Genocide and Communist terrorism AfDs

I have not had a lot of interaction with the people on this alleged cabal list but I wonder if their actions during the AfD of Communist genocide and Communist terrorism were coordinated. The latter may be too old to be covered with the evidence here but the former is more recent, and both display the same symptoms - a sudden burst of activity from a significant number of members of this list (apparently 9 of the 11 available members voted on the Communist genocide AfD, all at roughly the same time). Both votes were close and contentious, with several of the people named in this arbitration jumping on board at roughly the same time and making arguments almost as a chorus. Arbcom should look into whether this vote was canvassed and coordinated, and whether the discussions of this vote included any suggestions to go after certain users or anything like that.

Canvassing and other illegitimate actions by Biophys

I have had interactions with one of the listmembers in the past, User:Biophys, and was amazed how several times when he was losing an argument someone who had never edited the article before dropped in to "help out" in an edit war -- I'm particularly thinking of interactions over this article in the past, but I also wonder about this article as well as the Suitcase nuke article. There were several times I wondered at the coincidences. I now wonder how much of this activity was orchestrated, and whether Biophys in particular or some of his compatriots on this list singled my account out for any particular harassment or other games. I have always felt Biophys was playing games, and have even called him out on his annoying habit of denying that he made edits that he has just made. I don't know whether this super secret email list coordinated such attacks as the burst of activity on the Communist terrorism AfD or the Communist genocide AfD or the sudden appearance of Piotrus on this discussion or Vecrumba's similar appearance on this discussion but I do think that anyone familiar with the evidence and the list archives should take a close look at these things.

Frankly, if even a portion of what is alleged to be in these archives is actually there, it is a substantial problem at least as worrisome as the CAMERA scandal, if not more so.

Evidence presented by Viriditas

I have expanded upon the event briefly described by PasswordUsername concerning the incident at Human rights in the United States. Particularly noteworthy is the presence of the Eastern European mailing list group from May 24-26 involving their support of User:Mosedschurte during an article RfC and an ANI report, and their participation in an RfC/U from June to July. To the best of my knowledge, these editors had not edited the Human rights in the United States article before this incident.

As the allegations show below, User:Biophys helped defend Mosedschurte's position by announcing the Wikipedia discussion on the closed Eastern European mailing list and inviting its members to join the discussion during an ongoing RfC. User:Piotrus used the same thread to announce the existence of the ANI report against Mosedschurte. In all cases, user talk pages, an article RfC, multiple ANI reports, and an RfC/U were soon flooded with responses from list members, skewing the discussion. While this kind of e-mail announcement is generally classified as stealth canvassing, it at first appears harmless. However, the tactics and strategies described on the mailing list go against the fundamental, core policies of Wikipedia, and the results of the RfC and ANI reports were neither a fair representation of a broad spectrum of editorial opinion nor actions indicative of good faith discussion.

Human rights in the United States

The following information concerns an incident that occurred in late May, early June on Human rights in the United States and played out on its talk page in the form of extended discussions and an article RfC.

Timeline

2009-05-21 - 05:56 - User:Mosedschurte arrives on Talk:Human rights in the United States.[451]
2009-05-23 - 11:45 - User:Viriditas (myself) submits an ANI report on Mosedschurte[452]
2009-05-23 - 13:25 - Mosedschurte blocked for 3rr on Human rights in the United States.[453]
2009-05-23 – 18:30 - User:Biophys arrives.[454]
2009-05-24 - 14:59 - Biophys reverts and removes disputed material supporting Mosedschurte[455]
2009-05-25 - 15:22 - Biophys reverts and removes disputed material supporting Mosedschurte[456]
2009-05-25 - 19:54 - Mosedschurte votes on the RfC[457]
2009-05-25 - 23:06 - Biophys votes on the RfC[458]
2009-05-25 - 23.15 - On the EE mailing list, Biophys invites the list to comment on Talk:Human rights in the United States, noting that he finds favor with comments made by Mosedschurte, but wonders if commenting on the talk page will be worth it [20090525-2315]
2009-05-25 - 23:28 - On the EE mailing list, User:Radeksz responds to Biophys' message, and says he will attempt to participate at Talk:Human rights in the United States, adding that he is interested in deleting content due to what he perceives is fringe material [20090525-2328]
2009-05-25 - 23:32 - Radeksz arrives.[459]
2009-05-25 - 23:41 - User:Martintg arrives and votes on the RfC.[460]
2009-05-26 - 01:42 - Radeksz votes on the RfC[461]
2009-05-26 - 06:41 - User:Digwuren arrives.[462]
2009-05-26 - 07:46 - On the EE mailing list, User:Piotrus responds to the Human rights in the US thread, and notifies the list about the ANI report (see above at May 23 - 11:45) filed previously against Mosedschurte [20090526-0746]
2009-05-26 – 16:21 - User:Vecrumba arrives.[463]
2009-06-05 - 14:33 - Vecrumba votes on the RfC.[464]
2009-06-12 - 22:13 - Radeksz reverts to Mosedchurte version of POV tag[465]
2009-06-14 - 03:17 - Radeksz reverts to Mosedchurte version of POV tag[466]

RFC/U

Timeline

2009-06-29 - 11:30 - RfC/U created by User:Mosedschurte on User:Viriditas (myself).[467]
2009-06-29 - 12:29 - On the EE mailing list, User:Biophys invites list members to comment on the RfC/U one hour after it is created by Mosedschurte. [20090629-1229]
2009-07-03 - 20:00 - User:Vecrumba comments at the RfC/U.[468]
2009-07-11 - 23:02 - On the EE mailing list, User:Dc76 asks the list about Mosedschurte. [20090711-2302]
2009-07-11 - 23:20 - On the EE mailing list, Biophys responds to Dc76, describing Mosedschurte in favorable terms and points Dc76 to the RfC/U. [20090711-2320] This was the second time Biophys referred list members to the RfC/U. (see above at 12:29, June 29)
2009-07-12 - 01:46 - Dc76 comments at the RfC/U several hours after being pointed to it by Biophys.[469]
2009-07-12 - 13:01 - User:Radeksz comments at the RfC/U.[470]
2009-07-14 - 14:44 - Biophys informs the mailing list that he had sent e-mail back and forth with Mosedschurte, because, according to Biophys, Mosedschurte needed help dealing with Viriditas (myself).[20090714-1444]

Evidence provided by Poeticbent

My evidence is short and to the point for two reasons. Firstly, I joined the list at the very end, and have no knowledge of any earlier contributions. Whatever exchange of email took place before late June remains unknown to me. Secondly, my name is being mentioned here only on a few occasions. – The examples are laughable nevertheless, shedding the light on the quality of the so called evidence dumped on this page by some of the most aggressive POV pushers I’ve ever met.

Response to evidence by Offliner

I’m being accused of voting at AfD to keep the article which I expanded with several book references, how amusing. Meanwhile, Offliner was badgering every single person who voted the same way, with his numbingly repetitious comments (nine, in all) including the totally uninvolved admins; canvassing to have it deleted, and so on.[471] Please, look at the article history for more revelations. Book references are being deleted from the article and the level of manipulation is staggering to this day. Consequently, nothing of my research remained.[472]

The same user Offliner accused me of trying to defend an image I myself uploaded with a rock-solid license (soon confirmed by the admin).[473] It doesn’t get any worse than that in misrepresentation of fact. – What coordinated action did I take, I ask?

Response to evidence by PasswordUsername née Anti-Nationalist

My interaction with user Molobo dates back to the early days of Wikipedia. Molobo lost it somewhere along the way, and is temporarily banned from editing due to his unwillingness to close the eyes to POV attacks on Poland–related articles which he was unable to defend by the rule. The clerk in his investigation duly noted that his German opponent’s evidence was in some cases only masquerading as evidence.[474] There’s no connection to the above mailing list whatsoever. I would like to advise those who provide misleading and dishonest evidence to please quit playing with smoke and mirrors, because you’re making yourself look foolish.

Response to evidence by Skäpperöd

Users, such as Skäpperöd, are the reason why, some sort of off-wiki discussion between Polish editors has become unavoidable after a while. That's because Skäpperöd is concerned solely with articles related to German presence on traditionally Polish lands coupled with attacks on Polish editors. Skäpperöd's top edited articles include "Expulsion of Germans after World War II" (422 edits), "History of Pomerania" (303 edits), "Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany" (205 edits), "Pomerania" (195 edits), "Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II" (152 edits), "Szczecin" (140 edits) and similar others.[475] Compare that with my own average of 5 edits per each top DYK article of equal size. No Polish Wikipedian has ever been able to match his uniquely German viewpoint, since 2007. Meanwhile, Skäpperöd's clashes with Polish editors are record-bearing. See Eastern European disputes, and Administrators' noticeboards: archive 194, 503, 559, 535, AfD 1, 538 among others, not to mention: the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, Requests for mediation, and most importantly, attacks on my real life identity as a notable Wikipedian. Please take this into consideration when sifting through his own dubious grievances.

On good will and personal pride

There’s no question that the leaked archive was prepared and disseminated by an individual well versed in all aspects of programming. The archive starts at exactly the same time as the initial EE mailing list set up, thus drawing my suspicion that perhaps the outing was pre-planned and that the later participants (like myself) were lured to join in by the prospect of advantage. – Please try to see it from my own perspective. Would you refuse an invitation to a discussion group devoted to Wikipedia? Of course, not. Perhaps you would even feel honored, like some others did. Unsubscribing from the list at any point in time though, would draw unnecessary fears, that’s why it was better to just let it go.

At least one list participant, Ostap R, once blindly attacked me on-wiki demanding, at AN/E, that I’ll be banned.[476] This caused quite a stir among the group members. Piotrus threatened to withdraw from the list with all his Polish friends (July 31, 2009 12:11:52 AM). Ostap responded like a gentleman. He asked to be taken out instead, and that everybody else stays put. Ostap soon retracted his comment at AN/E and the matter was satisfactorily resolved by EdJohnston.[477] This is how a lot of honorable people would interact in the real world as well, I believe. --Poeticbent talk 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Martintg

Preamble

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that prohibits groups of similar minded people to meet and discuss any issues in any venue, be it via email or meet-ups; nor can there be. To communicate is a fundamental human need and right. Nor can it be assumed that other groups do not maintain mailing lists or some other communication media of their own. The rational assumption must be that everyone communicates offline, whether it is via a maillist, forum, or other means. To crucify one particular group will not discourage such communication amongst others in the least, but will only ensure that one particular POV will dominate after the elimination of that group. There real question here is whether this is detrimental or beneficial to content quality.

Supporting the "Whistleblower" meme endorses WP:OUTING as okay

We all live under the rule of law, and current legislation prohibits third parties from reading emails. ArbCom had the opportunity to take a mature and principled approach when Alex Bakharev made sensational claims of a list that contains 1500 emails about "getting Russavia". They could have reminded people that under law, and ethically, it is unacceptable for third parties to read illicit copies of email lists and that the authenticity would be suspect in any case; therefore they have no interest or desire to view them. They could have over sighted the initial discussion before it got out of hand. Instead the equivocal stance on the issue may have been seen as an encouragement to the continued distribution. In opening this case, the ArbCom has ensured that this maillist would become the required reading by a wider group of people than would not normally have been the case. Even DonaldDuck apparently has a copy of this list.

This, in turn has effectively resulted in the OUTING of the personal identities of a number of people, including that of Russavia himself, apparently.

Many have promoted this "whistleblower" meme, perhaps partly to sooth their qualms over indulging in the mild pornographic delight of viewing peoples private affairs, perhaps partly in the belief that there is some kind of "whistleblower" provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. But lets not kid ourselves, this is not the email of some foundation, corporation or governmental organization, but the personal correspondence and private property of a group of people. In real life, a "whislteblower" generally acknowledges their identify publicly, but this has not happened.

For those people who promote and applaud this "whistleblower" meme overlook one thing, this alleged person effectively OUTED the real life identities of many of the participants. I hope the ArbCom is not endorsing the notion that it is okay to OUT people's personal real life identities if it reveals the imagined "vote stacking" of some obscure AfD that the majority don't care about nor have interest in. One was already been threatened with possible prosecution if their identity would ever be revealed. I hope that this case is not seen as an endorsement or the encouragement to people to commit felony crime due to the resulting pay off.

Some quick responses

Hiberniantears initiated a serious content dispute on the article Occupation of the Baltic states that had been stable for over a year, taking unilateral action to split the article then using his admin tools to enforce the result by page protecting his preferred version, he even initiated an ANI report on himself knowing his actions was a serious breach of policy, which he neglects to post a link to. I regret now an RfC was not opened to examine his appalling misused of admin tools in a content dispute he was intimately involved in, but this ArbCom case will be a suitable venue I suppose. --Martintg (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to inject ultra-Nationalist POV

There is a core group of two editors, Offliner and PasswordUsername, that seem to be intent on disrupting Estonian articles by inserting text that supports two Russian ultra-Nationalist memes:

that Estonia as a country and its people are sympathetic with Nazism and as a result
Estonia commits human rights abuses against Russian speakers with in that country.

The intent of this meme appears to be to polarise Russian speaking editors against Estonian speaking editors, creating the illusion that there is some kind of wider Russian-Estonian battle going on. This has worked to some degree with editors like Shotlandiya, FeelSunny, Igny and Russavia incited to battle across a whole range of Estonia related articles.

Note that Petri Krohn was banned for a year in a previous ArbCom case for attempting to incite similar ethnic hatred using similar claims of Nazi sympathies, and has apparently created an anti-Estonian hate-speech site on the internet during his ban.

To see that this campaign is focused on Estonia, one has to look no further than the absence of activity in Latvian and Finnish articles. Latvia had not one, but two Waffen SS divisions, and its veterans march through downtown Riga every year[], while the Finnish President parades a "Nazi flag", yet these editors have never disrupted those articles as they are with Estonian related articles. Nor have they contributed anything of substance or value to the Estonian topic space, only continued and chronic aggravation.

Russavia

In general I have no real issue with Russavia, apart from his disruptive editing, and note that I didn't participate in the recent ANI discussion that lead to his ban for wikilawyering and making legal threats, though I do support his topic ban in Soviet and Baltic states topics due to his past disruptive behaviour. Generally I applaud his efforts in building the encyclopedia. However it seems that he swallowed the "Russia vs. Estonia" meme after being drawn the circle of Offliner and PasswordUsername. Russavia's WP:POINTish creation of the article ESStonia was highly disruptive in addition to being extremely offensive to a great many editors, both Estonian and Russian, earning him the epithet RuSSavia from one Russian editor. Russavia has edited hundreds if not thousands of distinct articles, it is only a handful of articles where our edits have actually overlapped. He has long made claims of "stalking", but this is probably more a function of his ego than any thing else, given that he had openly invited people to inspect his contribution history via his signature. I think it was Alex who actually pointed this out to him and he has since changed his sig. It was a source of some mirth at the time, however it seems that a sarcastic comment is Russavia's "definitive proof" of an intent to "stalk". I guess when a third party reads the private correspondence of other people, misconstruing the meaning is inevitable.

Chronic POVFORK creation

Neo-Nazism in Estonia

Shotlandiya recreates this previously deleted POVFORK[478] on June 5, PasswordUsername expands the fork on June 6th[479], admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, changes it into a redirect[480] and salts it against disruptive recreation[481]

ESStonia

More to come.

Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia

Offliner creates this POVFORK on June 1, PasswordUsername, FeelSunny and Shotlandiya assist expand the fork over the next couple of days. POVFORK merged into Human Rights in Estonia after AfD discussion.

Discussion and planning of new POVFORKs

Offliner suggests to PasswordUsername creating a new article Criticism of Estonia's attitude towards nazism [482], PasswordUsername responds by suggesting a title like Rehabilitation of fascism or even Fascism in Estonia. This draft article, posted to Offliner's userspace but since deleted, containing text like "According to organization X, there is considerable glorification of the country's nazi past in Estonia, with parades of former SS-officers taking place in the capital Tallinn annually" which is total fabrication to the degree that it was seen as an offensive attack page by an Estonian editor[483]

BLP violations against Estonian public figures

Jaak Aaviksoo

PasswordUsername inserts a BLP violation claiming Jaak Aaviksoo wears Nazi symbols on June 5[484], Inserts another BLP violation claiming Aaviksoo attended a Waffen SS event[485], PasswordUsername then COATRACKs material unrelated to Aaviksoo's biography and removal of sourced text related to his viewpoints[486] and again[487], Shotlandiya comes out of the blue to assist UsernamePassword's reverts[488], again[489], then PasswordUsername steps in to revert[490], again[491] and again [492], then Shotlandiya steps again[493], despite attempts to discuss on talk[494].

Neo-Nazism

June 9th, PasswordUsername inserts BLP violation claiming that a certain Ministry of Justice official was the leader of Estonian neo-Nazis[495]. Reinserts Matter reported to BLP notice board on the same day[496]. PU reinserts the BLP vio[497], again[498], and again[499] Aug 10, Offliner reverts deletion of unsourced material and the same BLP violating material from the Jaak Aaviksoo article above[500], claiming in edit summary it was sourced. Oflliner COATRACKs material that has nothing to do with the article[501], reverts[502], and again[503], despite attempts to discuss on talk[504]

Monument of Lihula

PasswordUsername inserts text contrary to what the actual monument states[505]. More to come.

Kaitsepolitsei

Offliner adds the WP:UNDUE opinion of a neo-Nazi Risto Teinonen in regard to the Estonian Police service[506], reverts[507], Russavia (never having edited the article before) reverts[508], Offliner reverts again[509], Russavia reverts[510] and again[511] and again[512]. Offliner reverts[513] and again[514] and again[515] and again[516]. PasswordUsername steps in to revert[517], and Russavia[518], and so it goes, on and on, despite attempts to discuss on talk[519]

Crime in Estonia

PasswordUsername inserts of undue[520] and out of scope material (coatracking)[521],[522]. An edit war ensures despite attempts to discuss on talk[523], culminating in the insertion of the text "Children are often molested" and resulting in an ANI report and 72 hour block.

Ethnocracy

PasswordUsername WP:POINTishly inserts totally irrelevant link in "See also" (Estonia isn't even mentioned in the article) Shotlandiya arrives out of the blue and reverts[524], again[525], again[526], again[527], and again[528], and so on[529], and on[530], and on[531], and on[532], and on[533], and on[534].....

In the meanwhile an attempt at discussion on talk[535],[536] goes unanswered.

The madness only stops when Shotlandiya is reported to AE and topic banned [537]

Accidental forwarding of one of William Connelly's emails

I've received a number of emails from William, as well as the dozens emails from many other admins and users, none of these other emails have been forwarded to the maillist. Rather, I forward these and other emails of interest to my regular off-web mail account (which also has "wikipedia" prepended to the name), annotating them with notes, before deleting them from my gmail account.

This one single particular email from early February was accidentally forwarded to the maillist, most likely due to gmail's predictive text feature when typing the first few letters of an address. Given the relative newness of the maillist back in February and the address appearing at the top of the predictive text selection drop down box when typing "w", the wrong address was inadvertently selected. Since I don't receive emails back from the maillist server that I send, it went undetected. It was an honest mistake of inattentiveness.

As I am sure William would have corresponded with the handful of people who were members back in February, many of them would have been aware of his phone number in any case. That it became public is the responsibility of the hacker/leaker. I don't think this particular accident, which I apologise for, falsifies Biophy's assertion No any private information was disclosed in emails, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others in wikimedia space. , since he and eight others joined the list later and would not have received it and thus not have been aware of it.

Offliner's claims that I "continued to be disruptive after his 1RR sanction was lifted"

I don't know what relevance this has, since it was never discussed on the list, but since Offliner brought it up, I will reply in relation to article Kuril Islands dispute that he discusses. Offliner was also subject to the same 1RR, Based on this investigation, Offliner was placed on 1RR on 22 June, 2009.[538]

Later, while I didn't object to the 1RR restriction as it an acceptable price to pay to stop Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername (who were similarly restricted) disrupting the project, several other editors objected, and the sanction was later vacated by Thatcher.

After his sanctions were lifted, Offliner has continued to be disruptive.

I had previously edited the article Kuril Islands dispute back in 2007[539] and had it on my watchlist. I noticed Offliner was editing the article for the first time on 9 July, 2009: [540], attempting to remove all other viewpoints from the lead with the exception of the Russian nationalist viewpoint, claiming it was all anti-Russian POV. In the mean time I engage in discussion on the article talk page[541], and a third party on July 15 concludes that my attempt to balance the lead looks goods

A week later Offliner returns and begins edit warring again on July 23, attempting to remove all POVs except for the Russian POV[542], this time with regular User:Kintetsubuffalo, who reverts Offliner's removal of sourced material [543] and undue duplication[544]. Tag team member Russavia wades in and makes blind reverts in support of Offliner[545]

I attempted to discuss the issue on talk again[546], which Offliner disingenuously portrayed as an "Outing" in an ANI report and the. I was subsequently indef-blocked, but it was overturned for reasons given in the block log and the ANI report, all before I even woke up the following morning and aware of what was happening, btw. This episode illustrates the methods with which Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername attempt deal with content disputes, by attempting to get their opponents blocked or banned.

The intent of the maillist

More to come

What's to be done

More to come

Evidence presented by Vlad_fedorov

Operation Sarindar saga

To follow

Alleged "coded death threats" by Biophys

I would like to pay the attention of the Arbitration committee to the following obstacles. Biophys claimed that by this diff he has got a threat from user Ellol.

1. Biophys has claimed here that:

Then he {Ellol - my note} reacts by posting the following message using Russian criminal slang and claiming that he only wants to understand my "level of modern colloquial Russian language". After a couple of meaningless phrases, he wrote the following continuous text:

"Everything can be done for money. "I do not like Putin". Coming to an agreement at the court of thieves is better than to be killed by Stiletto. [Your] creativity is shit. Author is fu...er. One must be punished for making too much noise. Fate of Yukos has been decided [by Putin] based on the laws of criminal world, not state laws. [You] pissed someone off by promoting nonsense"

2. The problem is that Biophys has incorrectly translated what was written there and ommited substantial parts of the message. And namely he ommitted the following (I am translating from the slang): "How many megabytes does you video card has?", "I am in extasy over your chick and car".

3. Translations done by Biophys are incorrect. For example "Бабки рулят" he traslated as "Everything can be done for money", while "Money rule" would be more correct. Further he translated "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок" as "Coming to an agreement at the court of thieves is better than to be killed by Stiletto", which is even more weird. He also added missing [You]'s in the text to aggreviate and to heat the situation, to create impression that these phrases are in the second person, e.g. are addressed to him personally.

4. His claim that this is Russian criminal slang is nonsense. While that slang originally was a criminal slang, nowdays it is widely used by everyone, even by Putin - "замочить в сортире" (to bump off in WC).

5. The question by Ellol cannot be really interpreted by Russian as an offense. And Ellol has repeated crystal clear in his last sentence of the message, that he intends to check the proficiency of Biophys in modern Russian slang.

6. Statament of Biophys about "continuous" text, of course, as you could see yourself is not true, since he ommitted some text.

Biophys behaviour in Institute of National Remembrance

In the article Institute of National Remembrance there was a heated debate over lustration laws of Poland, where all professors at the university should undego lustration. Because I have been studying law at Warsaw University and knew that law, I had found this text and inserted to the following text based on the law http://www.ipn.gov.pl/download.php?s=1&id=7967

"Current lustration by IPN is obligatory for 53 categories including all teachers, journalists, diplomats, ministers, members of parliament, public notaries, local government officials, judges, prosecutors, tax advisers, attorneys, all academics (pracownicy nauki i szkolnictwa wyzszego)".

Hence article 4 of this Lustration law currenty retains that all academics are subject for obligatory lustration.

Polish users Piotrus, Lysy, Balcer, Darwinek immediately appeared and began to harrass me at talk page claiming that my Polish is very bad, hinting that I had inserted this incorrecly. They have repeatedly deleted this sourced text and I was forced to mark the article as disputed.

And there suddenly, Biophys who is not proficient in Polish language appeared and deleted this flag, claiming No reason to dispute factual accuracy was provided at talk page. Everything is well sourced..

I wonder, the only person who has cited Polish sources in talk page and translated them was only me. How Biophys suddenly learned Polish and has became an expert in Polish law?

Moreover, suddenly IP 83.27.114.106 arrived from Wroclaw, who was actively reverting me. Could anyone check against the abovementioned parties this IP address? This IP also vandalized Japan WP article link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_of_National_Remembrance&diff=125864975&oldid=125864890.

Accusations of KGB agents, web brigades present in Wikipedia

I think that this ~~crap~~ accusation in crime alone is enough. Maybe Piotrus haven't showed him his morsel of wiki-wisdom If editors are disagreeing with you, consider that the most logical explanation is that you are wrong and/or in violation of the site policies (and if you don't even want to consider this, you have a problem), not because there are evil cabalists bent on getting you...? Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking by Biophys

This and this hasn't been evaluated by the Arbcom. I have been editing Freedom House article where Biophys never was engaged. But he arrived to other editors of this article pages evidently stalking and harrasing me.

User Biophys also openly acknowledged his personal stalking of me (user Vlad fedorov) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colchicum#Thank_you:

I cite Biophys confession published on the talk page of Colchicum:

Please note that it perfectly appropriate to follow logs of other users. 
We can do it. WP:STALK policy says: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been 
coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the 
same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or 
distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an 
editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean 
reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. 
The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." 
Obviously, it was Vlad who disrupted our work in Wikipedia. 
Biophys 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be easily seen that users Biophys and Colchicum conspired against me not because of stalking, but because my edits and contributions present other point of view, which they do not tolerate and make everything possible in order to harass and intimidate me.

Biophys also confessed in his message to me, that his articles indeed have mistakes [547], but he demanded that I should not correct his mistakes which is outrageus.

As could be seen from the following history pages, my edits are reverted or deleted by user Biophys in less than 24 hours after my edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Active_measures&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 16:56, 17 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (everything was supported by refereces; this is personal attack by two partisan users) .... (cur) (last) 08:37, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - You haver to prove the 'worldwide' character) (cur) (last) 08:15, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Promotion of terrorism worldwide - This statement is a blog entry and violates Wikipedia policy. The statement is also unsourced and not supported by where the citations were taken from.) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 15:07, 9 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (this is description of his books (read them!) - supported by references) (cur) (last) 07:59, 9 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (This is unsupported defamatory statement against ethnic Russians) <cut end>

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glasnost_Defence_Foundation&action=history

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 17:33, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (cur) (last) 08:15, 18 January 2007 Khatru2 (Talk | contribs) m (→Funding - disambig) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (→See also) (cur) (last) 12:45, 17 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk) (cur) (last) 08:12, 17 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Funding - see talk) (cur) (last) 07:52, 17 January 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Funding) <cut end>

It is therefore evident, that it's not me, but Biophys traces my contributions, for it is always Biophys who reverts my edits in no more than 24 hours often without any explanations.

I have edited Freedom House article and have a nice disscussion there. But Biophys is stalking me clearly by inserting the following texts: [548], [549], [550], [551].

BLP violations by Biophys

I would like to discuss here just the typical case. In the article dedicated to Russian security agency GRU [552], it was written that terrorist Shamil Basaev and Said-Magomed Kakiev, Said-Magomed Kakiev are 'Chechen GRU agents'. I have deleted these phrases, because there are no any evidence and sources that support these statements. Moreover, there are just allegations that Shamil Basaev was trained by some Intelleigence service long before the Chechen Conflict arised. Biophys however wrote a list of Chechen GRU agents, thereby presenting these pure allegations as established facts.

In less than 30 minutes my edits were reversed by Biophys,

<cut begin> (cur) (last) 05:18, 19 February 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Wikipedia articles that are provided as links) (cur) (last) 04:48, 19 February 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (→Chechen GRU agents - False unsupported statements removed) <cut end>

who has cited the following source: Land of the warlords, by Nick Paton Walsh, Guardian Unlimited as evidencing that Said-Magomed Kakiev and Said-Magomed Kakiev are Chechen GRU agents. However, in the article the following is written about these individuals:

"Alkhanov rang for the help of Said Magomed Kakiev", the powerful head of the "West" 
battalion of 900 Chechen fighters under the control of Russian military intelligence, the GRU.

Zair said Alkhanov has gained the support of not only Kakiev but Sulim Yamadayev, the 
head of the "East" battalion, 800 hardened special forces Chechens also under the 
control of the GRU.

It could be clearly seen that newspaper article doesn't say these individuals are GRU agents. It says just their battalions were under control of GRU which is a different thing at all. It follows therefore, that Biophys has repeatedly and intentionally reintroduced false disinformation by these edits into the article [553], [554] and [555]. And as such violated repeatedly Wikipedia policy.

Disruptive editing by Biophys

Deletion of pertinent information from the article dedicated to Yevgenia Albats. And specifically deletion of the information that her father has been GRU spy during the WW II. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yevgenia_Albats&diff=108373818&oldid=108344491 Please note that Biophys has never actually presented his arguments on deletion of this information on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats. According to the Wikipedia policy deletion of sources material is vandalism. It was evident that the information about Albats father compromises her neutrality as a researcher appointed on Parlament commission for the investigation of KGB activitites and compromises reliability of Albats claims. That's why Biophys initiated campaign for the deletion of such material.

Biophys also claimed on the talk page that the following sources: Boorishness as a World View by Yelena Kalashnikova (in Russian) Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)

violate BLP policy, because they are: 1) not neutral 2) controversial 3) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior 4) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud

However Biophys failed to show how these materials violate Wikipedia policies. There are no facts, evidence, whereabouts and so on. Again Biophys undertook the same false accusations campaign against sources and information he personaly dislikes and the same false flag campaign he was waging on the Boris Stomakhin. Just empty and unsubstantiated accusations.

I have reverted deletions by Biophys of well-sourced materials published by another author on the article Mitrokhin archive. This deletion could be seen here cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitrokhin_Archive&diff=107010834&oldid=106018891 I have reinserted these well-sourced statements, since they are reliable and definitely should be mentioned in the article. I have deleted Biophys's unsourced defamatory statements on Russians as ethnicity which incite ethnic hatred in the article David Satter. Please note that Biophys reinserts unsourced statements inciting ethnic hatred by following edits cur http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&diff=prev&oldid=107021411.

Deletion of good sources

I would like to notice that Biophys deletes well-sourced materials not for the first time. For example Biophys has deleted good source in the article State sponsored terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=102543018&oldid=102542124 Revision as of 23:23, 22 January 2007 (edit) (undo) Biophys (Talk | contribs) /* United States - reference to blog removed, non-working reference corrected) deleted the working link to [556]. I ask you to read his comments with attention, first Biophys claims that it is a blog, and second he claims the link is broken. But how he could say it is a blog if the link is actually broken? By the way, the source is not a blog and the link always works.

Every edit is explained and supported with specific arguments. FSB cannot be described as a secret police, since this term according to the respective Wikipedia article refers to the totalitarian states. I have corrected Biophys POV to NPOV, since CIA is not described as a secret police. As to the Human Rights article, I have employed the same approach which Biophys has taken in regard to the Izvestia article in Boris Stomakhin case. Biophys uses unconfirmed allegations of Anna Politkovskaya which is said was publishing her materials without verifications and presents them as facts and not as unconfirmed allegations.Parfitt, Tom (2006-10-08). "Assassin's Bullet Kills Fiery Critic of Putin". The Observer. Retrieved 2006-10-09. Moreover, in the cited sources on Russian there are no allegations of Politkovskaya that people were detained because of their religion, while Biophys inserted these claims into the passage dedicated to the freedom of religion, which is evidently is not appropriate. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-reply to Biophys re Stomakhin and inciting

First of all, claims by Biophys that passage written by Stomakhin "Kill, Kill, Kill" is poorly sourced are false. This passage was indeed written by Stomakhin, which is confirmed by (1) his personal article, containing this and published on the website of his Radical organization named Radical Contact Organization (RKO) (http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm ) and, (2) citation of the same passage in respectable newspaper Izvestia http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/ .

I just wonder why Biophys is so stubborn in denying respectable journalists, Stomakhin himself and a newspaper?

This citation is necessary in the article to acknowledge people with the activities of this so-called "dissdent", because thanks to Biophys the whole article is filled only by the statements from human rights activist organization and etc. (I am not against of these present in the artucke too though) defending Stomakhin and painting him as innocent dissendent, while he is not, which is creating WP:UNDUE and diverting the reader from the barefeet facts. Stomakhin indeed issued public calls to exterminate all Russians, which is obviously not a feature of dissident.

Biophys has written in the preamble unsourced original research that Stomakhin was punished by state, because Stomakhin criticized government's action in Chechnya, which do not correspond to the facts. While I agree that this is explanation by human rights organizations and should be cited as such in the article, I think such opinions should not have place in the preamble.

Goodness, people in the UK are jailed because they issue death threats via e-mails (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Teen-Jailed-Facebook-Britain-Threat,news-4493.html), and this is not the first precedent. Here we have an individual who has supported Chechenian terrorists like Basaev, naming them "heros", and called to kill all Russians.

Secondly, no one pays attention to the fact, that in Russian wikipedia the article about Stomakhin is absolutely opposite to the English WP article written by Biophys. We have two absolutely different opinions on who is Stomakhin. I am not saying that all WP article should be the same or shouldn't have different POV's. But agree, it can't be that in the US article Osama Bin Laden is named terrorist and a dissident in Russian article, it can't be that Donald Trupm is a fatcat here, and the "US evildoer" in Russian WP. There are many Russian WP users present in English WP, who are more, in general, objective and knowledgeable about life in Russia and Russian politics than Biophys, and who would disagree with him.

Thirdly, Biophys in "coded death threats" incident has clearly shown his inproficiency and absence of knowledge at least in modern Russian. He even couldn't correctly understand what is written to him on Russian. See above for the evidence.

I urge the Arbcom to investigate this matter thorougly and involve independent Russian translators and recheck all the texts and link texts. From the very beginning my arbcom was very quick and surface, because no one has vaded into the evaluation of Russian sources, and, hence, no one established numerous violations of Wikipedia policies which were done by Biophys (deleting sourced texts, creating undue weight, inserting blog links as reliable sources, revert wars and etc.). Yes, I have violated WP policies too, since I lost my patience and Biophys is craftful guy (I need to acknowledge) in that, after all (we see this from his e-mail list and Russavia witchhunt). However, this doesn't diminsh the fact that my mistakes were done because of a reason. And that reason was - actions of Biophys.

As for inciting of ethnic hatred, I have cited the diff and you could evaluate yourself if it is. I think this citation from David Satter, which says that psychology of every Russian is influenced by criminalization, e.g. criminal psychology, is unscientific, bandwagon and simply incorrect. Every lawyer, specilizing in criminal law knows that the US have the highest crime level in the world, if not the highest Russian crime level is a way less. However, none has ever claimed that the US citizens have criminal psychology in WP. We may just rephrase this citation which is insulting, but we can't leave it as is, IMHO. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Sander Säde

As a first thing I would like to say that I felt honored when I was invited to the list in June (not re-joined like Offliner claims). I still feel the same, the list accomplished a lot, including unofficial (and much more effective) mediations between various groups/editors - which on-wiki would undoubtedly caused a lot of drama and possible blocks of hard-working editors. The second purpose of the mailing list was to create a high-quality NPOV content in which I think the list was extremely successful.

None of my decisions or actions on Wikipedia have never been something I would have not done without the mailing list. If an AfD or content dispute was mentioned on the list, I was only involved if I had an opinion about the article/issue. I do believe all others did the same. In many cases of AfD's mentioned in the list, I would have noticed them or changes in articles - as I monitor edits by Vecrumba, Martintg and some others (none of whom is a member of the pro-Soviet cabal) - and I have scripts that allow me to monitor all changes in WikiProject Estonia articles.

Unlike what Russavia claims, no one list never sought to eradicate pro-Soviet/anti-Baltics propaganda from Wikipedia. We wanted to balance it by introducing alternate viewpoints (and remove obvious lies, see below), always using valid sources - something that was always a very sore point for the pro-Soviet cabal, as their sources often were... shall we say, lacking.

In this stage, I am not going to address every single claim made by said cabal - quite frankly, I have a life outside Wikipedia and simply have no time to edit three days in a row like some of the pro-Soviet cabal members apparently can. I am just going to point out the most glaring errors and issues - either intentional or logical.

However, I feel... shocked is the best expression - that Arbitration Committee allows private e-mails containing highly personal information to be openly discussed and shared. Let us not forget that no matter what our imagined or real wrongdoings, nothing of this is even closely comparable to the hacker releasing the archive, committing a mass outing - especially as some of our list members have already received death threats. I propose that owning and use of the archive is allowed only by ArbCom, mailing list members and persons whom the mailing list members allow to analyze the archive. All references by others to the e-mails must be removed and any attempt to use the archive should be followed by an indefinite block. No matter what rules apply to the members of ArbCom, there must be an extremely strong message that hacking or using hacked material to "get" your opponent is not allowed.

AfD's

I would like to remind everybody that AfD's are not voting. Closing administrator will read the opinions and arguments - and decide then. So all claims about canvassing on list are moot - not to mention, I don't have the said archive, but I don't remember ever seeing an e-mail saying "Nnn is in AfD! Vote keep!!!". Considering the high personal integrity of list members, I find claims of such conduct a nasty attempts to discredit us.

Amusingly, in his list of AfD's, Russavia brings an example of canvassing where I had given my opinion already before the e-mail in the list. Russavia also misspells my name there. In the same AfD Russavia calls Kaitsepolitsei "Estonian KGB", a highly insulting comparison - and refuses to remove it after it has been pointed out.

There are many examples by Russavia and Offliner where they accuse us of cabalism and canvassing in relation to AfD's. Let us see those AfD's they mention from the other side:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia: delete by Offliner, Russavia, DonaldDuck
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination): delete by Offliner, Russavia, PasswordUsername
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend: delete by DonalDuck, Russavia
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings: delete by Russavia, DonaldDuck, Offliner
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings (2nd nomination): delete by Offliner, Russavia, PasswordUsername
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia: delete by Offliner, Russavia, DonaldDuck
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia: keep by PasswordUsername, Russavia, Offliner,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide: delete by Offliner, Russavia, PasswordUsername

I think comments are unnecessary.

Edit warring

Again, arbitrators must not be deceived by simply presented diffs, but must actually look at the content being removed/added. Otherwise you might see reverts of such material as "Children are often molested" inserted by PasswordUsername to Crime in Estonia ([557], one of the most shameful edits I have seen all of the time I've been in Wikipedia. Do look at his edit spree on that article and draw conclusions yourself) as simply edit warring.

Let's have some other examples.

Mark Sirõk

BLP article includes personal health information sourced to a web forum (something that is very much against BLP rules - and also illegal). Shotlandiya, Offliner and PasswordUsername edit war to include blatant BLP violation.

In his "evidence" PasswordUsername claims he had only one edit in the article. Strangely I count 18 of them, including at least four attempts to reinstate BLP-violating health information: [558], [559], [560], [561].

PasswordUsername accuses me on this very page of joining "Digwuren in their attempts to discredit Mark Sirok" - which was inserting well-sourced material about Sirõk. In effect, he accuses me of an attempt to improve the article.

And I invite everybody to read two comments by Shotlandiya on the talk page, [562]. This is what we are dealing with almost daily.

Jaak Aaviksoo (Estonian Minister of Defense, high-profile BLP)

Shotlandiya and PasswordUsername attempt to portray Jaak Aaviksoo as neo-Nazi, by misrepresenting an extremely poor source: [563], [564], [565], [566], [567], [568], [569], [570], [571], [572], [573]. The quality of the source can be deduced from the fact that as it came out, Jaak Aaviksoo did not even participate in the event at which PasswordUsername and Shotlandiya attempted to have him wearing Nazi symbols (see Talk:Jaak_Aaviksoo#Controversy_section) - but even that source did not have him wearing Nazi symbols. That was a misrepresentation of the source.

Kaitsepolitsei

[574], [575] - PasswordUsername attempts to insert material equating Estonian Security Police with Nazi Political Police, based on the similarities of a translated name. That despite the fact that all Kaitsepolitsei members were murdered by Soviet forces during their occupation before the Nazi occupation - and that Republic of Estonia did not de facto exist.

Russavia and Offliner edit war to include critizism based on a blog post and a self-published book by Johan Bäckman: [576], [577], [578], [579], [580], [581] (I probably missed quite a few, as the mess is hard to untangle).

I do hope that this shows clearly with what Eastern/Northern European editors have to put up with. I have brought examples only from three articles - but there are dozens that have suffered a similar fate. I hope other editors and arbitrators will look at the articles and edits very closely before making any decisions.

On Dojarca's evidence

Dojarca claims that Occupation of Baltic states "currently present one point of view as the truth", which is not true. Article has several sections representing alternate viewpoints - Occupation of Baltic states#Soviet sources prior to Perestroika, Occupation of Baltic states#Russian historiography in the post-Soviet era, Occupation of Baltic states#Position of the Russian Federation. If there is any sourced viewpoints missing, then I do not understand why Dojarca doesn't simply add them. Quite frankly, I do not understand why he brings it up, as even a glance on the mediation (more then 1.5 years before the creation of the mailing list) and article talk page shows that there is a wide support for the current version, which has been more or less stable for years. This seems to be just an attempt to remove alternate viewpoint from Wikipedia - an extremely well sourced viewpoint supported by majority of historians/sources.

Evidence presented by William M. Connolley

Emails from me on the list

It has been said to me that at least one email sent by me to a list member has appeared in the archive. Since I haven't seen the archive I cannot verify this, but I'm including below a copy from my gmail archives of the message said to be present (I was not asked, and I did not give, permission for this mail to be forwarded).

From: William Connolley <wmconnolley@gmail.com>
Date: 2009/2/2
Subject: Re: Regarding [removed - WMC] 3RR report
To: [removed - WMC]

This is all very well, but if you care to fix up the report to show
why the reverts really are, please do. If not, its not really a 3RR
problem and needs to go to DR

-William
[email I was replying to, and my sig, removed - WMC]

This is of vague relevance as it may demonstrate that (a) at least portions of the archive are genuine and (b) that some member of the list has been rather less scrupulous about respecting the privacy of other peoples mail than they appear to be about their own. Note that part of my sig contained my phone number, which was therefore posted to the list. This contradicts the assertion that No any private information was disclosed in emails, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others in wikimedia space.

Confirmed that the above email was posted, with WMC's phone number intact, to the list on 2 Feb 2009 as message 20090202-2236-[WPM] Fwd_Regarding Russavia's 3RR report. Thatcher 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has now become clear, this email was forwarded by Marting; see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Accidental_forwarding_of_one_of_William_Connelly.27s_emails (sic) for his explanation. I am disinclined to believe him, on the evidence provided. If he does want to believed, then he needs to permit access to his gmail account to a trusted third party who can verify his assertion of habitual forwarding-with-comments William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Thatcher

My "controversial" imposition of 1RR

Following a request for Arbitration Enforcement, I imposed a 1RR restriction on a broad range of editors whom I felt were "involved" in the Eastern European disputes. This action was vigorously protested, then appealed. Following another lengthy discussion, a request for clarification was filed. Two arbitrators and several admins, in the various discussions, commented on the need for "doing the paperwork" of posting a formal notice and warning before imposing the 1RR limit. Therefore I rescinded the 1RR limits.

Please note

The parties had been coordinating their reverts for months
The parties had discussed using 1RR limits against other editors
The parties coordinated their response to Shell Kinney's offer to "analyze" the EE situation and find out what the problem with EE articles was
The parties coordinated their responses to my imposition of 1RR
The parties complained on-list because I vacated all the 1RR sanctions I had imposed instead of just the ones they wanted removed
Radek thinks I'm a crybaby and writes a long draft complaint about how I undermined the process, and wants to get the sanction against Russavia, Offliner and PasswordUsername reinstated.
Piotrus suggests sending the complaint to Kirill (I wonder why)

The entire episode is breathtaking in its duplicity. I think a few people ought to have egg on their faces, and I think anyone who answers any complaint at WP:AE involving any of these people is an idiot. Arbcom can clean this mess up.

Digwuren

Digwuren has "retired" in order to reincarnate with a clean record. (20090707-0759)

The attention of the Arbitrators is specifically drawn to these messages

Proof of intent to coordinate reverts

20090402-2239 reference
20090621-1920
20090603-1647
20060605-2009

Edit warring at Tsarist autocracy

20090506-1615 [582] [583] [584] [585] [586] [587]
20090507-0101 [588] [589] (never edited prior) (correction: Radek was not subscribed to the list at this time)
20090509-0513 [590] (full history with that article)

Nope, no improper cooperation here, nothing to see, move along

20090619-1800

File under "wishful magical thinking"

20090619-2134

Pest control

2009621-2047 et seq. [591] [592] [593] [594] [595] [596]
- Note especially the construction of a "cover story" about the above diff could have innocently come to certain users' attention
- And the double standard (20090610-0947)
- [597]
- kind of funny, in retrospect
- Good recap here

We can haz ur mail but U kant haz ours

20090622-0539
20090202-2236

1RR is favorable to us because we have the numbers

20090622-1805

Piotrus proposes to create socks for reverting

20090701-0204

Misc evidence of bad faith

Compare 20090616-1120 and [598]
20090615-0607 ORLY?
Compare 20090618-1441 and 20090618-1933, ROFL [599] [600]
20090619-0038 and 20090619-1112 Soup?

Evidence presented by Dojarca

Activity of the group in the article Occupation of Baltic states and avoiding dispute resolution procedures

Article Occupation of Baltic states currently present one point of view as the truth. Any attempts to make it more neutral meet with fierce resistance of the members of the Baltic POV-pushing group, who are engaged in this case. User Hiberniantears, an administrator (see his statement above in this page), tried to neutralize the article by moving it to a more neutral title Baltic states and the Soviet Union, an attempt that failed and led to creation of a new article on the same topic, with the article under the old title also remaining. Hiberniantears has been personally attacked for "moving against consensus" with threats of desysoping. A meditation case opened by Hiberniantears and supported by another administrator John Carter and me, has been unanymously rejected by the members of the group (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Occupation of the Baltic states):

Agree on meditation:

Decline meditation:

This clearly indicates their bad faith and "we have numbers so we do not need talking" approach.

The mailing list revealed that the group deliberately agreed not to accept the mediation in hope that the opposing party would have no options to proceed with. It should be also noted that the results of the previous meditation case (before the group adopted the tactic to reject any meditation), which concerned the POV tag in the article, were rejected and the mediator personally attacked [601].

In 20090430-0433 it is suggested by Digwuren to stonewall the mediation process, and do not reply. He also advises to completely ignore me, and in the case I opened an ArbCom case on the issue, to ignore that case as well.

In 20090429-2353 the same user argue on how to direct my attention to another topic. Considered South Ossetia, but rejected based on that I have no interest in that topic. Finally proposed to add something provocative in the article on Chernobyl accident which I recently edited.

Some comments by John Carter on the unpleasant behavior of PetersV TALK (Vecrumba) you can find here: [602]. The whole dicussion is put under spoiler by Vecrumba himself (possibly to hide it): [603]

User Loosemark and Radeksz

User:Loosmark is involved in edit-warring in Soviet invasion of Poland including attempts to change a link to an article into a link to a redirect to the same article: [604][605] which is a clear case of disruption. He also violated a topic-ban, imposed on him by editing articles on Polish-Ukrainian relations [606]. Administrator Sandstein admitted the topic ban violation, but refused to take any action [607], so I urge the ArbCom to issue a reprisal.

Now Radeksz, a participant in the cabal continues with Loosmark a campaign of coordinated reverts[608] in German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk trying to represent point of view that the parade was a joint victory parade as a historical fact (actually according the primary sources the parade was a part of German withdrowal ceremony).

Suva: IRC coordination and seeking support of government bodies in disruption of Wikiperdia

20090325-2118 Biophys: Suva prefers IRC to e-mail coordination
20090428-0510 Suva proposed somebody to look through articles on nuclear warfare and "correct" them
20090523-0823 Suva has relevant contacts to interest Estonian embassy in the English Wikipedia because it is more useful
20090531-2329 Suva again "defend each other"

Template:Soviet occupation

This template was created by Digwuren to attack the Soviet Union and integrates information about completely irrelated events, such as Soviet poarticipation in allied occupation of Europe during and after WWII with such things as Soviet war in Afghanistan. The template also presents point of view that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR as a historical fact (dispite this being disputed by Russia). The initial version of the template included the ongoing Russian-Japanese territorial dispute over Kuril islands as an instance of "Soviet occupation" (altough even Japan does not consider the territories currently occupied, only pointing out that Khrushchev promised to return them to Japan)

A deletion case [609] was heavily mobbed by the mailing list members (Digwuren, Martintg, Piotrus, Vecrumba and others). It was closed as "no consensus" although most uninvolved users voted for deletion.

Ousting and removing any Russian and pro-Russian authors and sources

There are numerous instances when the mailing list members removed from articles references to Russian historians Dyukov, Meltyukhov, Vishlyov and others accusing them of holding "fringe" views. It should be noted that these historians are professionals specialized in Russian history and all have academic degrees. For example:

Radeksz you can add any reliable source, but not Dyukov [610]
Termer: advocating expulsion any modern Russian and former Soviet points of view from Wikipedia (especially relatad to Baltic politics) on the basis they were produced by "totalitarian or semi-totalitarian societies" [611]
Termer: advocating Soviet sources should be separated from all other sources on the basis the USSR did not belong to "Western civilization" [612]
Attempt by Vecrumba to change Wikipedia's rules to prohibit use of Soviet sources, including declassified archives "because they may be forged" [613]. He is supported by Piotrus and Sander Säde (Russian sources are fringe because they go against Western(=international) sources).
Radeksz, Biophys: Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not a reliable source [614], edit-warring with an uninvolved editor, removing the references.
The disappointed editor asked for a comment at WP:RS [615], but who answers him? Only Piotrus, Martintg, Digwuren, all are participants of this mailing list, thus creating impression that there is consensus to exclude Soviet sources (note that this event happened before the starting date of the mailing list, which clearly indicates that the off-wiki coordination existed much earlier).

So I request the ArbCom to clarify whether these sources are acceptable in Wikipedia and if yes, issue remedies againt removal of such sources.

On the previous arbitration case

The previous arbitration case [616] concerning Digwuren and other members of the cabal turned to be a complete fail. The decision, proposed by a former ArbCom member Kirill Loshkin shocked many. Dispite the concrete evidence of IRC conspiracy in which Digwuren asked another user to trade GA promotions of their articles and promote his Soviet occupation denialism into GA just a few hours after creation and numerous other disruptive behavior, he was banned only for a year. Another user User:Petri Krohn who by the time did not edit any EE-related topic for several months was also banned for a year for something looking like political statements on the talk pages. Dispite massive evidence against EE-POV-pushing group, the arbitrators applied the same sanctions against many good faith users. As I know some good contributors, notably, Irpen, left Wikipedia after first time seeing the decision.

The decision also included the right for any administrator to block any user in EE topic on sight, which scared the remaining good faith users from the topic. For example, I abandoned EE-related topics for a long time not to risk to be blocked by a random admin. This allowed the Cabal to further their agenda in any article without any opposition.

I hope the ArbCom will be able to learn from previous mistakes.

Victims

It is now evident that a number of Wikipedia's users became victims of the attack by this group. I urge the ArbCom to perform extensive investigation on who of the Wikipedia's users became victim of the baiting campaigns directed by the participants of the mailing list group.

I ask the ArbCom to provide clarification if this [617] edit by Petri Krohn which led to his year-long ban really contains any break with the policy as it is evident now that he was mobbed by "false consensus" to ban him from the community.

I know no Wikipedia's rules which he broke and I strongly disagree with the previous ArbCom decision to block him for a year which in my view was motivated by false sence of neutrality (i.e. to apply equal sanctions to both sides of the dispute regardless of their actual behavior) after Martintg's appeal that the proposed remedies are "assymetric" apparently because Kirill Loshkin's Russian background. It is pity that an ArbCom mamber became vulnerable for such kind of allegations and quickly retreated.

Radeksz, Biophys, Piotrus: Evidence of coordinated activity during the arbitration

Radeksz and Biophys during this ArbCom investigation conduct coordinated reverts in Communist terrorism [618] [619]. After RFC was opened Piotrus arrived to support their cause as an "uninvolved commenter"[620]

Evidence presented by Grey Fox-9589

On the history of these disputes

I was only a minor editor in the past, but I edited a lot for Russian related articles. The reason why I eventually became inactive was due to a very large amount of Russian users who would defend dozens of articles about Russian-history, primarily focusing on defending the policies of the present-day Russian government. This defending happened on an enormous scale, everywhere ultra-nationalist users would edit-war, continue disputes without ever searching for compromises (some of the disputes are going on for years still!), pretty much glorifying Russia in every field, using peculiar Russian sources and in effect using Wikipedia as a tool of propaganda rather than to build a well-balanced encyclopedia. The topics were mostly the defending of Russian politicians, political groups, Soviet History, Russia’s military conflicts such as the war with Georgia and the wars in Chechnya, human rights articles concerning Russia, and articles about journalists / human rights defenders critical of the post-soviet government in Russia, including many who have over the past years been assassinated. Nowadays few of these articles are reliable and it doesn’t look like they’re going to become reliable anytime soon.

During the outbreak of the war with Georgia a large amount of new nationalist users have popped up, most of who people are still dealing with today. Characteristically they will always defend each other during disputes, always support each other during block/article votes and make it impossible for new editors to make any changes to the articles. This is about when I left and deemed wiki too unrealizable for controversial subjects. Other editors who did not want to give up created the mail-list we are discussing today. Only with co-operating their activities, as they believed, could they offer any resistance. Though the mail-list was a wrong move of them and should indeed be judged as a violation of wiki policies, the context in which it happened should most certainly be taken into account.

Alex Bakharev / Piotrus

I noticed a lot of complaints about user:Piotrus from Russian users. His presence on the mailing list was obviously wrong, but that he was a single administrator conspiring with several users and therefore disrupted wiki seems like an unfair judgment to me. I’m pretty sure a small number of administrators, usually with a Russian background, have in the past defended the nationalist users no matter how disruptive they were. One of them was User:Alex Bakharev. Though it wasn’t a systematic campaign by him, he would often offer his support for nationalist users no matter how disruptive they were. I don’t have the time to go through all the past archives and find out all the actions I think were biased, but a few stuck with me, which were about preventing several nationalist users from getting banned:

(June 2007) [621] Here ultra-nationalist user User:M.V.E.i. was indefinitely blocked for some hideous violations. Alex Bakharev defends M.V.E.i and attempts (and eventually succeeds) to unblock him. See the history of M.V.E.i’s talk page for more information [622] (He would get indef’d again).

(September 2008) [623] Here another nationalist user is about to get banned for outing User:Biophys. Alex Bakharev opposes the banning and defends the user but when this doesn’t seem to help and the user is about to get indef’d, alex blocks him for 13 days in a sneaky attempt to prevent the indef ban from taking place. The user got indef’d anyway by another admin.

(December 2008) [624] Here an ultra-nationalist ‘cossack from the Russian army’ (just check userpage history) gets banned by arbcom with a 7 to 0 vote for several unbelievable violations. Not however without the defense from Alex on the talk page who opposed the banning and dubbed himself an 'uninvolved' admin.

After User:Ellol made an alleged-coded death threat to User:Biophys (as explained above by biophys himself) it was User:Alex Bakharev who concluded that nothing like that had happened. I’ve always wondered what a different admin with an understanding of Russian would have concluded, one who isn’t known for being biased that is.

User:Alex Bakharev also defended User:Russavia when he got banned recently for several violations, both before and after he received the archives of this mailing list. Knowing how disruptive Russavia has been I too believed this was extremely biased.

User:Russavia received more support from Russian admin User:Ezhiki who also protested Russavia’s ban (before the archives were leaked). I had no knowledge of this admin before, except for that he had been working on several articles together with Russavia, and Russavia’s talk page suggests the two certainly helped each other out a lot with some articles. This means another involved Russian admin tried to prevent a nationalist user from getting banned.

So why do I believe this is relevant? Due to User:Piotrus now being labeled an unreliable admin, who supposedly disrupted wiki, without proper context, which is that ‘the other side’ had their own support from an admin as well. I don’t believe any of these administrators are necessarily bad administrators and I don’t hold a personal grudge to any of them.

(remainder of contribution removed to /Talk as was non-evidentiary - Manning (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Molobo

Reasons why the list was attractive as base for discussion or why there is no atmosphere of friendliness and encyclopedic content writing

They are several reasons why the list was attractive as base for discussion which result from flaws of Wikipedia structure. The very structure provides no protection against incivility, persistent intimidation by other users, or constant attempts by single minded users to introduce Nazi or Nazi-influenced scholarship into wiki masquerading as reliable sources. Despite the claims that Wikipedia should be ran in a friendly and encyclopedic atmosphere almost nothing is done to create such a situation.

Examples

Incivility

~~For instance; using Nazi slur for Poles- „banditen” by Skappord against other editors. spricht schon Bände~~

Campaign of intimidation against users working on Nazi and Polish-German related articles

Skapperod constantly engaged in attempts to own Nazi and Polish-German related articles in attempting to silence other users with different views by constantly reporting them to admins:

Persistent edit warring on Polish articles

Example:

Skapperod made numerous reverts(>3R) day by day through May 6 till 25 in order to push a German nationalist version of the Polish name or to remove Polish names[630]

Despite this behavior he instead reported others (see above) for alleged violations of Wiki rules.

Disregard for community consensus to use Polish city's official sites as source on information about their history

Attempts at forum shopping:

Community consensus against supposed rejection of Polish sources: [631]

And second time: [632]

And third time: [633]

Ignoring the results: [634]

Introducing publications of Nazi Germany's Reich Ministry of Propaganda in 1934 as reliable source on Polish-German history

see thread Nazi Publication as source of information regarding Polish German history ?

Portraying Nazi Germany's propaganda as a reliable source on Wikipedia

[[635]

Trying to ban scholarly research on Nazi atrocities in Poland from Wikipedia

After I wrote that most available research on Nazi atrocities in Poland comes from before 1989[636] (I write this in a page of a user Skapperod engaged in dispute and quickly reported to ANI), and expanded articles on Nazi atrocities using a 1987 book [637], Skapperod almost instantly started a topic on RS demanding Wikipedia-wide ban of all Polish publications published...before 1989 [638]

Take note that no objection was made by user Skapperod to use of Nazi propaganda publications earlier.

Removing information about the Nazi genocide

Skapperod’s removal of information that Nazi's committed genocide and mass murder [639]

[640]

Concealing identity of right wing extremist author who wrote for Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal ?

Here[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Possible_BLP_issue] Note words „A booksearch has not turned out any matches of the subject's name and right-wing exremism”

Follow up research by others revealed books and publications showing that the person in question published in Holocaust Revisionism/Denial journal, and is mentioned as a far-right-wing activist [641].

Describing people supportive of former Nazi regime and responsible for ethnic cleansing theory as „respectable historians”

[642]

The list includes, for example, Werner Conze, who advocated "dejewification" of territory occupied by Nazi Germany and its colonization by Germans[643]

Conclusion

“Assume good faith” does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. I can understand one mistake where a Nazi influenced research was given as source, but when this happens several times, when information about Nazi genocide and repression is being removed, when author writing for major Holocaust Denial magazine is portrayed as a reliable historian-I can't assume AGF anymore. Unfortunately the present atmosphere of Wikipedia is such that one can't oppose this in a way that will not lead to intimidation of the person reporting it. If civility and reliable resources were to be enforced on Wikipedia then I would not considered the list as typical. As above samples of much wider behavior show, editors are intimidated and insulted and defend themselves constantly rather then write content

Positive aspects of the list

Encouraging content creation, discouraging edit warring and wiki-lawyering

I advised editors to engage in content writing and expansion of articles. In the real archived emails you will find a sentence that I can freely quote:

One advice I have to offer is that discussing, wiki-lawyering leads to immense stress-it's way more satisfying to create content ! For example I did go away from wiki to library and wrote article based on books, only then returned.

Providing a pool of experts for source gathering

The list provided a number of scholarly experts on various subjects who could be called on to look for sources. There were requests for sources, which were answered. In all cases this happened without the problem of the discussion being derailed by somebody being incivil or pointing to some discussion on AE in attempt to silence the user.

Providing a watch for vandalism

The list provided an opportunity to watch for vandalism such as attempts to introduce Nazi propaganda literature into article about causes of World War 2: [644]

Desire to write content rather then take part in constant disputes on Wikipedia's non-article pages

I am not good at Wikipedia politics. Let’s be honest here and speak openly; a lot of things on Wiki depend on social skills and ability to present your case. I am an expert on history and books, not on people. It is easy to attack me in a way that I don't know how to respond to. I would feel a lot better if Civility on Wiki would be respected and a lot more time could be spent on articles rather then administrative pages.

Conclusion

Administrators should look at long term consequences of any sanctions, and the essential effects the list had - positive. It was an attempt (and parts of the emails will show that clearly) as an effort to write a better, well sourced Wikipedia articles that would be NPOV. If Radek will give me permission I will quote his emails about need to focus on that. Was anybody banned due to the actions of this group ? Was any Wikipedia article hurt by its actions ? Was there a problem with incredible amount of propaganda being pushed in certain areas of Wikipedia? Who supported reliable modern accepted sources, rather then publications of Nazi Germany, for example ?

Response to others

Alex statement about my alleged involvement against Russavia

I am surprised that Alex in his statement denouncing the alleged hunt for Russavia mentioned me as the most active. I hardly mentioned Russavia at all, besides one email that I know of, which was made after I noticed he was banned. I am left to wonder why Alex decided to portray me as one involved in the Russavia's ban at all. I do understand that my name draws attention to certain editors, and one off-wiki forum I noticed commented that this was probably done simply to draw attention to the case

Alex's claim of alleged stalking of Russavia and “1500 mails about Russiavia”

To be honest I didn't even know much about Russavia before this case opened. I noted he was in disagreement with some editors, generally uncivil and I informed others when he was banned. But I never engaged in any kind of stalking or hunting him down as alleged by Alex. Also to me the only kind of “conflict” with an editor is both concerned with content creation and solved by content creation. I never proposed any “dirty tricks” on the list towards normal contributors-I always urged content creation and expansion of articles as a way with dealing with POV edits. My criticism was in regards to Nazi resources and blanking of information.

Regarding to canvassing and vote stocking allegations

As I understand canvassing and vote stocking requires editors of uniform view with friendly relation to each other. As the evidence in real archive will show there was no uniform view and not only members disagreed with each other on several topics, but there were sometimes insults flying around between members of the list which required moderation :)

Response to Skapperod

Despite Skapperod's claim, I am not blocked at Commons nor ever was

I am not blocked at commons[645]. So Skapperod's allegation that Radek proxied for me there is simply both untrue and simply irresponsible

Regarding contact with other editors

None of the editors EVER proxied for me. From the beginning every editor that I was in contact with made a statement that they would always review any source or information I would provide and change it so that he can truthfully say he can stand by their edits. Any glimpse into the REAL archive will show that not only was this the standard procedure but also I also insisted that any changes and reviews would be made. Can Skapperod's show us what damage was done by actions he alleges?

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Piotrus sourcing an article about Nazi politician

I provided online, available sources to editors. After a review Piotrus decided to include them in an article. I noted that now the template for an unsourced article probably isn't needed. That’s all.

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Jacurek's expansion of an article about a Nazi activist responsible for plans of ethnic cleansing

I provided available sources from the internet to the list, and included some text for review by the list members. A discussion followed, after which editors discussed the article for several days and then decided to expand it with resources with any changes they saw fit.

Regarding Skapperod's accusations against Radeks expansion of legal definitions of post-1945 international law

I warned several times fellow editors not to engage in edits on that article due to heavy pov fighting and disruption that goes on there. However I also noted that I am willing to provide any sources and information that might be interesting. Radek used one of them after the usual review and making of changes which he saw fit.

Regarding Skapperod's accusation that Tymek introduced other description of poster then user Matthead's

This was an insertion of an image uploaded by Matthead with his own POV commentary [646]. It was presented as original description, included in the source, by Skapperod and others. I pointed out the origin of the description and lack of source.

Throughout the debate Skapperod's claimed the description by Matthead was original[647], tag teaming with Herkus Monte [648] to reinsert the false information

The "commons description" was created by Matthead[649] and was not the real description of the picture as was claimed by Skapperod's and his tag team.

Skapperod's accusation against reverts of a long known IP vandal (most likely Helga Jonat-banned user by Jimbo Wales at 2002 )

The edits of this IP vandal are nothing new, he started with the same bizarre and non-sourced extreme POV claims several years ago and is for all likelihood the proxy of H Jonat-a banned user from 2002 with the similar views and editing style[650]. This IP vandal has been active for years[651] but due to changing number of his IP nothing was done to stop him as he can't be traced. They are numerous examples of reverting his edits by users also from outside the list, so it had little to do with his treatment.

Kołobrzeg

I noted that several edits of Skapperod's concealed deletion of material on Polish history. I provided sources for editors to consider and sent them over for review and to have them make any article based on them as they see fit.

During the discussion I noticed that Skapperod repeats his claim that Polish cities official websites can't be used as source on information on those cities, despite several discussion's where the community disagreed with him after he tried to remove Polish sources from articles about those cities:.

Responce to Future Perfect at Sunrise

I logged to Wikipedia yesterday to see what's going on and to edit some of the text I entered. No less then six hours later Future Perfect at Sunrise posts how I falsify evidence based on the fact that I didn't immedietelyedit what he demands on my talk page. Perhaps he should be willing to give others time to review what was posted and respond in timely manner ? This kind of agressive and incivil behaviour is what damages Wikipedia.For the record I am reviewing the information he provided along with dozens of others. I do not concentrate my life only on Wiki so it will take time before I respond to everything.--Molobo (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I think that in all case of "coordinated warring" admins will find out that the "edit war" actually was improvement of the article-with new references and expanded information. Sometimes this included pointing out or removal of Nazi or Nazi-influenced information. What damage was done to Wikipedia by those actions I ask. Can anybody point some articles harmed by mentioned activities ?----Molobo (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by LokiiT

Even though I'm an uninvolved party and haven't much to contribute regarding the cabal itself, I've been directly attacked and feel the need to defend myself.

Response to evidence by Biophys

Biophys accused[655] me of being a "sockupuppet account created for edit warring". First of all, I should note the odd nature of this accusation, being that I am, as I mentioned, an uninvolved party, therefore none of that is relevant, and secondly, the fact that everything he mentioned occurred well over a year ago before this cabal existed (as far as I know). I'm not sure what motivated him to launch this attack on me.

Regarding the accusation itself, it's entirely false and baseless. LokiiT was an alternate account that I created with the intent to edit specific articles that my main account, Krawndawg, was not involved in (Yes, I realize this is still against policy, details below). Now if you look at this account's earliest contributions[656], you can see that I was simply making legit edits to an article, and my first edit[657] was even an explanation of the problems I felt the article had. Then Biophys came along and started to revert war with me, and was generally being very disruptive with accusations of "copyright infringement".[658] You can be the judge on whether or not he was really worried about copyright infringement given the nature of my edits, and the biases that Biophys clearly has regarding the subject matter. That revert was his first edit in the article in months. And also note that he made a full revert of a series of changes, despite the fact that this alleged "copyright infringement" was only one small part of the edit. This is a revert war tactic that Biophys used constantly. He would point out something regarding one little detail of an edit and use it as an excuse to do an entire rollback. I'm pretty sure others have mentioned that here too, and I was once blocked for commenting on that fact.[659] This is an example of how he (and I assume others of this cabal) were capable of pushing people over the limit with their subtle but relentless disruptive editing.

Anyways, you can look at all my earliest contributions and see that aside from edit warring with Biophys, which he initiated, I was making regular contributions and not using this as an edit-war account. You can also compare my edit history to Krawndawg's and see that they did not edit in the same articles, much less to edit war. Therefore I feel that his accusation against me is an unprovoked attack, entirely baseless, and very perplexing at that.

Biophys' disruption and harassment drove me to create sockpuppets

I wrote about this on the workshop page, but I feel it belongs in the evidence bin.

I have to first say that I realize what I did was against wiki policy, and I am not trying to excuse myself. I am 100% responsible for my own actions, and my actions lead to my being blocked, and I deserved it. I knew better.

However, in every "crime", there's a motive. The whole reason I created a second account was that I was getting extremely fed up with Biophys following me around to every article and reverting me, unprovoked. He was simply looking at my edit history and following me everywhere, making sure that his utmost anti-Russian interpretation of whatever the dispute was would stick. I could go through history and find dozens of examples, but I'll just mention one that really got on my nerves to make my point. In the Aging of Europe article, I was having trouble with a user who was exerting ownership over the article by reverting a large edit I made[660], yet refusing to discuss why, and simply ignoring discussion aside from saying something akin to "I don't like your edits". So where does Biophys come in? Well, he simply showed up and decided to assist this other editor in reverting me[661][662][663][664], even though he had never before edited in the article (and hasn't since). If you check that article's edit history[665], you can see the only reason he ever went there was to engage in edit warring with myself.

Like I said, this was just one example that really sticks out in my mind, it's certainly not the only time he's done this to me. It basically got to a point where I felt that it was impossible for me to edit anywhere in Russia related articles without Biophys following me and reverting me. Therefore I created LokiiT, and amazingly, after a few edits, it's like someone alerted him someone was writing "pro Russian propaganda" in wikipedia or something, because he was right back at it, harassing my new account about "copyright infringement"[666], not even realizing I was Krawndawg (note: I had never edited that article with Krawndawg - my intention was to abandon the articles that account was associated with). I still tried my best to avoid him in other articles, but there's no avoiding Biophys. He followed me to the Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs article and started edit warring with me there[667], despite the fact that I explained my edit in talk and he did not respond before reverting, and again he hadn't edited in that article in months until he came to revert war me. He also revert warred with me in the 2008 South Ossetia War article on numerous occasions.

Sockpuppet fishing and the irony in how I was caught

Anyone who knows Biophys knows that he has made many accusations about people's alleged socking, and often with very little evidence. And for me this was no exception. He had flat out accused me of socking on a number of occasions (never correctly, and to prove my point he even accused Offliner of being my sock when he started editing[668]), and then he finally went and reported me[669] one day. What he was doing was explicit fishing. If you look at that page, you can see that he made a number of accusations against me, and not one was correct. Why? Because I didn't use them in disruptive ways that sockpuppets normally do, I used them as separate accounts. And I pretty much abandoned Krawndawg a few months earlier anyways. I also had a few throw-away accounts for talk pages/other stuff (two of the accounts I acknowledged were temporary alts, one of them I even wrote on the user page that I was Krawndawg[670], but I don't think the admin noticed/cared, and it probably didn't matter). But in the end, his unfounded accusations and fishing were enough to get me userchecked and all was revealed.

If you look at that investigation page, you can even see me saying he accuses everyone who he disagrees with of socking, a statement which I won't retract. The entire "investigation" was just a giant fishing fest with randomly selected accounts, userchecks all over the place for no good reason..not a single one of his accusations about me was correct, and I still to this day find it mindboggling that an admin actually went along with his game and violated the privacy of all those innocent people who were supposedly me, but for which there was no sufficient evidence to warrant such accusations.

After that, I pretty much gave up, and made it clear that Biophys' and his tag-teamers' harassment was the reason.[671] I decided to stay away from politics articles, and my edit count fell to almost nothing up until just recently. (You may find that message of mine ironic or somewhat prophetic, but it's neither. Anyone who was involved in Russian/Eastern-Europe related articles even back then knew damn well what was going on. It was clear as day, and evidently only got worse after I left.)

Anyhow, I've already written way too much considering none of this has to do with the cabal itself, so I'll leave it at that. LokiiT (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Colchicum

Timeline of the on-wiki events I am aware of

Before August 2008 Russavia was an editor who I (and probably others) rarely came across. Mostly he edited articles on Russian airlines and diplomatic relations and other dreary topics. However, he met the 2008 South Ossetia war surprisingly enthusiastically. This is where the battleground started.

This (August 13, 2008) was probably the first encounter of Russavia and future list members (namely Molobo, Ostap R, Biophys). Nothing criminal so far, but a rather heated conversation.

However, Russavia soon adopted confrontational attitude towards Biophys, with gross assumptions of bad faith on the South Ossetia war-related articles: [672], [673], [674], [675], [676]

The latter suggestion was followed on September 11 by a series of Russavia's rather provocative edits in articles previously edited by Biophys and never touched by Russavia before; Russavia subsequently edit-warred over them:

Igor Sutyagin [677], [678], [679],

Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev [680]

Valentin Danilov [681], [682]

Boris Stomakhin [683], [684]

Mikhail Trepashkin [685], [686]

CfD [687]

The second big encounter of Russavia with future participants of the list (Biophys, Ostap R, Hillock65): [688] During that event on September 11, 2008, DonaldDuck attempted to out Biophys. Russavia supported the line [689] and Miyokan (talk · contribs) threatened to out him completely [690].

Assumption of bad faith again: [691], [692]

Continuation of the outing story, e-mail conversation with Miyokan: [693], [694], [695], [696]

Russavia welcoming Vlad fedorov, an old nemesis and stalker of Biophys due to return from his 1-year ArbCom ban, inviting him to e-mail communication: [697]

Russavia following Biophys' edits again, incivility [698], [699] Russavia's highly inflammatory userbox referring to this. Funny, isn't it? [700], [701], [702] Assumptions of bad faith again: [703]

Inflammatory signature (Tovarishch Komissar = Comrade Commissar) from September 14 [704] to September 15 [705]

Inflammatory soapboxing, highly inaccurate as of then: [706]

A headsup to comrades Igny and LokiiT ([707] [708]) directing them here

Then on September 15 Moreschi (talk · contribs) blocked Russavia for outing Biophys, which he had done by slapping a COI tag on a certain biology article (I don't remember which) referenced, among other things, with a peer-reviewed article written by Biophys and co-authors. Russavia had not been interested in biology before and there was no obvious connection between the author in question and Biophys. The relevant edits are deleted now, so I can't locate them. Shortly thereafter he was mistaken for a sock of Miyokan by FayssalF and blocked by Tiptoety. Then on his talkpage, outraged, Russavia outed himself in order to prove he is not the same person as Miyokan 2000 km away (edits later suppressed by either Future Perfect at Sunrise or Alex Bakharev), was unblocked by FayssalF and reblocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise to serve the original term. Ever since he has been reluctant to admit that he attempted outing of Biophys. The diffs on User talk:Russavia and ANI are messed up because of massive deletion of personal information. This is what we have now: [709], [710]. During his block I asked him what had gone wrong with him since August 2008, and he answered something, it was on his talkpage from September 2008, apparently in a deleted section, if Arbs are interested they probably may check, I don't remember the detail. Not something incriminating, but still interesting for the background.

Immediately upon his return from the block he resumed attacks on Biophys (edit summary, [711]). The list didn't even exist back then.

Canvassing: [712]

LokiiT's abusive sockpuppetry (Krawndawg (talk · contribs) was the best known of his socks, or rather the original master account with a history of disputes with Biophys), which didn't result in an indefinite block by sheer luck [713]

Vlad fedorov's block-evading sockpuppetry which didn't result in an indefinite block by sheer luck [714]

Russavia's incivility, assumptions of bad faith [715], [716]

Opinion of uninvolved admin Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) on Russavia's conduct, February 4, 2009: [717]

On April 2, 2009, Offliner, who hadn't shown any interest in Estonia-related articles before, suddenly added to Kaitsepolitsei provocative information sourced to a blog of a noted Finnish neo-Nazi, disguising him as "lawyer and philologist" (although this is not what he is known for, he was referred to as neo-Nazi in virtually every independent source and nobody has ever disputed this). [718]. He got reverted, probably thanks to the Estonian public watchlist, but subsequently edit-warred over his edit: [719]. Within an hour Russavia, who had also never been interested in that article, came to his help: [720]. The edit-war continued until June (PasswordUsername joined the party later): [721], [722], [723], [724] and so on.

On that article, Russavia committed a 3RR violation, including move-warring, but the report was declared stale only five hours later because the closing admin had been fed up with that drama [725].

Russavia, Offliner, Password Username, Ellol, Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) and Kupredu (talk · contribs) (a sock of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)) are engaged in edit-warring, BLP violations, and lying about the sources on Valeriya Novodvorskaya, see edits between May 12 and May 27, 2009, as well as the talk page.

DonaldDuck was not lucky and was permablocked for block-evading sockpuppetry (as D.Albionov (talk · contribs)). No cabal had anything to do with that. [726]. Donald Duck repeatedly attempted to out Biophys [727] despite the earlier warning (the log on Commons revealing Biophys' personal information is now oversighted).

Shell Kinney's report on edit-warring in EE-related articles: [728].

August 14, 2009, Russavia spamming 35 Kosovo-related articles with POV-tags in retaliation to Termer (talk · contribs)'s edits to South Ossetia- and Abkhazia-related articles within an hour (starting from Estonia–Kosovo relations): [729], [730], [731], [732], [733], [734], [735], [736], [737], [738], [739], [740], [741], [742], [743], [744], [745], [746], [747], [748], [749], [750], [751], [752], [753], [754], [755], [756], [757], [758], [759], [760], [761], [762], [763], [764]. He subsequently edit-warred over the edits with Kedadi (talk · contribs).

Evidence presented by Paul Pieniezny

I am one of those who feels he was driven off Wikipedia by this cabal (Biophys, Digwuren and Martintg being most instrumental in achieving this). One of the reasons I would like to know whether I am mentioned in these e-mails, is the fact that I am certain that this cabal has now been in existence for more than two years: [765] and predates my loss of interest. If you go back further in that discussion, you will see that the discussion about creating a Neo-Stalinist watchdog was actually started by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk though under a different chapter title. And yet, one year later he promised Irpen that he would never be doing that. Piotrus has proven himself to be unreliable.

Personally, I am very sorry I simply had to contribute to this nationalist pile of humbug (euphemism) again.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Nikitn about some of the editings of Biophys and his group

I have been following many discussions concerning Russia and Soviet Union, and I ALWAYS see Biophys in there, spewing the same stuff, avoiding sourcing and discussions. It is really annoying, and it just makes me loose faith in wikipedia. Anyway, here is a classic example of Biophys's disruptive edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union Just read this.

So basically, these are some of the main points of Biophys's disruption in that article alone (I read the talk page for around 40 minutes): 1. Biophys was arguing with several other editors, but he often simply stopped arguing and engaged into edit wars. 2. Biophys rarely presented sources, and if he did, they were directly against wikiepdia's N:POV policy or just very unreliable. Example: "In Guinness book of world record, it is said that 66,7 million people died due to political oppression in the Soviet Union from Lenin to Khrushchev." Of course this was seriously criticized and said to be complete rubbish (like, page numbers were demanded for such a claim, and sources, - but Biophys did not give anything). 3. Biophys edited the article without using sources, or using sources that never mentioned any of the claims. Example: "During time of Stalinism, 22,000,000 Orthodox Christians died [given the context of the entire column, it was suggested they died due to their faith]. 4. Biophys frequently tried to dodge arguments of the other editors. Example: When a editor systematically answered every one of Biophys's claims, he demanded to only discuss "one issue" - while continuing with random edits here and there. 5. Interestingly, he also referred to his edits as "ours" and apparently hinted that it was not he alone who engaged in such edits.

Sorry if this is short and not very useful, but I don't want to spend too much time on this. But I couldn't help not to contribute something..

PS. To point it out again, this is only some of his edits. I have seen this stuff before in talk pages about Russian politics, Soviet politics, and other historical topics involving eastern European countries. The thing is, I don't want to engage into a tug-of-war with him, it would take too much of my energy.

Cheers (Is that what English persons say?)! --Nikitn (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]