Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Arbitrators active on this case

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

I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk-issued notices, warnings and enforcement

All editors are strongly advised to observe that proper conduct on these Arbcom will now be subject to severe enforcement. Special attention is brought to the interim ruling by Arbcom for this case concerning speculative and inflammatory comments.

From here onwards any infraction will receive a first and final warning. A second infraction will result in a permanent topic-ban for all Arbcom EEML pages (except when directly instructed to respond by an arbitrator). Any further infractions will result in a block. Such actions can be appealed to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Notices

• User:Molobo was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
• User:DonaldDuck was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
• Arbcom clerk AGK has recused from participation in this case.
• The term "web brigade" has been declared unacceptable on the grounds of being inflammatory and presumptive. Please use a neutral term such as "mailing list members".

Warnings

• User:DonaldDuck has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• User:Paul Pieniezny has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• User:Radeksz has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• User:Pantherskin has received a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of a series of deliberately inflammatory posts (diff1, diff2, diff3). Manning (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• User:YMB29 has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of making repeated highly charged assertions. Manning (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Expired sanctions

• User:Deacon of Pndapetzim was banned from all ArbCom pages for one week, as a result of disregarding clerk instructions and general disruptive behaviour in a number of incidents. Expired 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Vlad fedorov was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements. Expired 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Vecrumba was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements. Expired 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Russavia was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements. Expired 22:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Triplestop was banned from all Arbcom pages related to the EEML case for one week, as a result of a number of unacceptable and inflammatory statements, including comments made on an arbitrator's talk page. Ban was reduced in length by 1 day after an assurance of proper conduct was given. Expired 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3.1 Proposed principles

Wikihounding

11) Singling out editors and joining discussions on topics they edit or contribute in order to confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor is harassment.

• Based on the voluminous evidence of wikihounding by the EEML against multiple editors, I propose this principle. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'll introduce something on conspiracy theories gone too far. Your persistent ABF is mind boggling. Anyone who disagrees with you is a conspirator (you spend far too much time on timings), and even if someone agrees with you they are hounding you. I regret you are the creator of your own distress.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps he means this? I am certainly seeing some wikihounding of the list members. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - If anyone has a problem then address it to the arbs. Do so in a calm tone and with diffs indicating your reasoning. Responses should be in the same calm tone.

Do NOT start swinging at each other. I don't tolerate it, as you all should know by now.

Vecrumba, I've just issued you with a conduct warning for another matter. If you strike your comment making an accusation of "persistent ABF" then I'll ignore this incident... for now. Manning (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren banned

In relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Digwuren_banned, NYB opposes this as Digwuren has not edited since June. I raised the issue of this proposed remedy against Digwuren at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_2#Proposed_remedy_-_Digwuren.27s_3_month_ban. Opposing the proposed remedy on the basis of Digwuren not having edited under that username since June is sending the wrong message. He states in the emails that it is a good strategy to retire before an arbitration case, and even signals his intention to return to editing under a new username; and there are already suspicions of this occurring amongst editors. Given that Digwuren had only just returned from a 12 month ban for being disruptive, and then launched straight into this most disruptive email list, a longer ban should be considered for Digwuren; in the above link, I suggest another 12 month ban, but I am sure that there are many among us who feel that an indefinite ban is warranted given his history of disruption and treating WP as his own personal battlefield. It should also be noted, that whilst Digwuren has not edited WP since June, he certainly kept himself updated with the goings-on on WP, which would indicate that he has not retired at all. Frankly, WP can do without battle editors such as Digwuren, and to oppose a ban on the basis of him not editing under that username is sending the wrong message. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is evidence of Digwuren currently editing under any username, please let us know via e-mail. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not current, but you should probably check this ip editors 12. -- DonaldDuck (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In 20090614-1419, the list members speculate Digwuren will probably "be hit by another ban" if there is to be another ArbCom case. Digwuren replies that this is the reason why he intends to disappear before the Arbcase, as this tactic has been shown to be "effective." Offliner (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren couldn't have realistically foreseen this ArbCom case unless he himself planned leaking the archive.--Staberinde (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had threatened to bring him and others to Arb for their harrassment of myself. Yet, I kept retreating back to my userspace to work on articles there, and letting everything slide....yes, it was a bloody stupid thing to do, as we could have halted the b/s sometime ago. So yes, Digwuren was more than aware that sooner or later he would be coming back here...it is plain as day to anyone involved in this area of editing. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I had decided not to comment here further as the Arbcom could probably be trusted to sort this mess out. I was wrong. The Arbcom seem hell bent on a policy of stupidity and over tolerance which is sending encouraging and forgiving signals to the members of the EE list. I wonder if NYB and his friends will be proud of their lax tolerance, when the next similar case appears - I hope so because it will be entirely their fault. This case beed to be dealt with in a firm and exemplary way, not by pussyfooting, hand wringing and misplaced trust.  Giano  18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• To the Clerk, personal attacks like calling people "deceitful and devious liars" isn't really acceptable here. --Martintg (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not acceptable here. All users are reminded to maintain appropriate decorum and that further personal attacks can result in bans from case pages or blocks. KnightLago (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Per Manning's request I escalate and not deal with such provocations myself, please deal with Giano's "untrustworth, deceitful and devious liars" crap diatribe appropriately.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Vecrumba, thank you for following correct procedure. Giano's rant is chiefly aimed at ArbCom and they are perfectly capable of defending themselves, were they to feel so inclined. I've refactored the inflammatory parts which were not aimed at ArbCom. Manning (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Digwuren has not retired, as retired editors do not return after some 5 months simply to delete their userpage, which one can see is now a redlink, User:Digwuren. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right; it is more indicative of an editor who has been outed and chased away. Like User:Biophys... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the Mailing List still active?

This question has been asked several times, yet it hasn't yet been answered. Is the web brigade still active? Or has the list been shut down? And I don't mean just the main list, but the side list that is also referenced at one stage in the email archive? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I should have mentioned this is in relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_communication. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid using offensive terms like "web brigade". Clerk request: can this be made into a official rule? PS. We should also discourage the use of loaded questions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies, and this has been noted by numerous editors in the past on these very pages. As to the question, it isn't loaded. Either the brigade mailing list is still in operational, or it isn't? A fairly simple question really, and one that you and other brigadiers seem to be avoiding. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a simple question, and it's strange that one would avoid answering it in order to nitpick about the phrase. csloat (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If the question is to be interpreted as whether the mailing list still exists and is accepting new members, the answer was definitely yes on October 16th. It is in my evidence: see the last comment on that page. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Russavia: please strike the term "web brigade" as it is an inflammatory statement and is presumptive. The question about the mailing list is otherwise valid. Manning (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Manning, I noticed that your standards in censoring inflammatory words are getting tighter and tighter. I applaud your efforts to keep this debate civil, but some particular words are offensive in eye of beholder only, as there is nothing offensive or rude or vulgar in these particular words themselves. In your request to strike the term are you suggesting a valid replacement? Are you sure that any different term for this EEML group would not become offensive and presumptive after negative stigma gets stuck to it as well? (Igny (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Clerk note - Igny, yes the reins have certainly been getting tighter. I have received numerous email complaints that "web brigade" is presumptive and inflammatory. I originally discounted the complaints from EEML participants, but I am now receiving these complaints from parties I regard as "uninvolved". As a result I have elected to declare the term off-limits (until advised otherwise by ArbCom). In my opinion the neutral terms "mailing list participants" and "mailing list members" remain perfectly acceptable - the terms are still factually accurate but do not inherently include a presumption of intent. Manning (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

suggestion for topic bans

If there are to be topic bans as a remedy here, I would suggest that they include "communism" or "related political topics" as well as "Eastern Europe" since some of the behavior at issue focused on pages that don't necessarily fall into the "Eastern Europe" category. csloat (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

There is something I believe to be important that is missing here. When an AfD is flooded with votes that are obviously canvassed, then there is a difficult situation. One couldn't simply strike all canvassed votes nor give full credibility to the canvassed votes. Arbcom needs to clarify what to actually do in these situations. Triplestop x3 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

People only voted in those AfDs that they would have voted in any case. Already we have had two AfDs since the case opened that has demonstrated that the involvement of mailling list members had no real impact on the outcome: before maillist exposure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide No consensus, after maillist exposure Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide_(2nd_nomination) same result No consensus; after extensive warnings of maillist member involvement Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Tylman_(2nd_nomination) No consensus. Most people understand that deletion debates are assessed on the merits of the argument not the number of votes. --Martintg (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first AfD mentioned had 3 deletes in a row before the trainwreckers struck by clerk came along (who were attracted by an email you yourself apparently sent). In the second AfD, the article was in a much more reasonable state, so No Consensus was much more reasonable. And in the third AfD mentioned the EEML participants made up a very largely disproportionate number of the keep votes. It is clear that certain people are trying to push their agenda. And basing the result on the merits of the arguments is the ideal solution, but not practical since people who want to push their POV will manipulate/wikilawyer the rules to their end. Triplestop x3 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss the edits, not the editors. I stand by every word of my comments at the pages in question having nothing to do with anyone else's opinion. I ask that pejorative phrases such as "trainwreckers" be stricken.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Yet another lengthy, pointless and irrelevant stoush deleted. I'm in a pleasant mood and can't be bothered banning anyone just now, so be grateful. Seriously guys, I don't give a damn which side of this debate you are on - there is NO fighting on these case pages. Also be warned I will probably feel less generous tomorrow. Manning (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Narrow Topic Bans

This is just a brief note of feedback to let the arbitrators and others know that I, for one, support the recently proposed narrower topic bans for certain editors (Example: prefer remedy 3.1 over remedy 3). These protect the project without a punitive overtone. This represents a highly appropriate balance between various goals. —Finn Casey * * * 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The area of conflict could be more narrowly defined as Polish-German relations. Unlike some other EEML members, Piotrus had almost no editorial conflicts with Russavia and other editors on Russia-related subjects during last year. This is not counting his dispute with Donald_Duck who is currently banned.Biophys (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that rather than narrow topic bans, a 0RR restriction on Piotrus and Martin would accomplish everything that NYBrad is aiming for without the potential for unscrupulous editors trying to game the topic bans by following them around and starting up disputes on articles that before had no disputes on them, just to "trap" Piotrus and Martin. So, regardless of how one feels about these two editors, this alternative would avoid inflamming disputes that have been uncontroversial before.

Also, despite all the slander presented here, Piotrus' actions more often than not actually extinguished nationalist conflicts (see comments by truly uninvolved editors on both the evidence and workshop page). A topic ban would obviously make this impossible.radek (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with NYB's proposed version, as I see it, is that the interpretation of its wording is open to gaming: if read very narrowly, "articles about ... ethnic conflics" could be read as including only those articles whose nominal main topic is the "ethnic conflict" itself. But the kinds of national editorial disputes we are dealing with here are often about tangential issues that arise in articles whose nominal topics are entirely unpolitical, such as articles about geographical places (where you might get a politically motivated naming dispute), or some historical figure (which often get national disputes COATRACKed on them; just think of all those Copernicus articles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with FP here. Any article which is even remotely related to something to do with "ethnicity" can be MADE a subject of a dispute just by somebody showing up on it and making a few provocative edits or stonewalling discussion on the talk page. And yes, people will fight and argue about things you could not even imagine it would be possible to argue and fight about (completely off topic, but I believe there's some serious ethnic "disputes" about food types and food names and such that have caused much grief in the past). It's better to be precise here - 0RR is easily enforceable and will avoid unnecassary drama, of which we've had way way way way way way too much lately.radek (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the new wording is open to gaming (not that the old one wasn't). Any topic ban that is not very clear on defining it area is problematic. For example, if I were under that topic ban, could I have created the (so far uncontroversial) DYK on Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw? I can easily imagine that somebody who wants to see me banned would complain at AE that I am breaking my topic ban by creating an article that is related to Copernicus (whose nationality is controversial and hence the Copernicus article is a subject to common edit disputes). PS. That said, I do think that this new proposal is a step in the right direction, as it would, for example, allow me to carry out the routine maintenance tasks at WP:POLAND. But as it is, I think it is too open to baiting and gaming to allow me any reasonable content creation (almost anything can be argued to be controversial; as somebody pointed above, the article about Juliusz Słowacki I'd like to GA can be seen as controversial if one makes an issue of the fact that he lived in Vilnius - Polish Wilno, the spelling of which in different contexts has been controversial on occasion). And so on.) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"if one makes an issue of the fact" implying that it is incorrect, irrational, and POVed to suggest that Wilno doesn't belong in the article (For the record, I think it does, but too often we see things like Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania) as opposed to Vilnius-Polish: Wilno). I like reading your articles and I think the Arbs are looking for a way to let you take Slowacki to GA. However, they also want to end the battle, and they can't do that if you can't admit you are equally responsible or more responsible for the POV and controversy in these topics than your opponents are. The only solution I can see working is a topic ban for you on all non-mainspace edits combined with 0RR for all the list members (it would have to include a provision to prevent your opponents from taking advantage by stalking and gaming). This is harsh and not keeping within the spirit of wiki, but it would get the job done. Leo1410 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your solution is akin to imprisoning anybody once he has been accused of anything, ignoring any evidence (or lack of it - still no diffs...). Sure, it may solve the problem - for a little while, till we ban any and all editors who ever dare to disagree with one another. I do hope, however, that Wikipedia is not a totalitarian police state to adopt such a nuclear approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's not what wikipedia is about, and I don't think anything like that will be adopted. I don't envy the Arbs right now. It's easy enough to see all the problems, but there are no obvious acceptable solutions to any of them. Leo1410 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Radek's suggestion for a 0RR restriction makes more sense, it eliminates the threat of edit warring while allowing the creation and expansion of new articles and stubs. I think it would be rather difficult to game 0RR. --Martintg (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR restrictions would not help. After reading about battlefield tactics of list members (20090621-1853); (20090701-0204); it is evident that they have most of the time superior numbers and can easily suppress opponents. 0RR would not help either, it may reduce edit warring, but it will not prevent from stealth canvassed voting, and most importantly - harassment of editors on article talk page, as the list members did that so proficiently. Harassment is the topical issue, as even during this arbitration case, members of that list were sanctioned due to harassment, the newest one resulted block for 1 month and placement on editing restrictions because: "seriously crossed the line into personal harassment. You were already under WP:DIGWUREN warnings for disruptive behaviour, so you now get sanctioned. You are blocked for a month for edit-warring, battleground behaviour and harassment, and placed on a 1R/d restriction on all Eastern Europe related pages for another six months." M.K. (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a ban in clearly controversial or contentious topics, and 1rr anywhere else. But also voluntary 1rr for every other EEML member, which they do not seem to mind, and voluntary 1rr for their most bitter opponents, like Russavia. That is not as much as punishment as an agreement. I do not see how polemics on talk pages can cause problems. And since everyone in EEML agreed that RfCs, and AfDs, and such are not voting, one can also restrict their participation in these "consensus building" debates. (Igny (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Igny, it simply wouldn't work, the EE members' disruption affected various topics and not a single area, that's why it is impossible to define "clearly" controversial topics. Therefore making "narrow" topic bans will be subject of gaming on EE members behalf. Regarding talk pages; I think you don't see the larger picture - I cited only one recent example of such, however there are more.

Another member also received ban on commenting his long standing "enemy". Recently there was a complain that certain EE members engaged in outing as well, while I am not going to evaluate overall credibility of such claims here, but certain examples are close to attempted outing, if not crossing over it. Last bit not least, what worth Piotrus' plan to send an anonymous "tip" to Australian secret services regarding his content opponent? Therefore, 1RR or even 0RR, do not prevent such type of harassment in the future.

That is why proper topic bans, bans on EE members to commenting their "enemies" and blocks would prevent the next drama. Unfortunately, at this point arbiters providing zero tools to prevent and deter such behavior. Despite invaluable evidence of overall gaming the system, case gets solved as poorly as the last one. M.K. (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And we still have zero diffs for alleged disruption of articles... why do you think, M.K., that your gigantic evidence sections in the past arbcoms about such alleged disruptions were always ignored? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" is where editors bearing attack or POV pro-Soviet synthesis, for example, content choose to create controversy. No article is immune to attack content purported to be "reputably" sourced. As for the case M.K. cites, the individual in question was not the one at fault in initially creating the situation. Rather, I believe we are already seeing a spill-over effect regardless of conclusions here.

   I suggest blanket 1RR. 0RR is nothing but an open invitation for preemptive attack strikes for content such as Offliner's and Anti-Nationalist/PasswordUsername's (per my evidence in response to theirs contending "edit warring" on my part) which then can't be reverted.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure - if you can define "clearly controversial or contentious topics" in a way that is not open to baiting or gaming. And, of course, provide evidence in form of on-wiki diffs showing that disruptive edits have been made to such articles in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You of all people should know that the term "disruptive" is also subjective and open to interpretations/gaming. What is "removal of sourced info" to one may be "removal of attack content" to another. Even historical facts are open to interpretation as well, what is "occupation" to some is "liberation" to others. (Igny (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

True. Which is why good topic bans target a series of individual articles, or a topic that can be very clearly defined. After, of course, there are sufficient diffs to demonstrate that the editor who is subject to such a ban has displayed a long term and consistent pattern of disruption on such articles... We can discuss if an edit was disruptive or not once we have some diffs to discuss. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there were numerous edit wars where quite a few EEML members participated. I have long suspected some level of coordination among you, hence the following question. Does coordination of editors actively participating in edit wars make the edit wars more or less disruptive? (Igny (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree this should not have happened. Regarding the intensity of such an occurrency, can you check in evidence how often did that occurr, on what articles and by whom? It is my reading that this was most common on the "modern Russian politics" articles, from which I am more than happy to stay away. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the controversial EE topics I was involved in were modern Russian politics, revisionism of Russia's and Soviet Union's history, establishing national identity of the newly independent EE countries. (Igny (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Clearly controversial topics - there's no good way of predicting what'll turn into a battleground, and any topic bans will end sometime. Palaces Talk:Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga, statues [1], Chopin [2]. Even dirt [3], [4] - I didn't follow up on that dirt article because I foresaw a battlegound. The point being, any reasonable article about any place/person/thing/event/concept in long-inhabitated regions creates openings for conflict. My ideal long-term solution would involve some volunteers that any of us could go to publicly,quickly, by mutual agreement no questioning of motivations or accusations of nationalism or whatever, when any of us perceive any sort of unfairness or ugliness. The members wouldn't blow us off with "oh, no, nationalist disputes again." If the disputes weren't clearly presented they'd ask for re-presentation. I'm remembering here, I think, James Fallows, being told off by a local during the early 1990s war in the former Yugoslavia - "You know nothing! Nothing!" (of local history). It didn't stop him from reporting as best he could. I'd hope there'd be others on WP of the same mindset. Yes, yes, anyone who sticks his or her nose in will later be accused of being involved. Takes incredible dedication and a strong stomach. Novickas (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a constructive proposal and something like that would indeed be useful. It's also something along the lines of what some list members have already proposed.radek (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps this can be achieved by involving more community members in WP:EEUROPE? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While suggested more limited topic ban is an improvement, its still not very good. Disputes can arise in almost any article, no matter how innocent, if editors act accordingly. I don't really think that any attempt to line out "problematic area" in this situation is effective or productive to wikipedia. Instead you should line out "problematic behaviour", and address it directly. If there is fear that Piotrus will revert war, then put him under 1RR and forbid him completely from reverting on pages where other EEML member has reverted in last 3-5 days or something. If there is concern about canvassing on AfDs, then forbid Piotrus from voting on these, although he should still be able to comment, at least on Poland related pages, as one of the best informed editors. If there is specific harassment danger, forbid Piotrus from interacting with editors who share problematic history with him, or keep him at short leash by putting him under some sort of probation, so that admins can act fast and decisive if any potential harassment occurs. Solution should be something that forbids disruption, and also keeps him at short leash in problematic area, so that he can be dealt with easily if he tries to manipulate rules, while on other hand leaving him some proper freedom to stay productive and continue improving wikipedia by creating content.--Staberinde (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gamings are very obvious. I know some India/Pakistan editors who only edited war/political dispute articles, but for some reason (not because of a restriction) went into sports articles out of character, saying this PAK was better/worse than this other IND guy or vv, ro simply arguing over their religious status. This is pretty obvious. If people decide to game the system and add pointless bits editorialising over whether Alexander Efimkin is better than Maciej Bodnar, people will notice. Or if they go into arguments on whose mountains/rivers are more polluted/pristine. There is no shortage of people who like to flex their muscles in famous areas either, now that this stuff has become entertaining for a few who were hitherto disinterested. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment in proposed decision

I introduced into my evidence a large chunk of evidence relating to harrassment upon myself by the members of the mailing list, and it makes me sick to the guts that even after the revelation of the list, and the tying up of emails from the list to on-wiki harrassment, that email list members still deny that they took part in any harrassment of myself. And this is even after I have been able to show that list members have blatantly lied right here on the evidence pages about it. I would like to ask the Committee that they address this more than they have in the proposed decisions, because it is all well and good that members of the S.P.B. are seeking restrictions upon list members that are basically meaningless (voluntary 1RR, I mean honestly, this is nothing but a slap in the face to the community), but so long as list members continue to deny doing a damn thing wrong, then it needs to be pointed out to them what they have done wrong, that it is not acceptable, and for them to grow up and be men, and cop punishment on their chins. And of course, I am not interested in anything that the list members have to say, as they of course will only continue to deny and deflect. It is great that they want to move forward, but I am afraid that there is little way for editors such as myself to look forward when the list members aren't made to admit their sins, and when the committee all but ignores it in their decisions. Please give other editors, not just the list members, an opportunity to put this ugly mess behind them and move forward. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never harassed Russavia. I stand by my reply to your evidence here. One AN post which doesn't mention you is not harassment (read it here). It would be nice if the Committee would clarify which of our claims here is right. PS. That said, as I've noted before, I have no problem adopting a voluntary restriction about not commenting on Russavia (something which I have done maybe two or three times before this case opened...) - provided he adopts the same restriction towards me (I have no wish to be a subject of future allegations by him that I harassed him). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, I reviewed all mails I ever sent (still in my outbox) and I mention you [Russavia] about 10 times in 9 months and none of them having to do with advocating for harassment of yourself. If I've lied about something, please stick to presenting evidence. And it's so convenient for you to get on your pedestal to state publicly that you have no need to deign to listen to anything EEML members have to say. Hopefully the genuinely uninvolved here will see such self-righteous posturing (my perception) for what it is. Urgent PL calls the rest of this weekend, adieu for now.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 

Hey Piotrus, do I have your permission to repost verbatim contents of your emails to the list from 23 and 24 April? In particular the ones where you post the link to the the AN/I thread which you call "useful" and the other email in which you repost the link as you feel the list is missing a great opportunity to deal with me? If I have your permission, I will post them here for all and sundry to see, and let people make up their own minds as to whether it is harrassment or not. I will tell you that I took it as harrassment back in April, and so did many others in the thread, hence why I asked you the leading question as to who you were posting that thread on behalf on. Anyway, please clarify whether I have your permission or not. I don't expect to receive it, as it will only allow you to kept denying the obvious. And to Vecrumba, I didn't say all EEML members, I have made it very clear in evidence as to who was involved. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is Piotrus' actual "harassment" of Russavia:

• (from the only diff that Russavia manages to drudge up [5]) Piotrus defending Russavia: "I do find those lenght (sic) to be rather extreme, but I don't think that a single 22-hours of editing - 2-hours of break - 20-hours of editng string conclusively proves account sharing"
• (same diff) Piotrus saying nice things about Russavia: "My limited experience with Russavia has indeed been positive"
• (same diff) Piotrus supporting Russavia's right to privacy (but apparantly not vice versa): "While I'd advise Russavia that being more open and friendly may be beneficial, I'd also like to stress that I fully support his right to privacy, and I'd advise other editors to avoid speculation about his habits/motivations...". Note that one of the Arbs, John V, comments right below with "I agree with Piotrus". Is John V also guilty of harassing Russavia?
• (same diff) Piotrus praises Russavia: "considering a lot of positive contributions from Russavia's account, I'd like to stress that he is an editor that deserves our respect for improving this project (just like Biophys...)"
• (same diff) Piotrus opposes any ban on Russavia (even if Russavia were guilty): "on the off chance his account is shared, I'd oppose any ban"

And if you check what Piotrus has said during the case on these pages you'll note that he has called for Russavia's topic ban to be rescinded, has made several offers to Russavia to come to an understanding (all rejected out of hand) and has said good things about Russavia's non-controversial contributions.

That's some pattern of harassment! Seriously, if anything Piotrus has been too nice to Russavia, praising and defending him - and now Russavia is paying him back I guess.radek (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No one ever harassed Russavia. His statement simply contradicts evidence provided by neutral editors who were not members of the list [6].Biophys (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ack! The mailing list members talked about the 'opportunity' to discredit Russavia on multiple occasions in late April 2009. Digwuren, Biophys, and Piotrus went over R.'s editing stats in detail, hour by hour, and whether they could use the stats to make a credible case against him. Piotrus posted at ANI on April 22. [7] "It was recently brought to my attention that such accounts - often with activity patterns showing near constant edits for 20 or even 24+ hours - exist. I was asked if they are "all right", and I couldn't easily answer." Later in this thread he says "I've notified the user who asked me the question of this thread, I don't have any specific evidence myself. [My note: Not. They wrote to each other about R.'s editing stats at length.] Hopefully the interested editor(s) will post here with more info" and "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". What more does it take to demonstrate dishonesty? Novickas (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is no evidence that members of the list in fact harassed Russavia on-wiki. Talking in private emails about Russavia was not harassment. However, making this private EEML archive public and discussing it during this case was indeed harassment of EEML members and possibly also a harassment of Russavia and several other editors who have been debated in the list.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"In fact"? I don't know about these claims of ban engineering but it is clearly not unreasonable to assume that many of the sanctions imposed on EEML's enemies would not have been if it weren't for this coordination. Triplestop x3 04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, anyone who holds a different view is "wikilawyering" or being "tendentious" - because how else could they dare to disagree? How in the world is stating that there is no evidence that anyone harassed Russavia "wikilawyering"? There is no evidence. And if you're wondering if certain people deserved the blocks they got, take a look at, for example Colchicum's evidence.radek (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is a valid point. A "neutral editor", who harassed Russavia for months, surprisingly continued the harassment right here on Evidence page instead of using this opportunity to apologize for coining and using the nickname "RuSSavia". How did he justify the block? Among the other heinous crimes, Russavia gave headsup to his comrade Igny, directing him to [the discussion at some admin talk page shopping for Igny's block]!(Igny (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree that Colchicum is "involved" in this matter, though obviously he was never part of the list nor AFAIK did anyone ever contact him. Still, his evidence stands regardless. If you just take your magic wiki-eraser and erase "Colchicum" from the heading of that section and read it blindly as if it was made by a random Wiki editor as such it's extremely convincing. Why? Because, unlike the "evidence" presented by some others, it has a buttload of diffs that anyone can go and check for themselves. And at the end of the day it's not Colchicum saying these things, but the diffs.radek (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the diffs is one thing, their interpretation is the other. It is one thing to say, "Russia Georgia conflict caused a lot of controversy which resulted in edit wars in SO War article". It is completely different to claim that"Russavia met the 2008 South Ossetia war surprisingly enthusiastically. This is where the battleground started." See the difference? (Igny (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Also, as I've said before, I've never had any problems with your edits - the only thing I recall is your heavy use of sarcasm during the 'Communist genocide' AfD which at the time I thought was somewhat incivil, though the stuff that's gone on with this case and on these talk pages since then, makes those few sarcastic comments sound like innocent knock-knock jokes in comparison.radek (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I admit sarcasm sometime gets the better of me. (Igny (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

As I recall Russavia or someone else used that to make a point of his being disparaged, but it was not first used by any EEML member. Perhaps some else can recall the details.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well my point was that Colchicum was never impartial or neutral observer. Most of his evidence itself was harassment of Russavia and could not be brought up as justification of the block. (Igny (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

Re: proposed Amnesty § 9

I would like to commend Newyorkbrad on bringing this up, and would like to encourage other arbitrators to please address his concerns. It is important that your own proposal on amnesty be reexamined to avoid future misunderstandings. For example, in case this motion is passed, it can also be questioned. – The EEML members who committed no misconduct in their off-wiki communication (such as me), obviously don’t feel in need of amnesty. However, my political adversaries might think otherwise and maintain that the amnesty for past behavior stemming from my participation in the list might have been too lenient. I don’t need to be pardoned for responding to emails sent to my off-wiki account. Thus, your forgiveness undermines my inherent right to communicate with my colleagues like everybody else around here, with the feeling of innocence. Off-wiki communication is not only customary, but also popular among us. It cannot be openhandedly forgiven, because it cannot be considered inappropriate regardless of its intention. --Poeticbent talk 22:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There should clearly be a difference between those who did nothing wrong, and those who did something wrong but are pardoned, so to say. But this means that care should be taken by arbcom to differentiate between those who merely read or subscribed to the mailing list, and those that used the mailing for inappropriate canvassing. And Poeticbent, canvassing on a secret mailing list to like-minded editors is inappropriate, and you did that at [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], [20090731-0608]. Pantherskin (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry I don’t know what you’re talking about. The 12-digit numbers in your post don’t mean anything to me, because I never downloaded the leaked archive. Please add some specific dates. And also, explain what canvassing means to you. I have a feeling you haven’t been a subject of BLP attacks triggered by in-house politics yet. But surely, you must have written some emails? --Poeticbent talk 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, who do you consider to have done something wrong here? Triplestop x3 02:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the archive either but I'm not sure a date can get much more "specific" than "20090718", "20090820" or "20090731". Is there something I'm missing? 217.28.12.240 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there should be a clear differentiation between those who did nothing wrong other than simply participating in the mailing list and those who did violations of the policy. At least for the administrators who in the future would take measures on the EE issues. Since the archive is still not made public it is unfair to equate the active disruptive EEML members with those who only received the list and did nothing wrong. The admins have right to know who of the users has history of persistent disruption.--Dojarca (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But the whole point of the amnesty is that administrators have to ignore any such history of disruption. I think. Maybe I've misunderstood that because I can't imagine why that would be helpful (why would you ignore the same behaviour from someone who can establish they were on the list as you would sanction for someone who can't establish they were on the list?) but that's the best sense I can make of it. 217.28.12.240 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a point I raised earlier here. Can't say I found the feedback I got from the committee back then very substantial or enlightening, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it mean that the mailing list members would be cleared of any sins they commited and hence be put in priviledged position compared to those who did not participate in the mailing list? Does it mean that admins should ignore the past bad behavior of the mailing list members while offences commited by their opponents are still counted?--Dojarca (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking in plain language, I would like to see the Amnesty proposal scraped and replaced with a positive reinforcement proposal of an Encouragement for more cooperation and respect for each other built via official means. The only problem with that sort of affirmation of good will is that the grievances and the spirit of revenge are almost insurmountable. The separation of users contributing to our discussion and to Dramatica at the same time is beyond our means. Therefore, the sense of a working community is hopelessly off-center. --Poeticbent talk 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 1.1 proposal

I am concerned by proposed remedy 1.1. particularly the part: 'may seek to regain adminship only by a new request for adminship or by request to the Arbitration Committee. In normal circumstances such proposal would be ok, but as we now know, EE mailing list members were “prolific” off-wiki lobbyists. Current formulation leaves wide room for off-wiki politics and may cut off remaining WP community from process. Also, if community is told to accept version that Piotrus “voluntarily” resigned, so why the ArbCom would be involved in restoring sysop powers, if Arbcom didn't take his admin rights, they can't give them back. Also, Piotrus never was a real admin, did the little admin work (20090622-2140) considering admin rights as shield against sanctions (20090615-0407). Therefore I think that arbiters should consider refactoring this proposal at least by removing part by request to the Arbitration Committee. M.K. (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not support returning his tools without a RFA, but reserve the option for each member of the Committee to follow standard practice and to make this judgment if he asks for them back. And since the Committee did do the temp. desysop and open the case without a Request for Arbitration, I would say that the Committee was engaged with the matter, and your characterization is not accurate. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, committee made temporary desysop. As far as I understand proposed principle goes beyond that. In any case, I (and hopefully others) want guaranteed transparency over these issues. As you elaborated on this issue here - it would be good idea to do the same on proposed principle, alternatively add smoth like Committee encourage transparent process or similar. M.K. (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since he resigned the tools under pressure from the Committee; he can not automatically have them returned by asking a 'crat. Instead, by custom, users can have them returned by a RFA or by the Committee if we agree to do it without a RFA. I don't see any reason to go outside of the usual practices. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust then, that you won't be affected by any off-wiki lawyering and such? Triplestop x3 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee regularly has users contact us by email to plead their case for lifting of sanctions. Loads of wikilawyering, rants, and threats. I don't think that the users in this case will get much traction by using this tactic given their highly published track record for plotting. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust you are not saying the EEML members have been resorting to wikilawyering, rants and threats. I can certainly point to Russavia, Giano, and others who are seeking to convict the EEML members here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Convict"? Is this all some sort of game to you? Triplestop x3 23:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. For example Anti-Nationalist is already going around on uninvolved admin pages requesting assistance, prefacing requests with denunciations of EEML members. If you read Offliner's evidence, for example, accusing me of edit-warring, then read my evidence in response regarding his creating attack content. Is Offliner attempting to do anything other than "convict" me here? I think not, hence I take this very seriously. I am frankly concerned that you believe I think this some sort of game.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Getting back to the original point of this discussion, I concur with M.K. that it is always inappropriate for adminship to be granted or restored by any means other than RfA. The restoration of adminship has been undertaken by the Committee for some time now, but it has never been totally clear that this power was ever clearly granted to it. Since that is my view in all cases, it is necessarily my view with regards to this specific case. —Finn Casey * * * 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps Arbiters are willing to outline certain examples, when restoration of sysop rights would involved Committee rather then RfA (speaking about this particular case) M.K. (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the commitee reserves the right to reinstate adminship by fiat is because they are the ones theoretically taking it away. This happens in every case where a desysop happens and is perfectly reasonable and logical. If the commitee can take it away, they can give it back. Its that simple. In this (and other) cases, admins resign 'under duress'. Which is to say they resigned when it was very likely they would be desysopped. The concern then is that the admin may attempt to get their adminship back by hoodwinking a 'crat by claiming they simply resigned. So the solution is that the admin resigned without having to be desysopped (no shame in that) but if they want to get their tools back the 'under duress' part must be addressed. Does that mean that Arbcom routinely gives back tools to resigned under duress admins? No. Does it mean that they are leaving themselves a back-door just in case someone brings valid and reasonable evidence that the 'under duress' part should be lifted? Yes. Is Arbcom vulnerable to wikilawyering and threats? You decide. I personally have seen an admin ask for his tools back from Arbcom and from that case it seemed that unless you have something compelling to say they just tell you to take it to RFA. I think Arbcom would only give the tools back if it was proven they were wrong to take them away in the first place 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to "If the commitee [sic] can take it away, they can give it back. Its [sic] that simple." : I appreciate that line of reasoning, and it is indeed the standard explanation. However, it is possible to separate the authority to revoke from the authority to appoint. I know that I believe that Wikipedia is best served by allowing the Committee to revoke adminships but not to return said adminships. This directly follows from my viewpoint that if a candidate is unable or unwilling to pass RfA, they should not be an admin, without exception. I realize that some editors find the present arrangement "reasonable and logical", but others do not, and discussion on it is important. The general principle informs my recommendations on the specific incident. —Finn Casey * * * 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To sum up my statement above, the Arbs are reserving the right to give adminship back and in practice only do so when it is shown they were wrong to take it away. My impression is that this has to be specifically a 'clearing your name' situation. Not an 'I'm better now' situation. If Arbcom was at fault for revoking, they have a convenient eraser to their pencil. Anyone else gets sent back to RfA, this can be shown in the History of the pages. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

practice only do so when it is shown they were wrong to take it away. Rather interesting sum up. Lets see precedents: in one of the Arbitration cases individual was desysoped, with rather similar line : He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee. After several moths arbiters off-wiki decided to resysop him. Well, I may not know all details of this move of course, but I find, at this point, hardly convincing, that particular individual was resyspoed, because Arbiters "were wrong to take it away". Now, I see similar lines in the proposed remedy....Your insight? M.K. (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look good on the surface, I can tell you that. I am, however, heartened that the sifting took you back two years before you found an appropriate example. The details appear sketchy from your links, but it looks like yellowmonkey was the one who took charge of the resysop. I have seen him post here, so if you are continuing to read here, is there insight as to the reasoning behind the resysop that you would like to share? I see Flonight also was active back then and would appreciate her thoughts as well. I note that the arbs at the time SPECIFICALLY voted against desysoping him withouth the option of arbs reinstating it. This appears to me as though they specifically were concidering it at the time.

For specific questions to the arbs,

1. What was the most compelling reason you felt that he should be resysopped without going to RfA?

2. Given what you know today about the admin, do you feel that resysopping him without RfA was the correct choice?

3. Do you feel you are more or less likely to resysop an admin under similar circumstances?

I should note that this line of questioning is more interested in understanding what Arbs are planning to do going forward, and therein lies its relevance to this case. I don't think its in anyones best interest to pick at scars healed from two years ago, so exact details are not required. I admit this may make question 1 unanswerable, but I think 2 and 3 can be answered without issue and are more important. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a minute to look into the admin in question. Appears he is still an admin, still contributes greatly, and aside from one recent blemish is a really good example of someone given a second chance and absolutely making good on it. I would still like to hear the arbs voice on this, but to me it looks like they IAR'd by rolling the dice on him... and won. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that specific case is rather old, but still it has echos in the mailing list itself. I also hope that Arbiters will have time to comment a bit on these issues. M.K. (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Good faith"

This is my general impression from interacting with these people. It appears that indeed many of them are acting in "good faith". They believe their actions as genuine, from their point of view. However in such a contentious area as EE, good faith is not enough - Competence is required. These mailing list members obviously feel strongly towards their particular political ideals, and it is obvious that they have been trying to skew the point of view of articles to their favor (don't even try to deny this). Certainly, there is nothing wrong with this ipso facto. Wikipedia has many editors from various backgrounds, and ideally a neutral point of view would be achieved through balance and compromise. And I stress, ideally. However, the bias I have seen from these people is way beyond what's reasonable, and when they deliberately try to skew Wikipedia's POV so systematically and using such outrageous tactics, that is unacceptable. They even think their opponents are paid edits of the Russian state (!!!) Even worse, they see their biases as neutral, and their wrongs as right. So yes, they may be acting in good faith. Or they're just a bunch of POV warriors. Whatever. Either way, they should not be allowed to edit. When their bias impaired incompetence causes disruption on such an enormous scale, it is besides the point whether they are acting in good faith. Furthermore, it is clear that because they perceive their biases as neutral, nothing is going to stop them from POV warring. There are plenty of competent editors in this area.

What happens when you have these self righteous, highly biased editors going around? They will do or say anything to get their way. Because they are right, after all. They won't care about any policy or "POV". They will just twist everything to get their way. Again, they are the ones who are right, aren't they? And everyone else is a paid mercenary of the Russian state, aren't they? I find these editor's claims of acting legitimately highly ridiculous. The chance that it is a coincidence that everything they believe to be reliable or notable is pro-EE is zero.

I know that they are going to respond to this by denying any wrongdoing, Wikilawyering and whatever battlefield tactics they can come up with. And they will just be proving my point. And let me just say this - if you knew my background you could hardly accuse me of communist sympathies, so don't even go there. This is not to say, however, that either side has conducted themselves well, however this is about EEML. No one needs to reply to this or anything, this is just my statement. Triplestop x3 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Triplestop believes opposing edits like Children are often molested or Estonian government ministers wear Nazi symbols is wrong and I should be topic banned from the entire EE space as a consequence. --Martintg (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No Martintg, I do oppose edits like that. However, some disgusting troll writes some ignorant drivel about how "Communism forged a new order on genocide" and you welcome it with open arms? Clearly you are no better Struck by clerk. And that is just from what I've seen. (Don't get me wrong, the page is in a much more reasonable state now). Triplestop x3 23:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If your are talking about the article Communist genocide, that is not entirely correct. I voted keep in the original AfD because while the original article did have problems, the topic was notable. I supported the subsequent move to Mass killings under Communist regimes after it was kept, which you agree is more reasonable. There is a considerable body of literature that supports the view that communist regimes were responsible for mass killings. What does the fact that you want the most severe sanction applied against me because your viewpoint did not prevail in an AfD say about you? --Martintg (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wanting to keep nonsense like that went far beyond merely favoring your viewpoint. I was merely upholding WP:NPOV, something you clearly don't care about Struck by clerk. Name one EE article I have edit warred on. And I'm just curious, what do you think is my "viewpoint" anyways? Am I a paid editor of the Russian state? Triplestop x3 23:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, you were "merely upholding WP:NPOV", but don't all POV warriors also claim that? Your viewpoint evidently seems to be that communist genocide is nonsense. However published author Rebecca Knuth treats "communist genocide" as a specific concept in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial. As for alleged Russian government involvement, I never held that view. Note that the Russian President recently condemned communist mass killings. --Martintg (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - @Triplestop: Either you have failed to read a single word of the NUMEROUS notices I have posted that strictly regulate user conduct on these case pages, or failed to notice the long list of editors who have previously incurred formal warnings or page bans for posting inflammatory comments. Regardless, you have just joined the "warned" list for posting comments above that serve no purpose but to criticise another editor. I have struck the offending comments. Be grateful I'm in a good mood today as you came very close to getting a case ban without warning. Manning (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I believe I was the one who said no one needs to reply. Either way, I have said what I need to say, and that is all I'm going to say. Good luck on this case, Martintg and have a nice life. Triplestop x3 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question for Flo Night Re [20090625-2220]

Uh ... what in the world is wrong with [20090625-2220]? I'll repost what I wrote in the email here (which according to the clerk I'm allowed to do):

"I've emailed Thatcher about this and yes, that's exactly how he's justifying his restriction - by pointing to some previous "warnings" about edit warring. I'm trying to keep this off wiki so as to avoid drama for now.

What Wiki rule did I break here or what kind of disruption did this causes? I was appealing a 1RR restriction by Thatcher which I thought was spurious, I emailed him, I told him I emailed other people for advice and... I'm at a complete loss as to what is wrong with that email. Letting other people know that I emailed Thatcher, or letting Thatcher know that I emailed other people? Is it because I said "I'm trying to keep this off wiki so as to avoid drama for now"? This is exactly what I wrote to Thatcher as well. Can you please clarify what I did wrong here - just so that I know not to do it again.

The other emails cited also leave me scratching my head (i.e. just because I'm only asking about this one, doesn't mean I consider the others as relevant either) but I don't have time to address it at the moment and this one's is just completely ... I'm not sure what word to use here ... irrelevant?radek (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire thread is the problem. To me it is manipulative and dishonest since you are intending to give a false impression about yourself and the other members of the list to the admins working AE and doing other admin work. This was a theme through many threads all year long. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you then provide a link to an email from that thread which actually shows that I am "intending to give a false impression about" myself, rather than one which shows nothing of the kind?

The way I remember it, I was writing pretty much exactly the same thing to Thatcher as I was writing on the list. And then I collected it up and pretty much used it verbatim for my appeal. I also wrote several other admins and peoples and in each case I tried to be careful to fully disclose that I was emailing a few other peoples.

The only possible thing you could be referring to - that I remember - is that somewhere I said I wanted to disassociate myself from Digwuren and maybe some of the others. Which I did, given that they were reverting quite a bit, just like PasswordUsername, Offliner etc. and I wasn't (I made two reverts in 10 days). But this was an honest desire - just because I'm on the same mailing list doesn't mean I agree 100% with what other members do.

It seems like you're mislabeling trying to build a persuasive case (with some input and help from others) as "manipulative and dishonest". Again, please link to an email which actually shows this dishonesty. Or better yet, an email and a relevant on-Wiki diff

(I mean, seriously, even if I tried to "give a false impression about myself" to Thatcher, which I didn't, in a private email - how is that against any Wiki policy)radek (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to directly quote anything I said or post my portions of the messages from that thread right here in plain view of everyone. I'll post another one you refer to myself:

Since I am trying not to do any reverts at the moment someone else should make the rounds of cleaning up after that annoying anon: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wo%C5%82%C3%B3w&curid=715171&diff=298789157&oldid=294712637 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_I_the_Elbow-high&diff=prev&oldid=298805166 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jan_Muskata&diff=prev&oldid=297015263 (this is the version that probably should be the one to revert to)

(Again, what's wrong with some help with cleaning up after an anon extreme-POV pusher that is almost certainly a user perma banned by Jimbo [8]?) I wasn't making reverts because I was paranoid.radek (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? What is wrong is that there are already ways to deal with anon IP vandals and banned users in Wikipedia procedures. Secretly organizing a cabal to circumvent Wikipedia rules on edit warring is simply not a permissible way of going about that. Characterizing this particular move as innocent is symptomatic of the problem that has appalled me (as a relative outsider) from the first time I learned about this case: you and many of the listmembers refuse to admit having done anything wrong here, and in fact you are now even flaunting the evidence of wrongdoing. If you really don't understand what is wrong with this sort of action, you need to spend a few months really studying Wikipedia rules before making any further edits. csloat (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The 70-71 dynamic ip revert warrior with his/her hit and run renames, unsourced edits and mispelled / broken links (ex. Craków instead of Cracow/Kraków or Bishop Nanker instead of Nankier/de:Nankier/pl:Nankier) has been a constant annoyance in Polish-German subject for years. In hindsight, reporting such vandalism should be left to WP:POLAND / WP:GERMANY and other public noticeboards. But I do have trouble linking Radek's email informing others about new edits of known, disruptive ip editor to a 12-month topic ban... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've posted all of my emails that Flo quoted in her proposal here [9] along with my comments on it. As I say there, I'm sure I've done something wrong in the past 9 months - going 9 months without causing any kind of trouble in a controversial topic area such as this is pretty much impossible. But the emails she cites seem to be either irrelevant or have to do with the fact that at one point I had the chutzpah to question Thatcher's unfair sanction or Jehochman's "involvedness". This seems to be more about a no-name editor such as myself talking back to members of some elite inner clique (mostly Thatcher) rather than any kind of real disruptive action by myself.

Jesus Freakin Christ, if you're gonna propose blocks or bans on me, at least propose them for some minor infraction I might have committed, not for goofy ego games.radek (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. User:Radeksz/Misdeeds. So evil... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, didn't have to go far into that link. Radeksz the very first one is a clear example of votestacking. You did not call attention to a vote to 'save' it from being forgotten. You did not ask people to carefully concider the facts and come to their own conclusion. You asked them to vote, you SPECIFICALLY asked them to vote support, and you got it. How much clearer does it need to be? Your 'comment' afterwards does not show that it was not organized vote-stacking, it shows that you concider vote-stacking OK when few people care about the vote. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No merge has however been carried out, as there were not enough meaningful comments. Radek should ask for RfC on that issue now (and should have done it in the first place). But other than asking for comments in the wrong place, how does this justify a year long topic ban? Again, please note that neither he nor anybody else have merged the articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of doing an RfC? So it can sit there for another four months? There really is no point in bothering.radek (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes RfC do work and attract attention. You have acted in good faith (IMHO) but next time, do RfC / post to WP:POLAND / WP:GERMANY first. Now, we also have the EEUROPE noticboard too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I never merged the article. The POV fork is still there. Honestly, I asked people to vote out of frustration. Then I had second thoughts and decided to wait until somebody truly uninvolved commented. Do you really think that something truly horrible happened in this instance? Worthy of a year long ban? Seriously?radek (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that the lack of a merge forgives the vote-stacking doesn't hold water in my eyes. All that means is the vote-stacking failed. The fact is the vote-stacking still happened and shows a willingness to do so even in inconsequential situations. That you are defending it shows you don't understand that what you did was wrong. About the only thing you have said that I think deserves merit is 'Then I had second thoughts'. Which, to your credit, shows you were only willing to go so far down the rabbit hole. Was there horrible damage to wikipedia? no. Is that particular incedent alone worthy of a year long ban? unlikely. Is it only the first of a whole pile of things you are accused of? Yup. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The FoF cite 4 emails against Radek. Do you mean that combined, those four emails justify a year long topic ban? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - asking for the votes - after four months passed and no one voted, was wrong and done out of frustration. But the merge wasn't made. Like you said, it's not something a year long ban is appropriate. And please note that out of all the emails cited by Flo this is the only one that has something "bad" in it. I have no idea what the other cited emails are supposed to show - except that I was planning on filing an appeal (and then did so) and questioned an admin's judgment (in private).radek (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So you've convinced me to look into it further. I'll give you a item list of what I think is why these are listed as examples of disruption. Numbered by your numbering in the link. I apologise for length, and I am putting it here and not the other page because I am hesitant to alter someone elses usepage. If a clerk feels this should be refactored or transfered elsewhere I will not argue.

1. Votestacking. You asked for, and got, specific votes. I see no reason why the fact that the votestacking failed should forgive the act.

The "votestacking" didn't "fail" - I choose to ignore the votes that happened from the votestacking. POV fork article is still there. Again, where's the damage?radek (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As this has degraded to 'did to! did not!' I have no response and still disagree. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Shows a battleground mentality where you are identifing an enemy (from the words 'betrays his prejudices here') and identifing two separate stradegies to deal with said enemy. While I admit this can be wikilawyered, the words 'its probably time to start questioning his "uninvolvedness"' are easily taken as you calling apon the list to do so. If it can be identified that someone on the list (not you) did question him thusly then that would remove the doubt. The last sentance shows that at least one other person is 'in' on your attempt to undermine an admins position (the words 'which I think someone already mentioned') showing your activity on the list qualifying as off-wiki coordination for on-wiki disruption. Again, the success of failure of this act is of little consequence, only that it happened.

Um, if I think someone has 'prejudices' that's my opinion and I have a right to express it privately. Also I don't see it betraying a "battleground mentality" or anything of the sort. People can be biased and be acting in good faith at the same time. And I just said I was going to question his uninvolvedness" - which I might have. But is this an offense? "Though shall not talk back to administrators"?radek (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Having an opinion and talking back to administrators is not what you are being accused of. Feel free to re-read, because I'm not retyping it. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Difficult to understand without context. I suspect the words 'keep this off-wiki' is being interpreted as you coordinating activity off-wiki that you would expect cause drama on-wiki. Most often someone hiding something to avoid drama can translate to underhanded activity, but that would require some extra bad faith assumption. It would be nice if this could be extrapolated on.

Actually difficult to understand WITH context, even impossible. As I said above this is almost verbatim as what I wrote to Thatcher - I told him I didn't want to create unnnecessary drama so I was emailing him/her personally. S/he seemed fine with that and responded. But now somehow this was a bad thing?

Unless Flonight explains this further then I don't think I can keep commenting. I already speculated and further speculation won't be helpful. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

4. You are asking others to revert for you. Even if I take your story at face value it begs the question of why you felt the need to hide your reverts when any revert restriction automatically makes exemptions for vandalism. If Thatcher slapped you with a ban for reverting vandalism then not only would it get overturned immediately but his judgement would also be questioned. Instead, you coordinated off-wiki to evade what you felt was a restriction placed on you. Again, the damage was minimal but your willingness to evade your restrictions through off-wiki coordination in even the most trivial of times is a troubling pattern. Alternatively, if he was not a vandal then the statement is doubly damning.

I wasn't banned. I could have made these reverts myself. I was paranoid that the most innocent of edits could be used as an excuse, given the atmosphere at the time. Seriously, if I had made this request on somebody's talk page, would it have been problematic? No. And I think you're being way too optimistic and naive with the If Thatcher slapped you with a ban for reverting vandalism then not only would it get overturned immediately but his judgement would also be questioned. - that's not how this world works.radek (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have made it on a talk page. The fact that it was organised in secret IS the problem. You need to see that. My naivity is only juxtaposed against your pessimism. You yourself admit that it could be done without resorting to secret mailing lists... and yet the secret list was your first choice. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

5. This is asking Poitrus to use his position as an admin to sway a discussion, even going so far as to suggest ways to complete the masquerade. 'act puzzled and suprised and disappointed' would be the key words here. I believe Poitrus is being voted on for a FoF for doing so. This shows these actions were coordinated off-wiki.

I think you're mischarecterizing what's going on here. This is more of just expressing a personal opinion in a private email. Again - where's the diffs which some kind of damage? And this appears to be based on a "thou shall not question important administrators" kind of reasoning.radek (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing there about questioning admins. What you call 'expressing opinions' I see as 'suggesting actions'. If those suggestions are acted apon, then you can be held responsible. 198.161.174.222 (talk)

So Flonight showed five examples (which do not have to be exhaustive) of disruption. Where I stand, one of those is weak and needs extra backing. I see an ongoing pattern of distruption. The success of which is less important than the fact that it happened and without this case was very likely to continue unabated. That, taken together, is worth voting over wether a topic ban is needed. I leave the voting to the arbs. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right that this is something we're not going to agree on. I don't think the examples show disruption (at worst "thought crime"), there was no damage done to Wikipedia but I am ready to admit that some of it probably skids a bit close to violating some policies in terms of minor infractions (making the proposed ban way out of proportion). I also think this is more about questioning the authority of administrators than anything else. But I very much appreciate your constructive and good faithed comments (note to clerk: I don't regard anything said by 198 as uncivil)radek (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding the FoF related to Martintg

The FoF against me claims I "participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics". If I am to be sanctioned, could Flonight or NYB extend the courtesy of articulating in the FoF which content disputes in which articles. Out of the three references cited [20090404-0554][20090615-0607][20090818-0353], the first two were idle What If musings with no consequence, while [20090818-0353] mentions two articles Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group), which an examination of the edit histories shows there was no subsequent involvement on that date of August 18 by other list members. If nothing occurred, how can it be stated that it was "arranged covertly on the maillist".

Could Flonight or NYB also articulate why such broad topic bans are required, for example I've never edited Polish/Lithuanian or Polish/German related articles to any significant degree, let alone edit warred, in fact I ended up deleting the emails regarding those areas unread. Recent ArbCom cases are far more selective in scope. for example, it would be like giving Brews ohare and Abd a science wide topic ban instead of just physics wide or Cold fusion respectively, or ChildofMidnight a North American wide ban instead of Obama related articles. The reason given seems to be "it would be too difficult to enforce", but evidently not so in other cases. --Martintg (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that I edited one of those articles: [10]. Inspired by your email (and intrigued by the fact that this group has the same name as a book I've read), I removed extra whitespaces. Behold, the cabal at work :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding the FoF related to Piotrus

First, I cannot find emails originally linked by Coren as [20090206-2304][20090206-2304][20090216-0055]. Perhaps there is a typo (and please note that the first one and the second one are the same)?

Second, regarding two emails cited by FloNight. [20090825-2011] and [20090826-0252] - yes, as I recognized, agreed with and pledged to do early on in this case, requests for others to comment and edit on articles should be made publicly, on wiki. But in both cases cited I had made only two reverts (each) in two different articles (see August 25 and 26 at Stanisław Narutowicz and Lithuanian nobility). Thus in both cases I was entitled to make a third edit myself, within our policies - but instead I asked others to review the situation (I wanted (and still want to) stick to 2RR or 1RR, and yes, I should have done it publicly on wiki). Note that neither article was also a part of some previous edit war, as in both cases neither I nor any other member of our list have approached anywhere near 3RR in the preceding days (weeks/months in the case of the Lithuanian nobility article). In the case of Narutowicz, I have explained my first revert on talk (starting Talk:Stanisław_Narutowicz#Removal_of_mentions_of_Brewiki_and_Telsze) and used informative edit summaries, while the editor who was reverting me didn't do either till a few days later (and aren't plain "undue" edit summaries somewhat rude? [20090825-2011] was a result of frustration with two undos of my civil reverts with informative edit summaries and lack of replies from the reverting editor to my posts on talk). I have also reviewed the edit history of both articles; in both cases even if all editors of our list are treated as one, 3RR was not broken (so one can hardly argue we used superior numbers!). As such if there was any disruption in the article, I believe it didn't originate from me (or from the list): 3RR was not broken (group wise), discussion on talk was started by me at the time of my revert (per WP:BRD) and was ongoing in a civil fashion. I have done the same in the other article (starting Talk:Lithuanian_nobility#after_1569). The revert exchange in the second case (Lithuanian nobility) involved only 5 edits total (A,B,A,B,C - over three days)... before the article became stable again. Hardly an event meriting coming back to...

I am trying to understand how this evidence merits the finding that I have "participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly", and how those few incidents (one in February (if Coren's dates are correct), one in August) merit a 3-month ban followed up a a 12-month topic ban, particularly in light of my recognition that requests to other editors to get involved in editing of other articles should be made on-wiki, preferably on public fora such as WP:EEUROPE noticeboard, and also in light that since the case started two month ago I have not been involved in any controversial editing (if I were, I am sure relevant diffs would be in FoF). As such, and in accordance with our policy that remedies such as bans should be preventative, not punitive, I have to conclude that the proposed remedies are aimed at preventing some future disruption. What kind of disruption has occurred that was not addressed by me so far and hence is still expected and has to be prevented by such a draconian remedy? I am always happy to learn from my mistakes and work with the Committee in tailoring the remedies, so that the evidence-backed concerns of disruption will not repeat themselves, at the same time allowing me to continue uncontroversial editing such as GAing Juliusz Słowacki (please note that none of my past 30+ GAs and FAs have proven controversial enough to be ever cited at any DR proceedings) or gnomish editing maintaining WP:POLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing, stealth call for reverts, stealth plotting to suppress opponents - indeed battleground creation and battleground mentality. Speaking of your new “pledges”, community already had sound promises , as it became evident without any real honest substance. I think community tired from any new “promises”. M.K. (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The only battleground mentality I see there is in the editor who was reverting me without edit summaries and who refused to participate in talk discussion. Yes, I shouldn't have reported his behavior to a private fora, but to a public one. Still, no battleground was created by my actions (no 3RRs were broken, no uncivil comments were made). And I kept my promise to Irpen - I never supported creating battlegrounds (which the policy defines clearly as incivility, POINT disruption and legal threats). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can not believe that you try to sit there with a straight face and say that you never supported creating battlegrounds. Oh well, this edit shows just how honest you really are Piotrus. Do we really have to drag out every single email in the archive in which you remind the other members that 3RR can be easily gotten around, etc? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Russavia earns a formal warning for that comment (I'll post it when I get time). I think I've made it very clear that any and all forms of incivility are simply not tolerated. Manning (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You were involved in some controversial editing since the case started. this edit is controversial. You were told by multiple editors that 12 titles for one article is not appropriate, you were told that absolutism is not the same as despotism, and that unrelated google book search results are not a valid references. You did not resolve this issues, but reinserted your slightly modified original text.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If my single revert on that page was controversial, you'd think that in a month that has passed those "multiple editors" would have reverted me :> As it is, we had a civil discussion on talk, the existing version is a result of a long discussion and compromises, and nobody chose to revert. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I cannot find emails originally linked by Coren as [20090206-2304][20090206-2304][20090216-0055]. Perhaps there is a typo (and please note that the first one and the second one are the same)? - I asked about this several weeks ago.radek (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, you will be punished not for being bad, but for being too good (see Fof 3.2.8.1 List secrecy, for example). Unlike me, you are a true member of wikipedia family, with 100,000 edits, an administrator, always civil and always ready to discuss. Now you are going to be banned for talking at the kitchen. This reminds me Russian motto that seriously suggests "Torture your own people to frighten the aliens" (Bei svoix chtoby chuzie bojalis'). This also comes in theology: God punishes you like Job because he loves you, because he cares about you. Just think this way, and everything will be much easier. Some agnostics disagree. You might re-read, for example, first chapters of Le Père Goriot where author explains why certain people do not respect their own relatives but polite with strangers.Biophys (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to translate 'бей' (bei) as 'torture' (it means 'beat'). Alæxis_¿question? 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In english, if you were to repeatedly beat someone then it can qualify as torture. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for a topic ban and canvassing restriction

Obviously, I've been following the evidence and discussions here for quite a while :) Looking at the preceding discussions, it seems that most controversies are centered around a topic areas that can be defined as "modern Russian contentious politics". I think that a topic bans on that subject, for multiple parties involved here, should vastly reduce the conflict on EE subjects. I would be more than happy to voluntarily adopt such a topic ban for the next year. If this is seen as too narrow, and if there is sufficient evidence to warrant it, it could be expanded to "critique and defense of Soviet Union and communism". The wording could be as follows: "...is topic banned from articles about modern Russian contentious politics, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics, for a period of...."

Second, it is obvious that there are concerns about canvassing/votestacking. In addition to pledges to avoid it and a pledge to use public forums such as WP:EEN (which I have made), how about a restriction / topic ban from voting on any EE related subjects? The wording could be as follows: "...is topic banned from voting on talk pages and in any process discussion related to articles about Eastern Europe, for a period of...".

I think that such a topic ban and restriction should prevent any potential disruption to occur, while allowing editors to continue constructive and uncontroversial editing (it is important to see things in contexts - more than 99% of edits by editors on whom the EE topic bans, in the EE topic area, are uncontroversial, and beneficial to the project). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by Uninvolved Editor: This proposal is very appropriate. I realize that there may be resistance to imposing a sanction suggested by the subject of said sanction. However, I am convinced that the user is making an earnest effort to eliminate the potential for misconduct while retaining the ability to contribute to innocuous areas of interest. The voluntary abstention from Eastern Europe votes shows innovative thinking and good faith. Regarding the topic ban suggestion, I would favor a slightly broader interpretation such as: "... is topic banned from articles substantively relating to contentious political issues in Eastern Europe, as judged by an uninvolved observer." That really would eliminate most articles that have been the focus of contention, while being more targeted than the overly general topic bans previously proposed. —Finn Casey * * * 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And what about the 2007 case findings and restrictions found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren? That didn't stop the creation of the EEML mailing list or the problematic behavior from the same involved editors. FYI... it is almost 2010. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have not examined those previous findings in enough detail to be fully conversant regarding their applicability. However, to get right to the point, can anyone provide an example of an article that the user in question has edited signficantly and that he would be allowed to edit under my proposal but which he has a history of abusively editing? That is, where exactly would the proposal fall short? —Finn Casey * * * 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I am afraid that the problem with your proposal, Finn, is that it is open to gaming just as NYB's proposal (discussed few threads above). Let me give you several specific examples from my recent (and planned edits), and I'll let you try to tailor the wording to ensure that no gaming is possible. My recent DYKs (uncontroversial and so on) include: Nicolaus Copernicus Monument in Warsaw (yet Copernicus' nationality is a "contentious political issues" on Wikipedia...) and Radom Ghetto and Sosnowiec Ghetto (yet Holocaust is also a "contentious political issue"). About my future editing, look at my userpage, red box on the left, for a big list of articles I want to DYK (search for Self-government in Poland if you get lost). I also want to GA Juliusz Słowacki. The article (as many others on history) will touch on some "contentious political issues", such as when to use spelling Vilnius/Wilno, or a discussion of nationalism (early support for and later critique) in his works. I also want to reFeature Stanisław Koniecpolski, an article which will involve some (tangential, but still) discussion of the (somewhat) controversial suppressions of several Cossack uprisings. Would I be allowed to create those DYKs if under your restriction, and work on such GAN/FANs? Could somebody report me to AE for breaking the topic ban by arguing that I wrote an article on "contentious political issues"? Should I be required to analyze every possible interpretation of every sentence and word in any article I edit, on the off chance it can be a "contentious political issue"? Lastly, there is still no evidence in FoF that I have been involved in any disruption other than the canvassing issues, which I address by proposing to adopt a voluntary restriction on all EE voting. To rephrase you, Finn: "Can somebody point to an article that I would be allowed to edit under my proposals but which I have a history of abusively editing?" PS. Bottom line, Finn, is that while a general EE topic ban prevents me from editing, yours (and NYB's) version make me afraid to edit in this area :> That said, as I said in my comment on NYB's proposal, they are an improvement on the general topic ban as they would at least allow me to continue gnomish tasks at WP:POLAND (which I list here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I agree. Hence the new approach (voting restriction). Although as I noted,this should be coupled with remedies to rebuild trust and deradicalize editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe isn't an homogeneous space. Perhaps some people cannot tell one EE area from another, they all look the same to them, but the Committee seems able to distinguish between the different branches of science without too much trouble according to recent case history. The following areas of contention are: topics of involving shared German-Polish history, shared Lithuanian-Polish history, contemporary Russian politics and collaborationism in Estonia. Now if I am part of a "nationalist bloc" as User:Anti-Nationalist claims, why would I be interested in Polish topics? As I said previously, my only hot button issue is the kind of antics currently going on at Talk:Lia Looveer#Was Looveer a Nazi collaborator?. Is the Committee really fearful I may edit war with Polish and Lithuanian editors over Duchy of Livonia that I need to be topic banned from the entire EE space? It's really not that hard to figure what the hot button topic spaces are for all concerned and apply appropriate remedies. --Martintg (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally Piotrus's proposal is pretty solid. Technically concers about edit warring could be still rised, but that could be fixed with general 1RR in EE articles + prohibition of reverting if same revert has been done by some other user in last 24 hours (so technically an article based 1RR for certain user, where previous similar reverts by other users also count for him if he wants to get involved). That would make it impossible to participate in gaming of 3RR rule by tag teaming.--Staberinde (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I hope the point has been made enough times that these restrictions should be targeted so as not to do incidental harm to the encyclopedia. It's only the contentious areas which need to be covered by any ban. Certainly nothing as wide-ranging as "Eastern Europe" (which some people probably even interpret as including Poland) should be being considered. Piotrus in particular makes massive uncontroversial contributions in this area, and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to say he can't continue to do so.--Kotniski (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Piotrus has done a good job of precisely defining the problem area. I think the restriction on related talk pages and process discussions is a good idea, too. Staberinde raises an interesting suggestion as well, in effect an enforceable prohibition on joining a edit-war tag team. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• What articles, such as Lithuanian nobility; Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga; Kołobrzeg; Battle of Vilnius (1655); Prussian estates; Wołów; Szczecin, Human rights in the United States etc. etc. has anything to do with “modern Russian contentious politics” or “relating to contentious political issues in Eastern Europe“ and similar proposals? Apparently none. Therefore similar formulation of topic bans, mentioned above, would legitimize gaming the system, wikilawyering and more gaming the system and more wikilawering. Regarding RR limitations, Piotrus always told the other EEML members that they should call in reinforcements for reverts thru their instant messenger friends or other EEML members. Now what will a 1RR change? Only those reinforcements would be called even more often, I think M.K. (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last part. 1RR is a joke and a slap in the face to editors who are here to contribute in a collegial environment. That mailing list members are proposing such a sanction on themselves goes to show that they still don't think they did a thing wrong. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where the 3RR was broken - even treating all mailing list participants as one editor - on those articles. In any article in which it was broken, I would be more than happy to see a "1RR for all participants treated as one editor restriction", as suggested by other neutral parties earlier (ex. Staberinde above). And I have never edited Human rights in the United States. My only edit to Wołów was in 2005... I haven't edited Szczecin since 2006... Please at least try to keep the evidence relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MK and Russavia, as I am only person who raised 1RR proposal (in a modified form) in this section, I must assume that you criticism in relation to this is addressed to me. Unfortunately it seems that you did not read my RR restriction proposal through, because essentially your criticism is same "1RR doesn't work, they will tag team!", which is exactly what I addressed by proposing specifically modified 1RR, to make it impossible for a restricted editor to join tag teaming. Also I would note to Russavia that I am not a mailing list member, and dramatic statements in style "joke and a slap in the face" don't particularly help discussing things in "collegial environment" of what you seem fond of.--Staberinde (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another Comment by Another Uninvolved Editor: I don't have an issue with canvassing. I think that at times it is necessary and appropriate. But if there is such a thing as inappropriate canvassing ... it merits a canvassing restriction, not a topic ban. If Piotrus votes on EE topics were problematic, restrict him from voting. There is nothing wrong with him being able to write another Featured Article about Poland. --evrik ^(talk) 15:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on preceding and following comments, I think that an article probation is an even better idea than a narrow focus ban. It would achieve the same effect, plus prevent potential disruption by editors (from any side) that are not a party to this case (and hence wouldn't be affected by its editor-targeted remedies). This would also alleviate concerns that some editors may result to sock or meatpuppetry. Can we try to create a list of articles that should be put on such a probation? I'd start with web brigades and associated articles, Bronze Soldier and Estonian-Russian relations article, and biographies of imprisoned or recently deceased Russian dissidents. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Article probation is a general sanction that would affect everyone's future editing of these articles because of past EEML activities there.

The general sanctions paragraph of the Digwuren case has already been succeeded by the more effective discretionary sanctions paragraph.

That the EEML in some cases managed to avoid that paragraph's consequences was due to their off-wiki strategical collaboration, not due to the articles not being placed under general sanctions. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions against Radeksz and Jacurek

I have examined the evidence and frankly I think the 1 year long ban is a complete overkill. First the article which was voted for merging is a highly POV work which even has a title which should never exist in the first place on english wikipedia. But leaving that apart, in the EE topic area I have seen 100s times people who share POV "vote in block" so to say. Criminalising Radeksz, Jacurek and Tymek for that seems over the top, especially coz the voting resulted in no action, the problematic POV-titled article still exists. In any case if the ArbCom finds the voting disruptive simply ban Radeksz, Jacurek and Tymek from all voting in the same article merging proposal - problem solved. If Radeksz was edit warring too much simply put him on 1RR restriction for some time - problem solved. "Punishing" these editors with long term nukes just doesn't make any sense. Loosmark (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Restrictions are fine, but they should be tailored to benefit the project, and prevent the damage, not penalize editors for actions that occurred many months ago (and actions they have promised not to repeat). Restrict editors from voting, reverting - fine, but why prevent them from creating uncontroversial content? At User:Radeksz/DYKs is the list of 35 DYKs Radek created this year alone. Not a single of them have been a cause of any disruption; there is no denying that they have benefited the project. I think it should be quite possible to tailor any remedies to allow Radek to continue writing such DYKs. I know Tymek, author of about as many DYKs, is working on improving Lesser Poland to a GA nomination - ditto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not just this year alone, but since May, when I figured out that new articles can be DYKed.radek (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek was blocked for disruptive battleground behaviour on October 29. This was not many months ago, but during this case. DYK don't give immunity from possible sanctions or right to participate in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution. --DonaldDuck (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course they don't. So? My point is not that editors' good edits should give them immunity from disruptive ones, rather, that if editors are capable of uncontroversial, constructive editing, sanctions should be tailored to them to achieve the best of both worlds - prevent disruption and allow uncontroversial editing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever collaborate with editors you don't know outside of EE topics? DYK is not really considered a collaborative process. Anyone can nominate a DYK, even a non-contributor. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you saying here? I can't understand your point.radek (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what is your point, but I've written over 20 Featured Articles, on which I collaborated with many dozens of editors. I am sure other editors can point you to articles they have created where they collaborated with others, as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think my question was clear. Do you collaborate with editors you don't know outside of EE topics? For example, you have an interest (both amateur and professional) in history, political sciences, communication, technology, sociology, economics, and science fiction. Do you ever work on these topics with other editors outside of the scope of EE? Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If that question is addressed to me then the answer is yes, though not as much as in EE topics. Though I don't see what that's got to do with anything.radek (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The questions were addressed to Piotrus, both times, and I haven't addressed Radeksz at all, and I don't understand why he keeps responding. Piotrus, I am curious what non-EE articles you were working on prior to the start of this arbcom case. Your article creations don't show much work outside of EE topics, and your top namespace contributions seem primarily related to Poland. One of the ways forward in this case (after two previous arbcoms that have not had the desired results) is to recommend that the EEML participants work on improving articles outside of EE topics. Piotrus says he's been doing that, but I don't see it. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find at least three FAs on my FA list which are not about Poland (let me make it easy for you: the first FA I wrote was about a German sociologist: Max Weber). That said, as I and others noted earlier, to assume I or others can channel our energy into something we find less entertaining is a fallacy. Think about it that way: if I were topic banned from Polish articles in the past, would I have 20-something FAs as I do now, just on other subjects? I don't think so. Maybe I'd have not three but six of such FAs, but maybe I wouldn't be an editor here at all. One of my primary purposes in joining Wikipedia was to improve its dismal coverage of Polish history. A primary reason most of us edit Wikipedia is because we find it fun. Reasonable arguments about community service aside (I have been editing wikisource in the past weeks per John's suggsetion, and I find it fun, too), you cannot expect that a productive editor, once you ban him from his primary area of expertise and enjoyment, will still be as productive as he was. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 6,825,628 articles on the English Wikipedia, and there's a lot of work to do. You obviously have an interest in a great many topics other than EE, as you explain on your user page. This is the third case involving the EEML participants that has reached the Arbitration Committee, and these cases only distract us from the goal: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."[11] This global mission is not one of omphaloskepsis but exactly the opposite, unconstrained by tribal loyalties, ethnic heritage, or the boundaries of a nation-state. Productive editors in this project, therefore, are not those who specialize in one topic fraught with conflict, but those who are capable of transcending those disputes and working in good faith with any editor on any side of an issue. At the end of the day, it does not matter what the topic is, or how many brass rings you are able to grab, but whether the mission has been successful. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem here, as noted by editors in previous topic, was inappropriate canvassing. Fine, it will not happen (and if you don't trust my word, lobby for the ban on voting, which I proposed above). I have proven, time and again, that I can write uncontroversial and high quality (Featured) content on Polish history topics. Now tell me - why shouldn't I be allowed to write about Juliusz Słowacki, Tymek about Lesser Poland, and me and Radek about economic history of Poland? The argument that other stuff needs help doesn't hold water; sure, there are plenty of subjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - and one of those lists was compiled by me. Find one article on that list that I was disruptive on (I've stubbed and DYKed many dozens from it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about milder restriction with a 1-strike rule, if the editor makes a clear cut violation of the "probation", the restrictions become the stricter topic ban. Is it possible to be implemented without possibility of gaming by any of the parties? (Igny (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Overall, I am quite fond of a 1-strike rule (and the related rule of escalating blocks). We just have to be crystal clear on what the terms of the probation are; it would also be nice to accompany them with an example of past behavior that would violate it, so the editors can see in their past diffs what behavior is unacceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Igny's suggestion has a lot of merit, not just in the case of Radeksz and Jacurek, but perhaps for all the editors named in the remedies, including Piotrus. Craft a narrow restriction, such as the one drafted by Piotrus in the preceding section, as a probation; if the narrow restriction is violated, impose the broader topic ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Probation" will require constant admin supervision for several sanctioned editors and will lead to further conflict over what is or isn't violation of restrictions, etc. --DonaldDuck (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am relatively confident that any clear violation of restrictions would be reported in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement faster than you can spell "Polish Cabal". There is no need for constant admin supervision, other editors active in same EE articles are most effective supervision you can get. Any violation of properly worded topic ban, voting restriction, or reverting restriction, would be very easy to spot. Only way to mess it up would be using poor wording in restrictions, that would leave room for too wide range of interpretations.--Staberinde (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are no get out of jail free cards on Wikipedia, however constantly I see brought upfront number of edits, DYKs, Gas, FAs etc. as some sort of means, which should convince community to reconsider and reduced proposed sanctions. Please drop that.M.K. (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I’m not sure if our arbitrators read this page, on top of their many other responsibilities and functions. I hope they do, because there are broader, unforeseen consequences to a number of possibly disproportionate remedies in the current proposal. We can see Radeksz topic banned from EE articles for one year (3/1), Jacurek topic banned from EE articles for one year (3/1), Tymek topic banned from EE articles for one year (2/2) on top of a 3-month ban (1/1), Piotrus topic banned from EE articles (and all processes) for one year (4/0) on top of a 3-month ban (2/1) and so on. – What this really means is that most of the driving force behind the Wikipedia portal: Poland is also banned for one year, while every single one of the usual political adversaries of Potal Poland will be free to use that time to their own advantage and thus revisit Polish history, politics, geography, etc., and push it back a hundred years in development. Wikipedia database grows by difference of opinion with better sources brought in every day in support of all points of view. Some users wouldn’t mind seeing their adversaries gone. However, their own biased editing will not stop just because there is no opposition and no-one’s watching. Personally, I would recommend shorter and narrower bans, because the EEML members (including those who did nothing wrong) have already been punished enough by the outrage of our community since the beginning of this case; though, their further participation matters. --Poeticbent talk 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So they shouldn't be banned because they're needed to keep the battle going? I'm sorry, I don't want to see Polish articles Russified or Germanized either, but this argument holds no water for me. The temporary loss of four editors isn't going to skew the POV of the EE articles any more than having a secret powerful Polish bloc does. However, the bans could reduce the battleground mentality long enough to develop some long term solutions. Leo1410 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The bans will not reduce the battleground mentality of users with that sort of attitude who have not been a part of EEML, but who edit EE articles daily. They will likely carry on in unison as if there was no tomorrow. --Poeticbent talk 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, nobody here wants that to happen. Would arbcom consider placing the most problematic EE-related articles on article probation? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Can you elaborate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to elaborate, but you can take a look at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation to see how it was applied to Obama articles. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think such probation is a good idea. What articles should we put under such "EE probation"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how effective the Obama sanctions have been, but the Israel-Palestine sanctions haven't been very effective. On the other hand, I've read that the Balkans sanctions have been pretty effective. [12] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither Israel-Palestine nor Balkans-related topics are under article probation. Both are, however, under discretionary sanctions. As for whether the community article probation of Obama-related articles is effective, you might want to look at the record of enforcement, which I find impressive. In my own experience (and opinion) I find the Obama article probation very effective, with disruptive editors being warned in a matter of minutes rather than hours, and blocked in a matter of hours rather than days. This is, I believe, the way forward, but it requires a commitment from many administrators involving actual work which is why we find it used on so few topics. As I recently mentioned to Peter Jackson, I think the behavior and action of the clerks on this case has been exemplary, and this is precisely what we need from administrators patrolling articles under probation. In other words, warnings, followed by blocks in a matter of days, not weeks. Zero tolerance across the board. The concerns raised by Poeticbent are important and should be addressed by arbcom. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that actions of clerk Manning Bartlett (give credit where due) have been excellent; if all of AE/ANI/other clerks were so good at enforcing civility, this project would be much, much better off. I completely support applying such strict standards, plus any type of general discretionary sanctions (strengthening WP:DIGWUREN plus specific article probations for most problematic articles to EE subjects. Can we think of any specific wordings (articles) to suggest for arbitrators? My suggestion for articles would start with web brigades, and I recall a bunch of Russian dissidents (mostly murdered) are quite controversial as well. And the Bronze Soldier? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In case ArbCom (i.e. Coren) is willing to consider this option in their proposal as a long term solution, I would encourage the case participants and editors faced with sanctions to help establish what exactly is in need of probation, for example, the articles that led to your perceived need/risk of coordination. Obviously, a well placed article probation would have a calming effect on Eastern Europe against blatantly biased negative POV, fringe theory advocacy etc., and I’m sure that some knowledgeable administrators already active in this field (such as Malik Shabazz and those designated by ArbCom) would be willing to agree to patrol them, apply sanctions and reply to inquiries on their own talk pages if necessary. --Poeticbent talk 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the "vote of confidence", Poeticbent, but since I'm a member of WikiProject Poland, I might not be considered an "uninvolved" administrator. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The so called "uninvolved" administrators wouldn’t have sufficient knowledge of what’s at stake, but the selection of member admins from different portals, assigned by ArbCom for their track record, would be extremely useful. --Poeticbent talk 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

A topic ban is meaningless unless the new account is identified to the community, or at least several members of the admin corp who monitor WP:AE and WP:ANI. Otherwise, how else will anybody know if Digwuren is causing trouble? The ArbCom members do not have time to patrol articles themselves. Furthermore, is there any evidence of Digwuren ever doing anything on Wikipedia besides nationalistic edit warring and vindetta seeking? It would seem sensible to ban this user permanently, for the good of Wikipedia. They were previously banned for a year, and clearly did not reform themselves. Instead, they set up a mailing list and used meat puppets to do their dirty work. This is a toxic personality who should never again be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

While I basically agree with your last sentence, I do remember encountering Digwuren on mathematical articles, where he did do something positive. Even there, however, his attitude was showing. I saw him baiting some people with novel ideas - some of these people were clearly quacks, but not all of them. Tensions were high in the EE part of Wikipedia at the time, perhaps there may be extenuating circumstances. So, a (hopefully long) topic ban may have some merit, provided admins in other areas of Wikipedia know whom they are dealing with. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty lenient about unbanning or unblocking people who want to do something productive. Could we ask Digwuren for a statement that (1) he's not going to organize any more lists for Wikipedia editing purposes, (2) he intends to focus on other interests, such as Mathematics. That's great if he wants to reform. I'm all in favor, but let him say so before we allow further editing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What new account? You seem to be assuming he will be coming back. Wikipedia is a volunteer project that people do for free in their leisure time. We have discussed this before and your belief that Digwuren is responsible for chasing your colleague Irpen off the project is truly as ironic as it is erroneous. --Martintg (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Marting, there's no reason to address Jehochman's beliefs here, and that could be misconstrued as a personal attack. Several editors have expressed legitimate concern about Digwuren's presence on Wikipedia based on messages sent to the EEML. There's no reason to go into it here again as it has been addressed in previous discussions. Jehochman's concerns appear valid, based on the evidence we have from previous arbcom's and the mailing list archives. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"I do remember encountering Digwuren on mathematical articles, where he did do something positive.". Some time ago I proposed that certain editors should be put under a sanction that would make them create uncontroversial articles (so a proposal akin to the community service one). The problem with some editors, however, is that given the choice of contributing to non-controversial and controversial articles, they will focus on the controversial ones (or even worse - they will focus on discussing them, rarely bothering to improve them). In such cases, a topic ban may in fact be useful. As I suggested earlier, a focused topic ban on "modern controversial Russian politics" may be helpful (but should apply to more than one side - hence I think that the article probation idea is an even better one). I also wonder if arbcom could not pass remedies along the lines "editor x is encouraged to focus on uncontroversial areas of his expertise, such as mathematics." Personally, I'd love to see Dig improve articles related to mathematics - and I doubt anybody else would have problem with that (of course, a big question is - is Dig still caring enough about Wikipedia (and welcomed enough by the community) to do that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears some people may have an issue with the person rather than the substance of their edits. For example back in February when Digwuren made one single edit to remove a BLP violation from the article Michael Wines, he was blocked by William M. Connelly. In the ensuing review on ANI, Jechochman was the only admin supporting the block, calling it a good block, even though Connelly subsequently admitted he made a mistake. --Martintg (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Remedy 11A

In regard to Remedy 11A Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Editors_restricted, does the Committee really believe it is appropriate to apply an on-wiki restriction merely for expressing personal thoughts about someone in a private off-wiki correspondence never intended to be viewed publicly? Generally the only occasions I have commented upon Russavia on-wiki was during legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, and I have strived to ensure that this has been as civil as possible. I have rarely interacted with him on his talk page, only three times in fact, and we have interacted only on a small subset of articles where our interests have coincided. FWIW, when I did discuss Russavia off-wiki, it was related to what I saw as his on-wiki disruptive behaviour at particular periods of time. Note that in one email I did state that Russavia seemed to have settled down and was not an issue for me, and in another email I stated that he should not be harassed if anyone was contemplating it. As I said in my evidence page, I have no problem with Russavia, we are both Xxxxxians^{although he has mentioned his country of origin multiple times on-wiki, I don't want to be accused of outing yet again}, as long as he is not acting disruptively. --Martintg (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• At any rate the remedy absolutely has to be made reciprocal. Russavia should be prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with these editors. Otherwise what are the editors supposed to do if Russavia challenges them with some provocative stuff as usual? Colchicum (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have earlier, in my voluntary restrictions, proposed a similar one. I'd like to note that this is not backed up by any evidence of real harassment (actually, here's evidence to the contrary - me commending and defending Russavia) - I just think that it would end some ongoing dramu. If such a restriction makes Russavia sleep more soundly, preventing imaginative harassment, what's the harm in it? I have made maybe two or three comments about Russavia, on wiki, this past year - and as the diff above shows, they were hardly critical. But I will be more than happy to make zero comments about him in the future. That said, a remedy should be backed with evidence: i.e. we need a FoF showing that Russavia was harassed (preferably with diffs and clear identification of who took part in such an activity). On a related subject, as long as we are preventing harassment, I think there should be a remedy that would prevent harassment of mailing list participants. There is an increasing amount of personal attacks against the participants, made by editors who are trying to invalidate their comments/edits by alluding that any party in the present case must be doing something wrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Extension of remedies may be appropriate

EE mailing list members were actively discussing strategies of getting new accounts in order to mislead people and remove any association with past contribution fields on Poles/Batlics/etc issues in order to get admin status or CU on their own (possible candidates user:Radeksz;user:Vecrumba; user:Tymek; user:Martintg and user:Miacek) (20090606-0919); or simply perform vanishing tricks after unsuccessful endeavors (20090623-0417); (20090623-2157); or for clearing damming block logs or just testing the “waters” in general (20090622-1818); (20090612-0943); (20090612-1039); (20090629-1940); (20090707-0759); (20090621-1853); (20090622-0815). Taking into consideration that these EE mailing list members were actively plotted to use socks, and IPs for various purposes from reincarnating user:Molobo/user:Gwinndeith to infiltration “operations”, “Kamikaze Socks”, “sleeping accounts”, etc: (20090405-0327); (20090601-1851); (20090601-0734); (20090601-0858); (20090601-1436); (20090601-1727); (20090601-1730); (20090602-0618); (20090602-1428); (20090612-1039); (20090615-0607); (20090615-0620); (20090615-0741); (20090622-1159); (20090701-0204); (20090703-1749); (20090708-1433); therefore it would be naive and irresponsible to think that EE mailing list members would not pursue such plans in the future, especially now that people almost realize they need to get permanent bans they have a lot more reasons to "pull the vanishing trick". Wikipedia would be vulnerable again, to avoid this, I propose additional remedy, based on 4.1 modifications: EE mailing list members are directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account and if due to unanticipated reasons they forced to change account, they should inform the Arbitration Committee of the new account name. Failure to do so would result indefinite ban. Wording can of course be modified.M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps one of the mailing list members may have already infiltrated the Committee as a sock! in terms of WP:BEAN (not to mention privacy), it really is too bad that the Committee did not take a stronger line in discouraging third parties like MK from spending hours of his leisure time reading through thousands of emails he was never authorized to view, to find a handful of idle speculations done for entertainment value. In any case socks are already prohibited by general policy and violators are indef banned anyway, so such a remedy is redundant --Martintg (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then give me authorization of quoting (except real names and like) those. I think, the whole mailing list is a close to the certain form of sockpuppetry but you don't get permanently banned. The relevant mails have nothing to do with "idle speculations done for entertainment value". Do you allow me quote them? And please stay on topic, thank you. M.K. (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have on wiki evidence, post it in your evidence section. Or show me which section of WP:THOUGHTCRIME penalizes idle private discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So you wouldn't have any problems of quoting those mails as well. Please do so if you can. M.K. (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What I have problems with is with editors illegally violating privacy of others and reading their private correspondence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From an outside perspective, it's quite interesting to see that none of the above accusations are actually being denied by anyone involved. --Conti|✉ 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We have denied and or pledged to repeat errors many times before; I find it a bit tiresome to repeat certain things for two months (but as you seem to be new to this discussion, look for example here). To be honest, I am not even sure what M.K. is proposing here, other than alluding some editors may want to start using socks to circumvent the remedies. If this is the case, as Martin pointed above, we have WP:SOCK clear policies on that. If somebody tries to use socks to evade the remedies, they will banned. Why should the ArbCom restate the obvious (not that I particularly care...)? PS. Please note that AFAIK not a single member of our list has ever used a sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK not a single member of our list has ever used a sock, hmmm perhaps user:Molobo/user:Gwinndeith, no? M.K. (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have not seen all the evidence, as some was made private (details). So? Do you have any evidence that Molobo or somebody else is planning on evading restrictions proposed by this arbcom? Or at the very least, that any participants of the mailing list were aware of the fact that Molobo might have been running a sock and encouraged/helped him with it? If so, add this to your evidence section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another obvious examples would be user:Poeticbent and his farm of IPs, while Poeticbent engaged in socking back in 2008, it is curious examples that in all those cases you, Piotrus, was outspoken defender of these sock masters. So, current EE mailing list members (mainly of the Piotrus circle) were involved in socking in the past + mailing list is full of socking techniques and plans. Scenarios could be – oh, I couldn't access my mail account psw etc, so I had to open new wikipedia account or - Oh, I gave real name in EE mailing list, so I had to get a new account and protect my identity - is even more plausible than ever. Proposed remedy allows to community to know who is who in such situations. M.K. (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: the above false accusation of socking stems from the lack of understanding of what socking is. No policy requires BLP users to log in every time, especially when dealing with unwanted edits such as bad language by anonymous IPs. --Poeticbent talk 17:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only in the past, but probably also while this case is going on, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Poeticbent/Archive. Pantherskin (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer 2: the above refers to yet another politically motivated BLP attack inspired by vengeance during these proceedings. --Poeticbent talk 17:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What the sock case shows is that you continue to use socks to flame other users, despite the ongoing case here and despite a previous sockpuppet investigation where you were clearly told that you need to stop this. What raises the question whether any remedy that merely admonishes or even gives you an amnesty is sufficient to prevent future abuse. Pantherskin (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone from the list has ever used a sock, I'm no checkuser. But the point here is - to me at least - the malicious intention behind the accused actions. I'd prefer "I have never intended to use a sock for malicious intents" instead of "I have never socked according to WP:SOCK". You can disrupt Wikipedia without breaking any rules, just like you can improve the encyclopedia by breaking them. This is about disruption vs. improvement, not about breaking the rules vs. following them. --Conti|✉ 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more about misinterpreting private correspondence. Let me be clear: I have never used a sock, nor will I ever use one. There is no evidence to the contrary, and speculating about other editors intentions, motivations and what-might-have-beens as well as what-may-be is rather improper (thoughtcrime and so on). Satisfied? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, various members of the mailing list (I don't remember if this includes you) repeatedly told one another to ask for reverts instead of sockpuppeting, although both Molobo and Radeksz engaged in that (the latter from an anonymous Belgian IP, if you read Offliner's evidence). Would you care to simply explain that? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I am. :) It's just that the accusations thrown around here are practically uncountable, and I'm having a very hard time believing that it's all misinterpreting private correspondence. I didn't (and don't have any intention of changing that) read said private correspondence, tho, so I guess I can only hope that arbcom will make the right decision, whatever that is. If only a fraction of the accusations are true, tho, I would expect severe sanctions. --Conti|✉ 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't severity of the sanctions depend on the fraction? FYI, there are 5 emails cited against me in the FOF. Three of them I cannot verify, two of them I discuss above,you are welcome do take a look at them and decide how severe sanctions they merit. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If only a fraction of the accusations are true, tho, I would expect severe sanctions. - that's exactly the problem here though Conti. We've been accused of everything up to being "like gang-rapists". This is just the classic strategy of smearing your content opponents without having to prove anything [13] (search the page for the word "pig") by accusing them of everything possible and by repeatedly making false claims. After awhile even knowledgeable people start thinking "there must be something to this after all".radek (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I even wrote an essay on that exact fallacy. That said (@Conti), I'd like to stress that we are not denying that several errors were made (I already linked you my recognition and pledges few posts above - I am stressing this because it is common for some editors here to repeat the mantra "list members are denying any wrongdoing!"). There were several instances of inappropriate canvassing (see the section linked above where I discuss two pieces of evidence (email) used in FoF and how my editing and actions affected Wikipedia). For that reason I suggested above a restriction on voting, a proposal that has met with approval of several uninvolved editors monitoring the case (Finn, Staberinde, Malik, Kotniski , everik). I just don't see how those several instances, months-old exceptions to the average editing pattern of most editors involved, merit 1+ year topic bans (or regular ones). And please note that I (or other parties here) are not the only ones surprised on that - see multiple comments above, for example by uninvolved editors such as those I mentioned above (and there are dozens of others if you look through the archives). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, list members denied any wrongdoings long into this case. That is where this "mantra" came from. Only after it became clear that there will be some serious consequences some sort of acknowledgment came forward. Piotrus gave the link above, so anyone can judge for him or herself whether it is really a recognition or not - I am rather sceptical given the evasive wording. It is instructive to look at this page's "On topic bans" section, and search for the part that discusses Piotrus activities at Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga (just search this page for palace and you will find it). Piotrus initial denials of any wrongdoings at this article vs the evidence which shows that inappropriate canvassing took place make it quite clear that "errors" and "months-old exceptions to the average editing pattern" are only acknowledged when it is unavoidable. Pantherskin (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, look at the TP Palace article. There are no disruptive edits in the article itself, there is a civil talk discussion and a vote that was not swayed by canvassing. Yes, the vote should not have been advertised off wiki. But how the "TP Palace disruption" justifies the ban still eludes me (I do agree that it might justify some restriction on voting - even through the vote in this "best" piece of evidence given was not affected...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that the TP palace disruption justifies a temporary topic ban? Didn't say that. It is merely one additional piece of evidence (and not even the best). But what is instructive about TP palace is your initial denial of any wrongdoings, and that your acknowledgement that canvassing took place came only after confronted with the evidence. This shows that the so called "recognition of errors" is rather limited, not voluntary but driven by the possible consequences. That is not exactly inspiring trust in that there will be no secret mailing list in the future. Pantherskin (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is my "initial denial of any wrongdoing at TPP"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The initial denial was to do with the claim that over half of the emails were about "getting" Russavia, which is untrue. Nor do I don't see how the TP palace article was disrupted, the discussion about the name needed to take place in any case, and as it turned out there was no consensus for the move anyway. As to the charge of canvassing, that depends on whether the message was intended to influence the outcome or to improve the quality the discussion. --Martintg (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See your initial answer [14] after Leo1410 pointed out the disruption at TP palace, no word about and no acknowledgement of your canvassing on the secret mailing list. An acknowledgement came only after I pointed out the email you wrote, and not even than. Anyone interested can just browse to the section "On topic bans" and see what recognition of "errors" means in practice.

@Marting: I hope you are not claiming that Piotrus canvassed on the secret mailing list to improve the quality of the discussion? Pantherskin (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I didn't remember that @ till you pointed it out. Second, there was no disruption in the article, and RM on talk was civil. I said early on - weeks before we disussed the TPP example - that we should try to uphold WP:CANVASS better, and that errors in that regard were made by me and others. The TPP is a good example of that - there was inappropriate canvassing involved, but in the end, there was no disruption in the article. Now, please explain to me why do you think that a restriction from voting will not be sufficient to address this in the future, and we need a 3+12 months ban instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - I don't like this thread and have seriously considered wiping the entire thing. However MK's initial point is potentially relevant (an arb might disagree, in which I will remove this thread). Still I find many of the subsequent points very dubious.

So while all parties have been careful to be civil in their language (commendable), some comments still come very close to "flamebaiting". Hence all parties are strongly advised to watch their step. Keep comments relevant, and don't post comments just to aggravate other editors. Manning (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Helpful section from previous ArbCom case

Since it's difficult to browse through the long list of cases directly or tangentially related to participants of the mailing list, I recommend that ArbCom members who are looking at the edits of Piotrus, his Baltic friends, and others simply consider this important section from ArbCom Workshop in November 2008. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

However the maillist was created after the previous case closed. --Martintg (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, the fact that the mailing list was created after the closing of yet another case dealing with this area of editing, makes the behaviour of all 17 editors even more despicable. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Russavia, please explain to me why I shouldn't regard your usage of the term "despicable" as deliberately inflammatory. Please make your explanation plausible, as you are already under a conduct warning and your answer will influence whether I apply a case ban or not. Manning (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The use of despicable is not inflammatory given the circumstances, but describes what many editors, not only myself, think of the actual creation of this mailing list. To understand why myself and others hold this view of the creation and operation of the mailing list, one needs to look at previous Arb cases, one of which User:Anti-Nationalist linked to above. Take for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Externally_coordinated_editing, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Casting_aspersions. No sooner was the 'ink dry' on that particular case, and editors were already undermining the processes of Wikipedia, particularly the collegiality aspect, but not to mention the entire dispute resolution process. It should not be forgotten that User:Digwuren was only just back from a one year ban when he set up the list. Several members of the mailing list have engaged in long term disruption, and several members of the mailing list have been involved in numerous Arbitration cases relating to this area; disputes in this area are not new, and the creation of the mailing list so soon after the EE disputes arbitration case, is despicable, as it is obvious to all editors, involved or not, that the mailing list was set up in part to disrupt Wikipedia policies and processes in this area. In addition to the fact that most of the mailing list members have been party to Arbitration cases previously, and would have known that their actions were disruptive, I would also urge the committee to take into account Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#At_wit.27s_end. That is a most telling motion that the committee has passed in the past. I trust Manning, that you now understand why I would use the word despicable to describe the creation of the mailing list in the midst of an arbitration case. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally Manning, it is the editors actions that I say are despicable. Not the editors themselves. And we have always been able to have such discussions on Wikipedia, have we not? And again, I am commenting on their actions, not on them as individuals. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, I can certainly think of many words to describe you, your actions, and those of some of your friends and justify it by saying that these are "not inflammatory given the circumstances". But, you see, standard Wikipedia rules on civility and no personal attacks still apply even though there is an ArbCom case going on, and the existence of this case is not an excuse, or a carte blanche to ignore them. So I won't use them. Please keep that in mind.radek (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any specific policy prohibiting private mail lists. I know of two:

• http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking
• http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpinvestigations-l

and they where brought to the ArbCom's attention last year in the case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Use_of_off-wiki_communication_and_.22secret_lists.22, yet the Committee were not of a mind to sanction the list participants in that case. In regard to our list, I joined for the social networking aspect, having formed friendships on-wiki. For me it was a venue to discuss wiki-politics. In hind sight the lack of a charter meant that different participants probably brought their own assumptions as to the purpose of the list and the topics of discussion should be. --Martintg (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Martintg, the term "private" here refers to publicly available mailing lists which are closed to non-members. Anyone can apply for a subscription. Was EEML known to exist by the community before this case, and was anyone invited to subscribe, subject to approval? Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The list was relatively new and grew organically, evolving from personal email communication. I don't think people gave much thought on the direction and no charter was developed. In hindsight making the list publicly known with a published charter but membership subject to approval as you suggest probably should have been done. Should have, could have, shrug. --Martintg (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Russavia: I was actually trying to give you an opportunity to say "Yeah OK, 'despicable' was over the line and I'll strike it". Had you done so (as opposed to your attempt to justify your incivility with a mini-essay) then I would have gladly ignored this incident. But your comment was disruptive and uncivil. Hence you will now be taking a week-long break from all EEML case pages as a result. As standard procedure, no other editor may discuss an action of yours during this period without contacting me (or an arb) first. Manning (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Error in FOF

I've mentioned this before, but as it wasn't addressed, I'll do it again. I cannot find emails originally linked by Coren as [20090206-2304][20090206-2304][20090216-0055]. Perhaps there is a typo (and please note that the first one and the second one are the same)? For obvious reasons, I'd appreciate to be able to review the evidence against me, and respond to it. I cannot however do it with regards to those three emails. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've probably made an error in transcription from my notes. I'll be able to access them physically tomorrow, and I'll review them. It's obvious that the duplicate is an error, however: there should be three different references. — Coren ^(talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The real question is how on earth did other 3 Arbitrators manage to vote for that point??? Since apparently you made an error in transcription and there is a duplication error, they should have caught it at once, before voting for it. Loosmark (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you can safely strike that concern. People volunteering their free time to ArbCom do not have to pay attention to bookkeeping minutiae. So they voted for essence of the proposals, not for some digits in brackets. (Igny (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

People volunteering their free time to ArbCom do not have to pay attention to bookkeeping minutiae. Is that the official position of the ArbCom that evidence in a proposal is "bookkeeping minutiae" or is that just your interpretation? Loosmark (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Igny, I disagree here. The essence of proposals should be backed by proper evidence. For a long time I've been looking forward to seeing the three emails which are the justification for the 3+12 ban on myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty sure that was just a typo (just imagine going through hundreds of numbers, mistakes were bound to happen) and not some malicious intent. (Igny (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Igny obviously there was no malicious intent, it's crazy to even think an Arbitrator would do something like that. But what I am curious about is why haven't the other Arbitrators noticed the errors. Personaly if I'd vote for something I'd check what exactly am I voting for but maybe they have another method for the voting, I dunno. I think it would be good if they clarify what went wrong. Loosmark (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd normally be the first to join in the protests if I thought arbs were being careless about checking facts they sign under, but what I believe is happening here is the following: the arbs have their own private wiki somewhere; I understand they have been using that to compile and discuss their own private evidence lists. So, if some of them signed under a mistaken timestamp here, they were probably just assuming as a matter of course that the stamp referred to whatever mail they had discussed in that context over on the other wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually pretty much it; the analysis of all of this list archive was a collective effort that has been split between arbs and sliced up by month with analysis on the arb wiki. Part of the delay in reaching a decision and voting is that we are all doing this examination on our own to avoid the risk of poorly chosen examples biasing the decision and I would expect each arbitrator had their own picks of examples to rely on. I'll be able to dig my own out of my notes as I return home tonight and fix the error, though I expect any of my colleagues might be able to offer some (possibly different) examples of their own. — Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Coren when will the errors be fixed? They were initially pointed out a month ago... Loosmark (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Back Door Topic Ban

Reading through the last several sections of this case page, there are several really good ideas that if brought together could make for a better remedy than the one currently proposed.

Understanding that:

• It would be beneficial to the project to allow Piotrus and the others to continue to create mainspace content and maintain WikiProject Poland. (evrik, Kotniski, Poeticbent, others)
• The editing pattern of these editors shows a persistent battleground mentality, gaming of the policies, intentionally agitating content opponents, and lack of good faith. These are somewhat open to interpretation and harder to show with diffs and specific policy examples than lesser violations are, but they are potentially much more damaging and disruptive to the project. (Conti)
• A topic ban on voting, RM, AfD, RfCs, case and talk pages is much more appropriate for these types of violations than a topic ban on a content area is. (Loosmark, Piotrus, Igny, M.K., myself)
• Almost every Eastern European article has the potential for ethnic, cultural, or political conflict. A topic ban on Russian and Estonian politics and communism would not be nearly comprehensive enough. It may be impossible to identify all the contentious articles. (Finn Casey, M.K., myself, others)
• General sanctions were applied in this specific area by multiple past ArbCom decisions and required oversight and enforcement by uninvolved editors. All of these types of sanctions failed because they are prone to wikilawyering, gaming, and/or lack of outside editors willing to get involved. (Viriditas, Skapperod)
• The boundaries of any topic ban should be specific and very clear to the sanctioned editors. (Piotrus)
• For purposes of revert counts, all of the mailing list members should be treated as one editor. Revert restrictions need to account for the possibility of coordinating reverts. (Staberinde, Piotrus, others)
• 0RR may be more desirable than 1RR because it is less prone to gaming. (Marting, Radeksz, M.K.)
• ArbCom can pass a less restrictive ban that triggers a harder ban if the sanctioned editors continue to be disruptive. (Igny, Piotrus, Malik Shabazz)
• There needs to be a mechanism in place to prevent the content opponents of the sanctioned editors from taking advantage of any bans in a way that will hurt wikipedia (Viriditas, Poeticbent)
• The mailing list members' inability to understand (or unwillingness to admit) the full scope their problematic behaviors make self-imposed restrictions or those that allow a return to editing as usual ineffective. (Pantherskin)
• Weak unenforceable remedies in past decisions partially led to the creation of the mailing list. Many of the same editors sanctioned in the past were some of the most active members of the mailing list. Any new remedies should be considerably stronger than those implemented in the past. (Jehochman, AGK)

If I've mischaracterized your position, please feel free remove your name from the above arguments. I'm guessing that most editors will agree with most of the points. Buried up in the "Support Narrow Topic Bans" section, radek, Marting, and M.K started to discuss a remedy that might make Newyorkbrad's alternative work.

How it would work:

• No topic ban on mainspace edits (other than reverts), new article creation, or on the pages of WikiProject Poland.
• 0RR for all mailing list members (or at least those who coordinated reverts). A weaker (and I would argue less desirable for all parties) alternative would be 1RR where all list members are treated as one. limiting sanctioned editors to reverting only on articles that have had no similar reverts in the past 24 hours.
• A topic ban for the main offenders on any voting, RM, AfD, RfC, ANI, policy pages, case pages, user talk pages other than their own, or any other non-mainspace places on wiki that are fertile ground for harassment, battle, and pointless argument.
• 300 word limit per talk page per month. No directly addressing of other editors allowed. Using talk pages for routine wikiproject tasks is allowed.
• Topic-banned editors must have access to a neutral third party to address any potential stalking and gaming from content opponents resulting from the sanctions.
• Any violation of the terms will result in a full topic ban.

I liken it to house arrest. You can still do your job and take care of your kids, but you can't go make trouble with your buddies anymore. It is effectively a topic ban on contentious articles because there is a strong disincentive to spend all your time creating content that you know will be removed, reverted, renamed, or otherwise put to waste. In other words, editing the Cathedrals in Krakow article will be a lot better use of wikitime than editing History of Wilno (1389-1795) would be. The limits and expectations are clear and unambiguous and the project benefits. Leo1410 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I think this one * Topic-banned editors must have access to a neutral third party to address any potential stalking and gaming from content opponents resulting from the sanctions. is pretty crucial (though given the other proposals it really shouldn't be "topic banned editors" but rather "editors under house arrest"), particularly given some of the things that have gone on during this case (straight up baiting of list members and certain editors acting like standard Wiki guidelines on civility, no personal attacks and POV no longer apply just because this ArbCom case is in progress). A list of such neutral third party editors should be made - and those who volunteer should be prepared to put up with some drama ("He's baiting me", "No I'm not, I'm just going about my regular editing, la la la, see me edit your new article in ways I know you resent, la la la, just normal editing here")radek (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It seems to me that the people over at User:Juliancolton/Project might be able to volunteer for things like this, as one of their missions is to "find ways to induce more productive behavior among contributors." The current process of mediation just doesn't cut it. We need people actively engaged with editors in the trenches, getting their hands dirty. Too often we have people standing on the sidelines, collecting their barnstars and other shiney-happy-people awards while this place is going to the dogs. We need more firefighters who are willing to get the job done and less of the milquetoast mediators we have come to rely upon. Something along the lines of User:Mattisse/Monitoring (in this case EE/Monitoring) might also work in this case; A central repository where editors on both sides can file reports with neutral admins/mediators/editors checking in daily. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually mu proposal wasn't treating all EEML members as one editor. I will use Piotrus as an example for explanation, hopefully he doesn't mind :). My suggestion was essentially that if anyone(Piortus himself, other EEML member, totally uninvolved RandomEditor666, or even unregistered IP) had made a revert in last 24 hours, then Piotrus could not repeat it. That allows us to effectively concentrate on EEML members who's actions are considered more problematic, while not touching those who's guilt is considered minimal or non-existent. Also Piotrus could not join active edit wars in EE area even if there were no other EEML members involved. Finally Piotrus would have pretty good motivation to generally avoid reverting without very good reason, because he would always first need to check page history to be sure if he is safe.--Staberinde (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your idea makes a lot more sense. I adjusted the wording. Leo1410 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Leo, I appreciate your efforts to plug in on these matters. However I think that current proposals are rather unpractical. Spending community time in counting words per moths is tiresome, plus it will be again another issue with gaming and wikilawyering. Currently we should take into account that rather large number EE mailing list members already have previous restrictions and sanctions, that shows that they failed to follow good editing practice in the past. Knowing EE mailing list combinative attitude, your cited possible example Cathedrals in Krakow, could be easily converted in another battleground, as that article will have to mention German related issues and we all know that EE mailing list members attitude towards those issues.

It could become a battleground, but with the list members being unable to revert or comment, it would be a pretty short, one-sided battle. Leo1410 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Therefore, I stand firm after hard ban + proper EE relating topic ban + ban on commenting on the EE mailing list members' "enemies" (take into consideration rather recent development surrounding Jehochman’s aplication for the arbitration) would be the most optimal solution as EE mailing list members wouldn’t be able to harass users nor make controversial provocations on main space and make an example of remorseless coordinated edit warring, lawyering, plotting, canvassing, harassment, battlefield attitude, forms of sockpuppetry and gaming the system of Wikipedia. Everything less, let it be 1RR or 0RR etc. will be open to gaming, the process in which EE mailing list buddies are rather prolific, and will not send strong message for future endeavors.M.K. (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't think prohibitions on non-mainspace pages would accomplish the same ends? If 300 words is impractical, how about one edit per talkpage per month? Leo1410 (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the bans and strong topic bans for the most destructive editors are necessary. On the other hand, I find the idea of voting bans very practical.--Dojarca (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Leo: what's wrong with the "1RR where all list members are treated as one"? In any case, I find your proposals better than the topic bans currently present in the PD. But please also don't forget to note that the remedy should apply to a specific set of subjects i.e. I don't think anybody ever had a problem with (for example) me reverting vandals on sociology articles (ex.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Martintg vs. Jehochman

I would like an uninvolved admin or an arbiter of this case to give an independent assessment of Martintg's question to Jehochman here. In particular, I want you to clarify for all of us whether Martintg's question served any purpose other than provoking Jehochman into an emotional response (note that if so then he seemingly succeeded). I would like you to take into account all the evidence/claims in this case of the subtle and not so obvious (to an outsider) harassment of some editors by the EEML members, which in some cases allegedly led to bans. Please also note that Jehochman was the only candidate in the election for whom Martintg posted his (provocative?) questions. Also please note the words which Martintg chose (like rebuking, inflaming, dramatically) for his loaded question about your propensity to create drama. While Jehochman's emotional response would not lead to any sanction against him, it might have cost him the win in election. My question relates to the discussions in this case about verbal attacks in off-wiki communication versus subtle or alleged on-wiki harassment of opponents or, in this case, an admin who is hostile to this group. (Igny (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

(irrelevant comments deleted)

Clerk note - I originally deleted this because it seemed irrelevant. But Igny presented a good argument for preserving it, hence it has been restored. Regardless, this debate could get heated, so I don't want to see a mud-slinging contest, and I'll be swift in bringing anyone into line if they go to where they shouldn't. Manning (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my reply was irrelevant, which I repeat: I don't see that my question has any relevance here, Jehochman is not involved in this case, not having presented any evidence nor made any substantive comment, so there is no connection as far as I am concerned. My questions were valid, how Jehochman chooses to respond or whether his response is considered a factor by the community is something beyond by my control. --Martintg (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Pest_control you'll notice that the list you were a member of was used to attempt "Pest control". I have not read the emails so I am not sure who the "Pest" was, but my name seems to pop up in all the diffs and conversations cited by Thatcher. Was your question to me at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Jehochman/Questions_for_the_candidate#Questions_from_Martintg part of ongoing "pest control"? Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked a valid question regarding you temperament based upon my experience and it was your choice on how to respond. Apparently you choose to make an ad hominem argument against myself and ratchet up the drama here and on Manning's talk page[15], kind of underlines the need to ask such questions in the first place. -- Martintg (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course your personal conduct is relevant to answering the question. You asked a question without providing proper context to the question. You previously participated in a conspiracy to subvert consensus, to harass editors, to edit war, and to disrupt Wikipedia. Your question to me appears to be a continuation of that campaign. You appear to be retaliating against me because I sought to put an end to your games. I'd very much appreciate if the arbitrators would take decisive action to prevent further abuses of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the evidence from Thatcher, it is a fact that Sandstein had already closed these particular AE cases and you subsequently re-opened them^{(I do not know whether or not this antagonism you have with Sandstein is related to Giano, I have been wondering about why he would choose to comment on this case)}, dramatically escalating and broadening the initial conflict between Biophys and Offliner, and it is also a fact that Flonight characterized your involvement as "inflammatory". The existance of the EEML had no bearing on your conduct during the AE, these facts remain and the hard questions need to be asked. --Martintg (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was the "pest" referred to in the emails referenced in Thatcher's evidence? Please answer the question. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure the words "pest" or "pest control" occur in the mails; at least I don't remember seeing them on a quick re-reading of the thread. This might well have been intended as Thatcher's own comment on the situation. The thread referred to is about Piotrus and the others deliberating about how to counter your initiative of "banning" Piotrus from acting in an admin role in AE threads, triggered by this edit of yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the existence of the EEML was very much reflected in the members' on-wiki conduct. If it were not for the EEML's existence, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Jehochman would not have been as suspicious of you. Triplestop x3 18:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The question posted by Matrintg at the talk page of Jehochman has some merit because Jehochman was actively involved in the conflict, as indeed follows from the diffs provided by Martintg at the talk page. As about disrupting the project, was Martintg more disruptive than Jehochman? Biophys (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. To answer your question, Jehochman is not involved in EE disputes, he only formed his opinion on the EEML participants as a 3rd party after seeing what the group has done, an opinion that is certainly not unreasonable, IMO. Triplestop x3 18:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone being called a "pest", that is just Thatcher's framing. I know Thatcher is still sore about the AE case, but Shell was already investigating it when Thatcher blundered in issuing sanctions all around stepping on Shell's toes before she completed her investigation. Jehochman's ratcheting up the drama by attempting to initiate an ArbCom case just contributed to this. The problem with creating drama is that it creates hysteria, and with hysteria comes bad decisions, and that is why my question was relevant. --Martintg (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And who is more disruptive, the users who cause the problems or the ones who try to remedy the problems? Triplestop x3 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not about "who is more disruptive", but about one particular person with an ambition to join the ArbCom taking exception to my question regarding his attitude to being rebuked by a current arbitrator (with the implication being on whether that would reflect on his relationship with other members should he elected), and the apparent attempt to link it with this case and imply that it was some how improper to ask that question. --Martintg (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

From what several arbitrators have told me, there are occasionally intense disagreements on the ArbCom mailing list. The drama there is at least as great as what is routinely seen on Wiki. In any case, I have no feelings at all on the content disputes that power the EE battlefield. The existence of the mailing list is something I sensed without actually knowing about it. The behavior of the list members was suspicious--as if they were coordinating off wiki--because they were. I was very concerned about Piotrus administrating in this area. Lo and behold, I was right! He was feigning uninvolvement, but he was actually part of the list, actively supporting his colleagues in a content dispute through the use of adminship. He's now resigned, which is good. It makes me respect Piotrus more now that he's done the right thing, and I have high hopes he will continue to be part of Wikipedia. Marting, does this help clarify matters? We don't need these EE disputes carrying on endlessly. If given the chance to continue editing other topics, would you accept that? Would you be willing to work on other areas of content and renounce these EE battles? Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my request. It was not actually my intention to start any heated debate between the involved parties. I think both Martintg's ("hard questions have to be asked") and Jehochman's ("continuation of harassment campaign") positions are clear to everyone. What I actually wanted was an independent assessment by any of the arbiters of this case regarding whether Martintg's questions to Jehochman had merit, were legitimate, were properly phrased, and rightfully belonged there. One of the reasons I became suspect about true motivations of Martintg was that these questions could have been asked more discreetly on Jehochman's talk page where Martintg could clearly state that he would be against Jehochman's bid for ArbCom and explain why. Instead Martintg chose more prominent venue and chose more inflammatory words than he could have (IMO). If any arbiter says that Martintg was acting properly, I would withdraw my comments with apologies to Martintg. If, however, Martintg's behavior were deemed inappropriate by the arbiters, I do not want to leave Martintg's attempt to sabotage Jehochman's bid without consequences. (Igny (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I answered the questions and I welcome every editor in good standing to ask whatever questions they like. I will answer as I see fit, and all of us should be held accountable for our respective questions and answers. People might vote against me if they don't like my answers, and ArbCom might decide to sanction Marting if they don't like his questions. The arbitrators should be especially careful if they comment on the pending election lest they create the appearance of supporting or discouraging individual candidates. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that arbitrators could not comment on this under these circumstances. Perhaps this was the wrong place for me to ask that question after all. I withdraw the request and unless some uninvolved parties would like to comment I suggest that Manning archive this thread.(Igny (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

I don't know if there's a formal rule, but it seems like a good idea for them not to touch election matters, not even with a long barge pole. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - OK. The original question got reinstated because it was potentially of interest to ArbCom in direct regard to THIS case. I am still not certain it is actually relevant, but there was enough substance for me to hesitate. (An Arb might still direct me to delete it). Anything I regard as an attempt to benefit/derail an election campaign will be refactored fairly quickly. Manning (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This not to derail anything, but Coren just responded at election pages that he agrees with this decision and wording [16]. How come? The entire EEML case was based on the opposite presumption that Arbcom does not respect privacy of email communications if such communications are damaging to the project (which may or may not be a reasonable position). But either one respects privacy of email communications, or he does not. Obviously, the official wikipedia debate of a content placed without agreement of authors at site XXX does not respect the privacy of emails (just as placing something without permission at YouTube would be obviously a copyright violation). One needs some simplicity, clarity and even an official policy here. I personally do not care much, but Piotrus and Martintg are getting banned because of this.Biophys (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Without presuming to speak on behalf of any arb, the principle you cite only refers to prohibiting the publishing the contents of any email on-wiki, and not to the notion of whether or not ArbCom could examine the material in private. My clerking instructions from the arbs concurred with this, and no unauthorised quoting from private emails has been permitted. ArbCom have separately decided that examining the material in private was acceptable, for reasons they have outlined in the temporary injunctions. Manning (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was wrong question. The real problem is different. By focusing on this email archive Arbcom decimated only one side of conflict. Piotrus, Martin and Radek are going to be banned from the area. Do you really think this can improve anything? Perhaps things will be more quiet because other groups can rule unopposed, but the content is going to suffer.Biophys (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Manning can reply to that, given that clerks should be neutral. Sadly, I am afraid this case is a good example of the problem I wrote about in this mini-essay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The timorous may stay at home

Arbitrators, could we have some decisive action on this case, please. The proposed topic bans are very weak. They will encourage gaming and lead to endless wikilawyering. Those who behaved badly should be banned outright, unless they agree to behave better in the future. (Perhaps Piotrus falls into this category). An editor who was previously banned or sanctioned, and returned to old ways needs to get a stronger sanction than before, not a lesser sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Handing out site bans to all would be too severe a decision. Better to neutralise the conduct problems and to facilitate the development of a good editor from a bad one than to kick people out. Slamming the banhammer down is attractively easy, but targeted remedies bring more rewards home in the long term. I would as a general point concur with you with respect to your final sentence, although I am not immediately familiar with which parties have been sanctioned in the past (and don't care enough to investigate). AGK 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1/ We have a number of single purpose accounts. A topic ban is content equivalent to a site ban, except that the topic ban gives them a chance to wikilawyer and import their battles to other pages that are arguably outside the topic ban. 2/ We have a number of accounts that were previously sanctioned at arbitration, or arbitration enforcement. I think that it is necessary to check the history of prior sanctions for each editor, note it in the decision, and then place a new sanction that is at least as strenuous as the prior sanctions. (If an editor has not been sanctioned before, that should also be noted.) I am very much in favor of forgiving or reforming, but only when an editor has demonstrated the potential for constructive contributions and has renounced bad behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone demonstrate a single instance of when wrist-slapping for egregious policy violations resulted in eradication of problematic behaviour? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 21:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1)There's no single purpose accounts here (unless you're referring to certain people editing on things like South Ossetia War - but no bans have been proposed on them), there are people who edit in a broad topic area. Calling someone a "single purpose account" is pretty insulting.

2)Thus a topic ban is equivalent to a site ban only because the proposed topic bans are so broad.

3)I think the only person previously sanctioned at arbitration is Digwuren. The people who were sanctioned at arbitration enforcement are mostly people on the other side - PasswordUsername and Russavia, not to mention some of the peripheral characters that have shown up. But hey, I'm all for having my lack of any kind of previous ban or sanction taken into account.radek (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you've never been sanctioned before, they ought to recognize that. For your own benefit, if you can now see that your behavior was not optimal, it may help your cause to say so and reflect on what you'd do differently going forward. Sanctions are not placed when they are not needed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already said something to that effect and even apologized. On the other hand these repeated demands for self flagellation (not yours, just the ones repeatedly made generally) are starting to sound a little ... medieval.radek (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Medieval? Nah. Self-critique is still well :) PS. That article really needs help... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have a problem with Piotrus and Digwuren receiving equivalent sanctions. Piotrus has written many high quality articles. Loss of sysop access and an admonishment should be sufficient. Digwuren is a recidivist disruptive editor. He should get a lengthy siteban. The fact that he's laying low for the time being means nothing. He could return tomorrow and start agitating around the edges of his topic ban. I think you need to line up the involved editors and make the hard determination of who needs what sort of sanction based on 1) history of prior sanctions, 2) history of quality content contribution, 3) severity of infraction, and 4) response to criticism. You might want to explain how you determined the sanction of each editor so that there is less whinging and drama mongering after the fact. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd add 5) can it be reasonably assumed that they discontinue coordinating attacks against users they have blacklisted. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, Piotrus several times already promised to behave better in the future.--Dojarca (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I regret there is no "black-list". At the end of the day there is only fair and accurate representation of reliable sources. That is all that has ever counted. I would like to respond to Jehochman's criteria:

1. History of prior sanctions—Reasonable, agreed.
2. History of quality content contribution—Reasonable, agreed. However, discussions of topics are just as important and valuable to the creation of content. Total activity, both article content and talk, should be judged for fair and accurate representation of reputable sources.
3. Severity of infraction—I would request that "infraction" have as its criterion on-Wiki disruption. Where there is that (a) perceptible difference and (b) confirmed—not circumstantial—cause and effect of specific disruption related to EEML, the editors responsible should apologize (also to the next point), be appropriately sanctioned in some reasonable manner for some reasonable period—no different than if the EEML did not exist so that the punishment clearly fits a documented on-Wiki transgression and can be transparently demonstrated to be appropriate based on editorial behavior and past sanctions. The EEML list was not formed for the purpose of "edit-warring"; that the list existed does not prove nefarious purpose as many have advocated here; if the list was misused, then those incidents should be treated as any other intentional on-Wiki disruption, and as per Jehochman's first two points above.
4. Response to criticism—I am happy to respond to honest criticism and admit to my mistakes. I am not perfect, nor do I expect other editors to be. This requires treating editors as individuals, not as labels; to this end, my own talk page has always been open for constructive dialog regarding dispute resolution.

To the core point of disruption. I trust that the opportunistic dredging of the past and "feeding frenzy" aspects of the proceedings here will be seen for what they are. Again, contending the mailing list must have existed for years rather proves the opposite: that the EEML had little net effect regarding on-Wiki edits and conduct. Which would be the case if the so-called and often-derided "nationalist POV" being advocated is, and has always been, based on fair and accurate representation of reputable sources. To the question of topic bans, is that not to be considered? I trust also that evidence painting EEML members as edit-warring be reviewed as to the details, for example, is (repeatedly) removing or moderating attack content disruptive? (And who is the disruptor in such cases?)

In short: what has become of "discuss the edit, not the editor?"

   One cannot convict individuals based on private correspondence unless there is a perceptible difference from past Wikipedia edits and conduct. I have stated why I participated in the list and what I saw as its activities and what I took away as its benefits—none involved Alex Bakharev's announcement Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia contending Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. As for moving forward:

• I sincerely thank all those who have come here to devote their time and effort to make sense of events, to not merely confirm preconceptions and prejudices.
• I hope we do not lose sight of the goal once these proceedings close: to move forward in good faith and mutual respect—which can be born even of sanctions, regarding EEML participants, if done transparently based on open evidence of on-Wiki disruption unique to their EEML involvement. If we fail to do so, rancor and recriminations will only escalate once these proceedings close.

 PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• As some asked for the list of sanctions, which were placed on EE mailing list members in the past - here you go: I made such list, perhaps I missed few sanctions, but the general picture is clear - EE mailing list members had been repeatedly placed on various restrictions and only insignificant fraction are still sanctions free. A rather telling fact. M.K. (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Current attack on Anti-Nationalist by Termer and Martintg

(Entire discussion erased)

Clerk note - Hmmm... where do I begin?

Dojarca swings on in with an unfounded accusation against an editor who is not even named in this case. That earns a warning for disruption. (I'll post it later, busy IRL at present).

As for Vecrumba... honestly! I really do try to cut you some slack because I know how hot under the collar you get about the issues raised in this case. But for the 100th time, the rules about making personal accusations are quite clear, and they apply in every direction. Dojarca's post was out of line, but let ME take action. Don't slip up again because I will have no choice but to kick you out of the case pages again.

Manning (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I am in full agreement with Manning here. Vecrumba, you are at the point where further trouble will result in a ban from case pages for the remainder (while hopefully short) of the case. KnightLago (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll exercise more patience in awaiting appropriate parties to chip in. Do please understand that in all these proceedings over all these years this is the first of these where anyone has had the common decency to insist on decorum. It is a condition I am entirely unaccustomed to, as I've been told in these sorts of affairs most Latvians were glad for guns to kill Jews, for example—and such vile comments were left to pass as normal. So, gentlemen, I thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Regards, Manning (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding topic ban of Piotrus

Would a topic ban prohibit the above editor from constructing articles in his user space which could later be moved into mainspace by an uninvolved admin? Also, would the ban prohibit him from posting messages on the talk pages of uninvolved admins to express concern over recent developments in certain articles? I personally would have no objections to being a designated contact admin for the latter if such met with the committee's approval and the remedies permitted it. It would go without saying, I hope, that he could suggest anything he wanted, but I would not myself do anything until and unless I independently came to the conclusion to do so, based on my own review of the subject and question. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These questions are of interest to me. Could I also be designated such a contact admin too? --Martin (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These questions are of interest to me too, but from a different perspective. Are these decisions (the bans) binding with "any teeth" behind them? Or is the reality that after two weeks, or two months, they get overturned by repeated appeals and sympathectic outside intervention thereby making a further mockery of these kinds of proceedings to begin with? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a precedent for allowing editors to develop content in user space while still being banned from mainspace. Regarding the contact provision, Piotrus is also one of the people involved in the Wikipedia:School and university projects, and even though I have watched that page and listed myself as a contact there, I have reason to think that some of those involved might choose to contact Piotrus anyway. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That somewhat answers the first question, John, but not the second one. Anyone? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Inflammatory comment by Loosmark removed. Manning (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban, such a course would void the ban. Anyway, Piotrus is a decent content editor. He doesn't need his article creations monitored by uninvolved admins, who in almost all cases in the topic area would be less competent than him to make any judgment. The arbs know that, and aren't banning him/rejecting the ban because his article creations have/lack consistent content policy problems. Piotrus has decent knowledge of other subjects, such as sociology, and the project may benefit if he turned his energies away from these nationalist wars for a little bit. Piotrus will also benefit, as he will be relieved of the pressure to fight nationalist wars and help more junior friends in such wars in order to maintain relationships. I would say though that Piotrus has written a number of FAs, most of them a long time ago (as far as wiki goes). These articles come up for review quite a lot. The Committee might want to think about exempting his FAs from this ban now, as I'm pretty sure a request for amendment in response to an FAR would be passed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are meant prevent disruption. How would creating, say, Statua synodalia Wratislaviensia, Józef Brandt Foundation or Archbishop of Wawel in user space and having it moved into mainspace by an admin be disruptive to Wikipedia? --Martin (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If a user can still create articles then it's not a topic ban. The arbs are voting on a topic ban in the area. If it passes, article creation is banned. Likewise, a user could make comments in his user-space, and an admin, after deleting the talk page, could move the user-page to the talk page location, delete it, and restore both as a history merge, then repaste the content from the non-visible version. But you could accomplish the object more quickly by simply not passing a topic ban. If you think that topic bans are only meant to prevent disruption, and that Piotrus' proposed ban wouldn't prevent disruption, then that's the case that is put before the arbs (though I assume they've already pondered the issue before voting, and thusly the ones supporting it disagree with you). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the whole point of a topic ban is the prevention of editor interaction, since it is this interaction that leads to disruption. It may be argued that we have issues in editor interaction, but it cannot be said that we are guilty of creating inappropriate articles. --Martin (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to ask the arbs what they believe the point to be. If they thought article creation was gonna be ok, surely they'd have exempted it, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if the Committee would give an answer to John Carter's original question. Given the cookie cutter approach adopted in the formulation of the remedies without apparent regard to history of prior sanctions, history of quality content contribution and severity of infraction, I'm not so sure the ArbCom have thoroughly considered all the implications. --Martin (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider my question unanswered. And Loosmark thank you for demonstrating what I and others have had to deal with concerning the genesis of this procedure. That would be the attitude of some of the participants of the mailing list and its participants in a plethora of their editing on Wikipedia. I didn't pose the question to alleviate any "fears" that I might have materializing. Nor do I consider these proceedings a "mockery", nor do I consider that a whole armada of editors who have nothing to say other than try to settle old scores or remove content opponents to accurately describe why this proceeding occurred. As for the rest of your sarcastic commentary, I'll let the clerk make judgment as to its merits. Once more, I consider the question unanswered. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two distinct reasons why the committee can consider a topic ban: because the actual content in the topic is consistently inappropriate, or because interaction with the other editors in that area are the problem. In this case, the remedy is considered because of the latter, and I would be amenable to a provision specifically allowing userspace creation of articles if it is understood that once the article enters mainspace it becomes effectively off-limits. I would also like the editors to consider that the topic ban might be an opportunity to develop other areas of the encyclopedia positively while getting a break from the more divisive topics they concentrated on. — Coren ^(talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that that's clearer, what is the official policy concerning a ban's length? Does a year mean a year or not? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Every sanction is (potentially) open to early review, though we generally do not accept very early appeals; and the possibility of a sanction being extended always exist (though rarely necessary). — Coren ^(talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you've now answered my question, which was posted above following John Carter's and Martin's question. I asked it because I've noticed than often banned and sanctioned editors (some with even a permanent ban imposition) return and usually resume the same modus operandi. It is my impression that this particular case is of a quite serious nature. That is why I added "does a year mean a year or not?" Dr. Dan (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 3.2 proposal

I have serious concern about this proposal, it will be another instance for gaming the system. More troubling, is that particular individual will be allowed to participate in FA process. As history shows, he misused those pages as well - from inflammatory comments ending with straight forward baiting his opponents. Why arbiter/s think, that this time it will be different? M.K. (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The usual way evidence is presented. I invite editors to look at the full discussion here - please note I withdrew my objection after the underlying problem was addressed - only to become a target of a personal attack. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely - editors who practices good editing standards would never came on FAC page with such "comments" in the first place. M.K. (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You'd think that if this was the case, somebody would comment on my "improper behavior" then and there. Anyway, the community is more then welcome to review the above comments and decide how disruptive they were (back in 2008 and 2007, respectively...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the editors to whom such "comments" were directed already responded actuality. In any case I would love to see response from Arbiters, especially seeing this new development. M.K. (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling something a bait doesn't make it so, not anymore that if I were to call your above post a bait (I believe that would be a strawman fallacy). Regarding the "new development", I am very puzzled over it and I will be looking forward to seeing it clarified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

One such comment [referring to this ] , another one, one more etc., leads to ArbCom restrictions. In any case waiting for the clarification from Arbiters. M.K. (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for accusations and supplying differences to support your arguments. The proper place is on the evidence page. This page is for discussion of the proposed decisions only. Please focus on that and not proving your arguments. KnightLago (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding proposal: List membership § 4

Would the arbitrators please address my concerns with regard to why it is necessary to name all EEML participants as a whole in your Proposed decision? Be advised that I’m in possession of a concrete proof that most of the off-wiki correspondence sent to me was never opened (almost 2,000 unread emails from the list for the total of 25.4 MB), still bolded as "new messages" in my Windows Live Hotmail account as of today. Moreover, I have already offered my proof to Durova for further inspection at User:Piotrus/ArbCom#Details.2C_details and at User:Piotrus/ArbCom#Need_material. She gracefully declined saying: "it would be best not to give me any passwords." However, your complete listing of EEML participants (per above) without specific proof of any wrongdoing creates a false impression of evenly participating membership, which was never the case. --Poeticbent talk 20:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all very interesting information. Could you be so kind as to estimate how many emails you wrote to the EEML participants? More importantly can any of your written emails (not your unopened ones) be characterized as violating WP policy within the scope of this proceeding? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Unless the request for more information comes from the ArbCom, I don’t see a need to be even more forthcoming than I already am. Please note: in the above section Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Re: proposed Amnesty § 9 user Pantherskin falsely accuses me of canvassing on the list by quoting three (3) emails stamped [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], and [20090731-0608], in which I informed the recipients about the ongoing discussions, without further comments. Pantherskin (a newcomer here) does not understand what inappropriate canvassing means, and has been misrepresenting other Wikipedia policies as well, for the purpose of coordinated BLP attacks on my real life identity. These politically motivated attacks which, in the end, turned into a "messy and petulant" joke by some opinions, were riddled with accusations of guilt by association. That’s why, I would like the Arbitration Committee to please acknowledge that the Proposed decision#List membership makes no differentiation between the level of EEML participation at all. --Poeticbent talk 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, your secret canvassing to a partisan audience is completely inappropriate. The same applies to your sockpuppetry despite being clearly told in the first sockpuppet investigation that this is a policy violation. That you still insist on the appropriateness of this behavior suggests that a preventive ban or block is in order, and not as you suggest here a whitewash of your involvement. In your and my own interest I am ignoring the inflammatory attacks and wild accussations in the rest of your post. Pantherskin (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notice - To Poeticbent AND Pantherskin: Keep it civil and lose the inflammatory tone. Manning (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A proposed 7.1

Could a similar remedy to 3.2 be proposed for myself, I was working towards to expanding the topics in Template:Estculture as there are many red links in even the most basic topics, having invested many dollars in books on the topic. As you can see, there is only one GA status article in the Estonian article space. I've been caught up in these edit wars, it has been a distraction, and such a remedy would allow me to refocus on the core aims of the project, which would be a win-win situation in my view, the encyclopedia gets expanded, I get a breather from the wiki-drama to create some good articles. Of course you could institute a 1 strike rule too if you think that is necessary. --Martin (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In English for the rest of us?

Can someone please explain "His recent back channel attempt to eliminate one or more arbs from voting in this case because of their participation in the upcoming 2010 Wikicup erased all the goodwill that he was manufacturing with his on site comments. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)"? What is this referring to? If this is a viable allegation shouldn't this be reported as an incident and dealt with through proper channels? Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Very mysterious indeed. Maybe Piotrus inquired privately with the involved Arbitrator whether a recusal was necessary over a potential conflict of interest?? Not entirely unreasonable for Piotrus to attempt to allay any fears if that was indeed the case, in my view. Flonight's rationale for rejecting of a more flexible remedy certainly does raise questions. --Martin (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the case[17]. Piotrus' suggestions, as applicable, of: 1) a ban on voting on all EE issues (AfDs, RMs) 2) a 1RR restriction (or a 3RR restriction applicable to all mailing list members treated as a single individual) 3) a topic ban from selected articles on which group members have shown to display repeated bad judgment 4) A civility parole 5) a ban from participating in AE / ANI discussions unless a team member is directly involved seem eminently reasonable. We do this for free in our spare time, it's not like there isn't other things competing with our time, like family and friends. All a broad topic ban will do is stunt the growth of Wikipedia in a particular topic area for a while, certainly my partner will be happier with the extra attention. When editors are committed to the goals of building an encyclopedia, and I'd certainly would like to achieve my first GA, and are willing to find ways to facilitate that in a way that benefits the project without disruption, why hinder that? --Martin (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this request for recusal was the most bogus claim of COI that I've seen on my 4 years associated with the Arbitration Committee as a clerk and arb. Piotrus joined WikiCup after this case opened, and after the arb voted. How could have Piotrus participation in the competition possibly influenced this arb's vote to sanction him. And when it was pointed out to Piotrus that the arb was unaware that Piotrus was in the competition, Piotrus did not let it drop. This type of heavy handed and manipulative conduct is exactly the problem that I saw in the emails and on site; and want to prevent in this topic area. So, no I'm not voting to loosen the topic ban. (See my vote for diffs.) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain. I waited till now as I didn't want to make the issue public, to avoid dramu and possible damage to reputation of some editors (this is why till now I've discussed the issue off wiki and only with ArbCom functionaries). I want to apologize to editor in question that I am bringing this up; I however believe I have the right to defend myself against accusations (made in public, and by an ArbCom member nonetheless).

WP:CUP is a competitive project (a wiki contest). I've learned on it recently and joined it almost immediately. Some time later, I realized that among its participants are some arbitrators, one of whom has voted (both before and after I've joined the case) in support of my bans and other restrictions. I am hardly an expert in why arbitrators should recuse themselves, but John recused himself from this case because one of the parties is a member of the same wikiproject on meta, and Roger, because some of the parties are member of the same project here, which indicates to me that joint participation in a wiki contest may be a problem. I've inquired with a clerk if this may represent a potential CoI and grounds for a recusal, the clerk said that it is an unclear situation, he will contact other ArbCom functionaries to enquire about the issue (on theoretical grounds, while protecting the privacy of all parties involved) and recommended that I should ask the arbitrator in question for his opinion. Following clerks advice (which I now wish I haven't...), I an the arbitrator in question exchanged two emails around Nov 16. In first, I presented my case and the arbitrator replied he was not aware we were both part of the CUP. In the second I asked him if he will do anything now that he is aware we are; he said no and told me to drop the matter alleging my questions are "trying to poison the well" (a comment that scared me due to a possiblity of reprisals "from the top" if I pursue this matter further - not an ill-placed fear, as it appears). I have till now abided with his request - I have not contacted any other party about the issue, until FloNight (whom I have not contacted on that) suddenly made the issue public, using it as a justification for opposing a milder remedy.

On that note I am unclear whats the relevance of me enquiring about the issue outlined above and her objection to me be being able to create article in my userpace and take part in Featured Review process. I'd appreciate if somebody could explain this to me.

Further, I want to strongly protest the framing FloNight is using in her description of the situation.

• "Piotrus contacts an arb...and ask him to recuse on the case"; "Even after...Piotrus presses him to recuse". This is plain untrue. Nowhere in my emails I ask the arb to recuse; I present him with the facts he may be unaware of, I ask for his interpretation of the situation and what is he going to do. I will quote the relevant parts of my emails (and if anybody else in possession of those emails wants to quote them for fuller context, I am giving my permission for that - there is nothing in them I would want to hide other than diffs that would reveal the identity of the arbitrator in question (and I still respect his privacy in this case). First email: "Nonetheless, the current situation creates a delicate CoI. I don't want to suggest to you what you should do. I'll just say that I hope we can both contribute to the WC'2010 in our full capacity.". And email 2 (in response to the arb saying he was unaware we are both in CUP): :*"I am sure you didn't. What are you going to do now that you do?"
• "attempt to eliminate one or more arbs" - per my comment above
• "back channel" - suggests an improper way of doing things; I was using emails to arbcom functionaries to avoid public dramu and potential reputation damage (not to me, but the editor whose potential CoI is being discussed)
• "Battleground mentality" - ?!! Where? Where am I battling now and with whom?
• "attempt to manipulate outcome to his advantage" - see my PS note below

Overall, I am rather disappointed with how this issue is being handled. Public dramu that may damage certain editors reputation is being created, I see Bad Faith from editors that are expected to be neutral, and an impression is given that if a party dares to question if an arbitrator involved may have a CoI/grounds for recusal, the response are more severe sanctions for daring to raise such a question (privately!).

PS. Before this degenerates into some reputation-damaging dramu, I want to note that I believe the involved arbitrator in question when he says he didn't know about the COI and our joint participation in the contest (even through some of his votes were cast after I joined the contest). I certainly don't want him to withdraw from the contest because of me; and I could hardly expect that he would be required to change or invalidate his votes made before I joined the CUP simply because I joined it. I was hoping that by showing him the fact that we are both participating in it may be seen as an evidence of my uncontroversial editing, appeal to his sportsmanship ethics (judging by the levels of activity by this years' CUP finalists, and my activity, I would be very likely to be among this years finalists...I guess I won't be among the next years, though - not with the topic ban on the area I write 99% of my content in. But I digress) and strengthen the case for alternative remedies which would allow me to participate in the CUP. So yes, I was hoping to influence him to be more friendly towards me - but not by threatening him (or causing wiki dramu), but by showing we are both constructive editors who could compete in a friendly and uncontroversial manner. I guess I shouldn't have bothered, as being the evil cabalists means everything I do must be looked at with bad faith and seen as evil manipulation :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I became aware of the situation first from several clerks that you were approaching to discuss COI issues about an arb because of joint competition in the WikiCup. I have read the emails that you sent to the arbitrator in question. There is no doubt in my mind that you did not drop the issue after you were informed that the arbitrator was unaware of your participation in the competition. That you continued the discussion after being told that he was unaware was problematic and is the reason that I reacted so strongly. I'm sorry but I have seen too many of your manipulative emails to assume good faith about your comments to this arb.

You wanted to have back channel discussions that effected the outcome of the case, in your favor. But now you are complaining when the same emails are used as evidence in the case? So you wanted the private influence of this arb to not be disclosed and discussed on site? If nothing else happens, you need to leave the case with the message that canvassing is not okay. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, my message was limited, neutral, and nonpartisan. Yes, it was not public, but it was directed to ArbCom functionaries, and the first one I contacted, a clerk, told me to take it to the arbitrator. Are you saying that the lesson I should take from this incident is that I should have not dared to ask about this issue in the first place? Or that I should have done it publicly, here, ignoring potential reputation damage issues? And for mercy's sake, all I did after he told me he was unaware of the issue was to ask him if he will do anything about it. Are you saying that it was my second email to him (that I've quited in its entirety above) that was inappropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ok I have read the above discussion and from what i can understand my take on the situation is the following one:
Other arbitrators have reclused over similar issues, Piotrus had the right to inquire about the situation and he did it the proper way by asking the advice of a clerk which in turn adviced him to address the issue to the Arbitrator himself. Had this really been a "back channel attempt to eliminate an Arb" as FloNight claims then I think the clerk would immediately told him to either pursue this matter on-wiki or to drop it.
To clarify the situation to the community I think it would also be good that the other Arbitrator makes a statement on his view of the situation, whether or not he thinks Piotrus did anything wrong. Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you actually saying, with a straight face, that you think that an arbitrator might have a conflict of interest because of some silly contest that you both happen to be entered in? Are you really suggesting that an arb would go to the ludicrous extreme of voting to ban you in order to increase their chances of winning this frivilous competition? If such a "conflict of interest" might be engineered by you joining the contest after the case has started voting, what a world of gaming-the-system this opens up. Get serious. Paul August ☎ 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying there is something wrong with asking a person if there might be a CoI? I asked that privately, first a clerk, than upon his advice, the arbitrator in question. Once I got a reply from him (along the lines described above) I thought the case was closed (and private). Till a third party brought it here, resulting in this dramu... PS. As I stated above: I am satisfied now that there is no CoI in this case regarding the CUP; what I am not satisfied with is FloNight's argument that me daring to ask about the CoI in the first place is a display of battleground mentality and a sufficient justification for opposing a milder topic ban. I believe that I was within my rights to ask a clerk and the arbitrator in question if there are sufficient grounds for CoI or not. If then, unsatisfied with their responses, I started creating dramu, this would be wrong - but please note that I didn't do anything (till third parties brought this here, to much of my suprise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your asking the question, nor as far as I can see does anyone else. What I do have a problem with is your feeling that the question needed asking asking in the first place, since it is patently obvious that any possible COI would be trivial in the extreme. It is hard to see why anyone would ever have thought otherwise, unless perhaps there were self-serving motives involved. Paul August ☎ 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say there is an amazing amount of, shall we say, dislike of Piotrus shown on this page. His content opponents have long bayed for his blood for what, in essence as far as I can tell, some stupid naming conflict over some towns for God sake. No sense of magnanimity, grace or acknowledgment of his 99% good contribution as been shown. I don't know if it is envy over his achievements or a sense of "the other" or what, but then I suppose it is unrealistic to expect his content opponents to put Wikipedia before their own narrow interests. That's why we have the ArbCom process, to rise above this personal vindictiveness and place the interests of the project foremost. I have to say I am struggling to see how opposing a narrower broad topic ban is related to asking a private question and how that would help Wikipedia grow. If gaming-the-system is the concern, slap an additional ban on participating in AE / ANI discussions; but banning content creation, how does that help Wikipedia? --Martin (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Am not certain which arbitrator FloNight refers to, but FloNight herself did not participate in the 2009 Cup and has not signed up for the 2010 Cup. She did argue rather strongly for Cup scoring changes for the upcoming year which appeared to be unfamiliar with certain difficulties that occurred in 2009. At best, her input was naïve. I worry that both there and here it could have the effect of unduly politicizing a competition that does undeniable good for the site's core mission of presenting quality content to the public. Surely, if some misunderstanding occurred, there would be an easier way of resolving it without casting a cloud over that worthy project? Respectfully submitted, Durova³⁶⁶ 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

More surgical (alternate) remedies than wide topic bans

Per previous discussions (ex. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) and comments of various neutral community members (Lysy, Kotniski, Visor, Grey Fox, Septentrionalis, Finn, AGK, Jechochman, Malik, Viriditas, Leo, evrik, Staberinde, Igny - just to name a few) I would like to summarize ideas raised previously regarding remedies alternative to bans and topic bans, and ask for further community input for them. The relevant discussions have been going for two months now, a lot of arguments were spread throughout that time, and involved different editors. Hopefully this thread will both summarize their opinions and draw them together in one discussion, and will allow us to see which ideas truly have community support and which don't (canvassing disclaimer: I'll try to contact various editors who commented in the threads above to notify them of this thread). Feel free to propose alternative remedies - below I am summarizing those that I recall (and that appeared to have had community support). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Argument: why restrict editors whose content creation is 99% uncontroversial?

It should come to nobody's surprise that I am arguing that the topic ban imposed on me is unfair. Before I describe the alt proposals, I want to justify this claim by throwing one final piece of evidence/challenge at anybody who wants to undertake it. It is my belief that a topic ban on an editor whose vast majority of edits in a given area are uncontroversial is damaging to this project, particularly if discussed problems (canvassing, etc.) can be fixed with a more tailored restriction (see also this mini-essay). I hereby claim that 99% of my content creations in the Eastern European field are uncontroversial and positive. In addition to my 20+ Featured Articles, similar number of Good Articles and ~300 DYKs (all listed and my page, and by definition, community reviewed for stability and neutrality) this link (warning: takes a few minutes to load) will take you to a list of 2250 (exactly, as of the time I am writing this post) articles I've created over the years (note: the tool doesn't list redirects, but lists disambigs). It should be relatively easy for anybody do do a random sampling on that list (it is much easier than a random sampling of my 100,000k edits, a list of which is much harder to load and easily sample). I invite anybody to chose a number of articles from that list (discarding non-EE subjects), see if the article you've chosen has been subject to any disruption on my part, and report the results here. I trust the "99% articles created by Piotrus in EE subjet are uncontroversial and were not a subject of disruptive editing by him" will be a claim that can be easily verified. Please discuss the result of your analysis below :) Similar analysis can be done for other members of that list (in particular, I believe that a similar claim - 99% uncontroversial edits in EE subjects - will hold for Radek and Marting (and others, but they are not currently under a threat of a topic ban, so for the ease of discussion I am leaving them out of this thread)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wide EE topic ban

Please discuss the pros and cons of banning me (and other list members) from EE subjects in general. In particular, I'd like to seek community input on proposed remedy topic banning me, Marting and Radek from EE topics for a year (remedy 3 (Piotrus), remedy 7 (Marting), and Radeksz. For editors who support this remedy, please answer those three questions:

1. ) - if 99% of our edits are uncontroversial, is the topic ban preventing the 1% problematic edits helping, or hurting Wikipedia?
2. ) - why the 1% of problematic edits cannot be prevented by alternative, more surgical remedies below?
3. ) - in particular, why should I be prevented from: 1) developing a GA for Juliusz Słowacki 2) refeaturing Stanisław Koniecpolski (I'll have brief access to my books on him in December) 3) continuing gnomish work (as described here in detail) related to WPPOLAND (all activities that I would be prevented from doing under the proposed topic ban). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support wide topic bans

Please don't forget to answer three questions above.

• "Eastern European mailing list" is only what Arbcom calls it. The problem is not just nationalist disputes in EE areas but also general conduct documented on the evidence page (edit warring, refusal to "get it" per Dr Dan above, partisanship, bias). I stand by what I said in the "good faith" section and support the 3 month site bans. Furthermore, positive contributions should not excuse problematic conduct. For Martintg and Radeksz, I disagree with the 99% part and support the wide topic bans. As for Piotrus, I am on the fence, because he has demonstrated the ability to make good contributions but I am not convinced by his history (as noted by FloNight above). I might support a topic ban from the problem areas (construed broadly) only if there were severe sanctions if he violates the spirit of the ban in any way shape or form. Triplestop x3 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could you tell me what kind of disruption carried out by myself, Radeksz and Marting you expect to see (such bans being preventative, not punitive) makes you support the "3 month site bans"? Regarding Radeksz, almost 40 DYKs he has written in just the past few months makes me pretty confident most of his contributions are uncontroversial; what evidence makes you disagree with me on that? Also, I am a bit confused by your last sentence above about myself - I think there is something wrong with grammar there that prevents me from fully understanding your point. PS. Also, could you try to answer my questions I ask above - I think you skipped #2 and #3. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said, good contribs do not excuse bad conduct. The disruption carried out is documented extensively on the evidence page, I believe your above comment goes towards "not getting it". Furthermore, I do believe the bans are preventative. Take Russavia, for example, who has 25 DYKs, and makes positive contributions towards non controversial areas like "Wikiproject Aviation". It is not unreasonable to assume that he would not have gotten indef blocked if it weren't for the EEML members' actions, thus preventing him from making all these positive contributions. (Though I'm not quite sure about the other allegations of ban engineering). So on the balance, you and Radek are just two people, however the damage and other disruption caused by incidents such as this could quite possibly extend to much more than two people, thus preventing them from making good contribs, so I am convinced the bans are necessary. Triplestop x3 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying me and Radek have chased somebody out of this project, and we are likely to do it again unless we are banned? Can you point to who that was that we have chased away? I'd be more than happy to apologize to such an editor, and adopt a voluntary restriction on commenting about him. Regarding Russavia, I've supported lifting the topic ban imposed on him several times on those pages, and in the past I have publicly said many positive things about him (just look at Radek's comment here, near the top of the thread). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Russavia was indef blocked for making legal threats[18], all I wanted was him to stop disrupting The Soviet Story. --Martin (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• all I wanted was him to stop disrupting The Soviet Story. Then why would a simple topic ban from that page have sufficed, as Piotrus supports above in principle? Triplestop x3 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, am I getting tired or is there another confusing grammar problem above? (Nothing personal, I am just trying to understand what you are saying and failing - could be just an insufficient knowledge of English on my part...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• My question is, since you support the principle of banning editors from problem areas only so they can make good edits in other areas, why did the EEML want Russavia blocked altogether, preventing him from making good edits? And in response to your concern of "chasing away editors", I myself can attest that the mentality caused by nationalistic disputes will drive away many productive editors. Triplestop x3 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I never called for Russavia to be banned completely or even for a wide topic ban encompassing Russia or EE, a simple article ban would have been sufficient. That he subsequently ended up having his topic ban broadened to include all of Russia then EE then indef banned was caused by himself, he contributed to his own situation by his own actions and words. --Martin (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• I can only speak for myself, and my attitude towards Russavia can be seen in the comments I made publicly on Wiki - I linked you just above to the thread where Radek lists them. I certainly agree with you that battleminded editors drive away the good ones. I am not familiar, however, with a single instance of an editor claiming I have driven him away; on the other hand, I am familiar with several editors who have left or limited their activity in this project (sample comments from one) after being subject to long harassment from some editors who are now trying their best to ensure I follow in their footsteps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose wide topic bans

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why do you oppose a wide topic ban remedy (and for whom).

It's akin to imposing an Asia wide topic ban for disrupting an article related to Brunei. I've not edited any articles related to Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc. --Martin (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Article probation

If there are specific articles that you think I or other group members have shown repeated bad judgment in the past, please list them here, with diffs showing repeated bad judgment, and a note about which list member has shown it (we do edit quite different areas, you know). I would be happy to stay away for several months from articles on which I have shown repeated bad judgment in the past (I'd however appreciate it if an article and diffs are listed by an editor who can be seen as a party to a dispute in that or similar articles that his claim of disruption is reviewed and confirmed by two or more neutral editors). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support article probation

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.

Oppose article probation

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.

I would oppose this as it is too tedious to list such articles, which would basically require to review your 100k edits in thousands of articles to see which one could potentially be seen as disruptive. I would support EE topic (broadly defined) probation where a disruption (narrowly defined, anything which would normally require a slap on the wrist or short block, e.g., being uncivil) could trigger more severe restrictions such as lengthy topic ban under discretion of an uninvolved admin. (Igny (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

RR restrictions

Two useful proposals were made to address the concern over several instances of coordinated edit warring (this has made it into a FoF against me - please see my reply to evidence here, and please note that the evidence in FoF indicates that the coordinated revert warring didn't result in any 3RR violations, even if we treat all list members as a single individual. Nonetheless to assure the community that there will be no instances of coordinated reverting in the future, I am supporting proposals for either a 1RR restriction (preferably for those list members who have shown to violate 3RR) or simply for treating all list members as one editor for the purpose of 3RR restriction. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support RR restrictions

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.

Oppose RR restrictions

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.

Voting restriction

I believe that a major issue of concern raised by the community so far concerned several (and I doubt there were more than several... let's see everything in perspective, please) instances of inappropriate canvassing that allegedly resulted in vote stacking (I cannot address this in more detail as no evidence of that has made it into FoF about me). I have nonetheless already pledged earlier to avoid off-wiki canvassing. It was suggested that an appropriate remedy in this case would be to ban the list members who have participated in such inappropriate canvassing from voting on EE issues. I think this is an acceptable remedy (if unbacked by FoF...) - it doesn't prevent creation of uncontroversial content creation, but addresses the concerns of those who are afraid we inappropriately influenced some votes (AfDs, RMs) in EE subject.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Support voting restriction

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.

Oppose voting restriction

This is not a vote, but a discussion - please state why.