Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for academic evidence

1) As user:Piotrus in his remedies section once again talking about my unreliable source and “its supporters”, namely book “Armija Krajova Lietuvoje ISBN 9986-577-02-0”. I once again asking (I asked this several times before) that Piotrus should present an academic and specific publications and academic evidences which specifically denounced the facts presented in this book. And let Piotrus possible presentation have formal structure, namely – present specific book’s Armija Krajova Lietuvoje claim and present specific academic sources (page numbers, authors etc.), which denounced the books claim; after one claim go to other another claim and present academic sources to it, etc. And after it we will see if Piotrus has academic support for his claims. It should be done because contributor not only using this book "unreliable" label as my ill behavior evidence but also continues to label other scholars as “unreliable” [1] too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a new question for the ArbCom, let me repeat my old arguments: 1) no English reviews of this book could have been found, you failed to present any Lithuanian ones, I have found three reviews in Polish press, all calling it extremist/unreliable ([2], [3], [4]) 2) many of book claims, particulary about alleged AK attrocities, are not verifiable by any other source 3) the book publisher, lt:Lietuvos politinių kalinių ir tremtinių sąjunga, is a political party - not known for its reliability and are specifically warned as likely unreliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples 4) the book co-author for t.1 and principal author is the controversial Kazimieras Garšva ([5]). Therefore the book fails WP:RS, particulary the Exceptional claims require exceptional sources section and is simply not a reliable source, your arguments otherwise are simply supporting my statements below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing online sources; I especially intrigued by your review sources. As I initially asked, post there these sources (or any) specific claims, which concrete facts of the book they dispute (as you noted your sources call it unreliable) ? Which contra arguments they present instead of them? You see I could not locate much, as your one of the review sources’ [6] title reads (if I not mistaken) as the last official visit of the president A. Kwaśniewski to Lithuania, somehow not very academic review source. So it would be great if you post here the specific failings of these sources linked to the book. M.K. 08:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In general, I repeatedly asked M.K. to provide sources, on this and other matters, and he never responded. DGG 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a diffs in which you specifically asked me, as you note, “repeatedly” to provide sources of this matter? Let me remind you that in this section we are talking about publication “Armija Krajova Lietuvoje ISBN 9986-577-02-0”, because the only time you suggested to me something personally - was this [7]. M.K. 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and consensus

1) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Consensus, all editors should realize they are biased, and work with others to reach a middle ground - the consensus. Editors who refuse to admit they are biased and refuse to negotiate with other side(s) to reach a consensus should change their behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

2) PerWikipedia:Assume good faith, editors should act on the principle that other editors, even if they represent different POV, are trying to be neutral and are ammenable in reaching a consensus. Assuming other editors are acting with bad faith, particulary on the basis of their nationality and arguments about cabals, is disruptive.

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Harassment

3) Per Wikipedia:Harassment, harassing other editors is prohibited. Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility

4) Per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Discuss content, not other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

5) Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site or put on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Biographies of living persons violations

1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) violated the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

Full picture of evidences here, specifically – mocking from living person, by accusing him faking documentations; misusing sources and presenting poorly sourced material - presenting as embassy information while in reality it was a some sort of tourist portal [8] etc, misleadingly suggested that WP:LIVING is not applied in different articles dealing with living persons biographies [9], preventing cite check and misleadingly suggested that attribution of Polish sources and citations are verified [10] (violation of WP:VERIFY as well as dubious sources there in Polish) (after some time personally started to found flaws [11]), Piotrus did not comply policy, which instructs for immediate removal without discussion dubious and low quality sources [12] , continually supports usage of dubious sources [13] .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or link to evidence section, please. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done M.K. 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I see nothing to support BLP in the diffs: one actually reads ":The proper solution is to quote relevant text on talk, and/or also try to link to the stable page verion in the Internet Archive" -- To my mind, that's the correct way to document. DGG 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars

2) Piotrus fueled systematical revert wars.

Full picture of evidences here and here. During this arbitration time frame Piotrus in one alone article managed to revert up to ten times, newest revert campaigns on single article - [14] [15] [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs or link to evidence section, please. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. M.K. 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Since I reverted Irpen's version there too and added some material Piotrus contributed to talk page, let me just point out that 1) first diff is Irpen reverting Piotrus, not the other way around 2) Piotrus reverts ([17], [18]) are well explained on talk, particulary noteworthy is that the other party is relying on unreliable source that Western academic journal has described as "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" 3) several other editors have supported Piotrus version and questioned Irpen's, ex. myself, Lysy [19], Balcer [20] and [21]. 4) Alex who reverted Piotrus twice ([22], [23]) has not explained any of his views on talk even after Piotrus asked him on his talk page and in edit summaries. 5) Finally, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, nobody is really guilty of revert warring, as the article is being steadily improved. Nobody has broken 3RR, most parties (w/out Alex...) are discussing issues at talk, and although there are some uncivil comments at talk, they don't come from Piotrus. Similar situation can be seen in all 'revert wars' alleged by MK - Piotrus (and Lysy, Balcer, and others) are always keeping their cool, being civil, adding reliable sources and willing to discuss issues at talk. This, unfortunately, cannot be always said about the other side... - Darwinek 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Dr. Dan

3) Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruptive editing that includes block for incivility, attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines by insulting Polish editors and challenging their good faith ([24], [25], [26]) and engaging in personal attacks ([27], [28], [29]). See evidence subsection for more evidence, including many previous warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sadly, in my experience the vast majority of contributions by Dr. Dan are spiteful commentaries designed to generate hostility and rancor, sometimes loaded with irony to the point of incomprehensibility, and often containing thinly veiled (or blatant) personal attacks. Out of all problematic editors I have come across, he is probably the worst, as outside of his harmful comments on talk pages he almost never creates any new content. Here is the most recent example , in which he accuses Piotrus of supporting mass murder.Balcer 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One more example which Dr. Dan sarcastically suggested be added to the Arbcom proceedings. I will oblige him. In it he makes another completely unjustified, ugly allegation against Piotrus. Balcer 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by M.K

4) M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) displayed bad faith, engaged in personal attacks and harrassing of other editors involved with Poland-related articles in various discussion spaces ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). As for content edits, he showed questionable judgement in relation to neutrality and reliability on Poland-related articles (ex. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight issues with edits like additions of minor facts distorting general articles [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], removal of important facts ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46]) and for reliability, using unreliable sources related to Vilnija extremist organization and its supporters (like Kazimieras Garšva) - ex. [47], [48], [49], [50]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Contributor presenting evidences of my alleged “harassment” presented article and contributors talk pages and calls them as “Poland related”, how such articles can be called Poland related but not Lithuania – related And how such [51] even can be called “Poland related” harassing at all? I presented findings of inaccurate Piotrus’ info , which discussed in detail here , while other misused info covered and here. Presented “evidence” of incivility and harassment is not evident is such scale as his own [52] [53][54] Repaying for Undue weight it was challenged here with clear signs of misinformation and OR. Claims of “removal of important facts” falls apart then remembering that these articles there adjusted with accordance with WP:LIVING policy which stresses that “Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.” It is worth to note that Piotrus himself is scrutinized here and due to disobeying the same LIVING policy. I found even more confused that this edit is called “removal of important facts”. Regarding “unreliable sources” usage, till present day nobody provided academic evidences which supported Piotrus “unreliable” theory. M.K. 11:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern

5) Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern over different contributors.

false accusation of vandalism, threatening of block, accusing of harassment , another threat of block urge to stop intimidation by different contributor etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In a series of somewhat impolite discussions, Piotrus was usually the calmest, and the diffs cited by MK will show it plainly upon impartial reading. DGG 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mocking by Piotrus

6) Piotrus mocked contributors.

accuses contributors who do not support his view being naïve souls mocking from state tragedy and me accusation of Holocaust revisionism, more here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Baiting by Piotrus

7) Piotrus baited different contributors

baiting new comers labeling them as fans or organization others others etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stalking by Piotrus

8) Piotrus stalked different contributors.

[55] [56] [57] [58] etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing by Piotrus

9) Piotrus displayed continues disruptive editing. Suing to ArbCom precedent, which ruled out that “It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably”, Piotrus made continued removal statements supported by academic sources, see more evidence of removal of information; strengthen with tendentious editing and intimidation of his opponents (see above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misleading information in evidence section presented by Piotrus

10) Piotrus presented misleading information in Evidence section. See here and here and here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rude Evidence presentation by Piotrus

11) Piotrus displayed rude conduct over Evidence presentation. Evidences here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Violation of WP:VERIFY by Piotrus

12) Piotrus displayed bad pattern of conduct by refusing to provide necessary information then dealing with sources others then English per WP:VERIFY.

Piotrus is known for his misleadingly attributed sources and information (concern of this also presented in [59] ), and then asked to provide exact citations of sources [60] [61] he not comply [62]. In this particular case I was even accused of denial

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dr. Dan is placed on probation from Poland-related articles and discussions and placed on civility parole

1) Per Wikipedia:Probation. As Dr. Dan contributions to Poland-related articles are primarily discusssion disruptions, he is placed on probation from editing those articles and their discussions and placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Piotrus. Comment: I always believe in second, third and other chances, and Dr. Dan has shown on occasion that he can do constructive edits (copyediting). Let him do constructive edit to articles that don't cause him to lose temper and offend other editors (i.e. not related to Poland). Usually we are dealing with editors who are disruptive in article space, and sometimes in addition to that on talk; here we are dealing with user who is primarily disruptive on talk, therefore it is important that any remedy ensures Dr. Dan will stop creating a bad atmosphere on article's talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What is needed here is a strong indication from Arbcom to Dr. Dan that his practices were harmful, which may inspire him to modify his behavior and become the productive editor that he could be, given his knowledge and erudition. This proposal would accomplish that perfectly. Balcer 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. Dan's disruptive comments on talks and edit summaries is a major problem here, IMHO. Frankly, I took a break, sick and tired of how his practices pass smoothly. I believe that the application of this proposal can can change the atmosphere.--Beaumont (@) 12:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

M.K is warned about incivility and harassment and placed on civility parole

2) Incivility and harassment are bannable offenses per our policies; M.K is warned that continuing to assuming bad faith, slandering other editors and wikistalking them on various pages will lead to a ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Piotrus.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

At least to me, your presented findings of facts of my alleged misbehavior are not proving your remedy. And regarding AGF, remembering your resent encounter with your content opponent you accused him of "gross violation" good faith and acknowledge beeing “suspicions”. Let me look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing which states “Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all—to accuse them of failing to do so may be regarded as uncivil, and if you are perceived as failing to assume good faith yourself, then it could be seen as being a dick.” and let me remind Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith which states "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith."; this probably is also worth to note "When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF". While I see particular person all over posting all the same WP:AGF to his content opponents. M.K. 11:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Seems good to me. I expressed serious concerns about M.K.'s incivility when this whole ArbCom case started. I am still concerned about it and I approve this proposal. - Darwinek 20:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - This entire Arbcom process as launched by M.K., mean spirited as it is, with multiple assumptions of bad faith, stretching of facts, and accusations bordering on outright slander, makes some action of this kind absolutely necessary. Quite frankly, if Arbcom does not take a strong stand on this, whatever faith I have in Wikipedia being a project worthy of contributing to will probably evaporate. Balcer 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

M.K is requested to seek mentorship

3) Majority of M.K contributions are valuable additions to Lithuanian history and architecture. As Polish-Lithuanian history is in some periods closely related, any content probation would be counterproductive to Wikipedia goal. Therefore M.K is requested to seek Wikipedia:Editor assistance and input of neutral editors before he adds any controversial information to Poland-related articles or talk; by definition anything related to unreliable sources is controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I find this remedy once more lacking concrete support from Piotrus evidence and findings of facts presentation. That most troubles me, is “Poland related” articles (almost all articles of Lithuania can be listed in so called “Poland related” category). But the most troubling is “by definition anything related to unreliable sources is controversial.” Who will judge that is unreliable, you? As you did with professional scholar Ph. D. Arūnas Bubnys sources? M.K. 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

MK has a point--he should also seek mentorship with respect to Lithuanian articles. DGG 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I support the idea, although I'm not sure how practical this solution would be. --Lysy^talk 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus is placed on revert limitation

4) Piotrus placed on revert parole, limiting to one revert per article per week, excluding simple vandalism, for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As contributor in question conducts revert wars all over the place, was banned blocked due to 3RR violation and reported many more times, till present day continues his same revert pattern, there is no away way only to limit his ability to do reverts. M.K. 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus' block log is clean except for this one block for a 3RR violation over a year ago, which resulted in a 3hr block (which M.K. incorrectly calls a ban). For an editor such as Piotrus with such a stupendous amount of edits, this one slip is perfectly excusable (we are all human after all). As for the fact that he was reported many times, as M.K. claims, how interesting that none of those many reports resulted in further blocks. This proposal illustrates well the modus operandi of M.K., who vastly exaggerates the supposed offences of Piotrus to make his case for requesting drastic punishment. Balcer 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not resulted in other cases as only after report he conducted self revert. M.K. 08:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus is warned about violation of Biographies of living persons policy.

5) Piotrus is warned about violation of Biographies of living persons policy.

For mocking form living person, failing to follow proper attribution of sources, misleadingly rejecting that policy is not applied to different articles, which involves person biography. And the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This remedy is necessary as contributor in question is administrator, who is disobeying the policy. As well this warning will be good precedent for the identification wrong editing pattern for further conducts relating particular policy with different contributors. M.K. 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus is warned about violation of Biographies of living persons policy and should be instructed to familiarize with the policy.

6) Piotrus is warned about violation of Biographies of living persons policy and should be instructed to familiarize with the policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Quite the same as above remedy but reinforced with instruction to familiarize with the policy as I noted from contributor’s edits in article as well as presentation in Evidence and finding the facts during ArbCom that he is completely unfamiliar with this policy. M.K. 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus is placed on civility parole.

7) Piotrus is placed on civility parole for continues mocking form contributors, stalking, biting them etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus is warned and instructed to stop issuing false block threats.

8) Piotrus is warned and instructed to stop issuing false block threats. False blocking threats results discouragement, maks non-constructive environment and less opportunity to resolve the arising conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Removal of important facts

1) I would like to ask that another to party examined if this diff placed on finding of facts by user:Piotrus as "evidence" labeled as "removal of important facts", is credible as there is no removal of any info in presented diff.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: