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) & Mailer diablo (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)
• User:Jehochman (and all editors in general) are warned to not participate in irrelevant discussions. (This is a mild warning and it will be deleted in a week.) Manning (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Poeticbent issued first/final warning. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Dr. Dan issued first/final warning. KnightLago (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

• User:Shell Kinney has been banned for one week as a result of unacceptably disruptive conduct and inflammatory and irrelevant comments. Manning (talk) 02:11, 21 November 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)

Removal of "silliness"

Regarding this removal of a question as "silliness", perhaps the poser of the question had in mind that California state law (where WMF is incorporated), per Penal Code § 631, establishes expansive protections for "communications," which clearly includes e-mail messages. Specifically, § 631(a) prohibits a broad range of activities where any person attempts to extract the meaning or content of a communication without consent of all the parties to the communication:

Any person who…willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison.

This is not a threat or attempt at drama—forget that I am involved in the proceedings here for the moment. I deal with data privacy issues professionally and am genuinely concerned that no one is taking this seriously per the dismissive edit summary deleting the question.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested the information was obtained by eavesdropping on its transmission "while it was in transit or passing over a wire", so the paragraph you quoted evidently doesn't apply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless whoever published it downloaded it onto a drive in person from the computer on which it was stored, the information meets the "transit" requirement above. Nathan ^T 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML infrastructure was hosted by Digwuren outside US. California state laws are irrelevant in this case.DonaldDuck (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note, the WMF is incorporated in Florida. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think activities situs would be connecting factor in choice of law. It was incorporated under the laws of Florida, but its registered address is currently in San Francisco, Ca. Vlad fedorov (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting that particular law was declared ineffective for being federally preempted in Bunnell v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, 567 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1154 (C.D.Cal. 2007). MBisanz ^talk 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in particular for the last two, that was very helpful.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, by "ineffective", did you mean invalid? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, he meant "nonapplicable". And he mentioned the reason - preemption by federal law = federally preempted. This is about the conflict of US federal (US Wiretap Act) and state law (California Penal Code). And Vecrumba qualifies EEML leak as wiretapping. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• My take is that the IP's question about whether Mike Godwin has approved the findings in this case is not necessarily about email interception, (while the way they were obtained may be a factor, certainly the way emails are interpreted seems to be material in the real world) but whether Mike may consider certain findings potentially libelous. I guess Mike's concern is that the BLP constraints regarding living people may also be applicable to high profile Wikipedians who are readily identified, the concern being that their reputations in their local real world community may be egregiously damaged. The way Mike intervened in the case where the ArbCom removed the CU privileges of a certain prominent user after alleging he abused his status, lends credence to that view. To defuse that situation following Mike's intervention, John VB, who issued the ruling as a representative of the ArbCom, takes personal responsibility and falls on his sword, the user agrees to relinquish his CU privileges with no admission of wrong doing and the potentially libelous text is over-sighted. I guess what this IP may be suggesting was whether Mike Godwin would be concerned that if a judge (using different evidentiary standards than that used by the Committee) should find that a user's contribution was in fact 99% good, proper and beneficial to the project, whether that judge may find that the ArbCom's finding of disruption warranting a site or broad topic ban excessive, and thus may be seen as egregiously damaging to that user's reputation, as opposed to a more surgical remedy that the user in question may be more accepting of. --Martin (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

To Vlad's, I checked Florida (WP state of incorporation) and Email hacking does not required wiretapping, a server is legally considered a network.

815.06 Offenses against computer users.--

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;

(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

A e-mail system is considered a network for these statues. So accessing someone's personal e-mail account without their permission is a felony in Florida. That is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

As I've said more than once, the only time I received a delivery failure coincides with the end of the purported archive. It's a shame ArbCom only believes the coincidences which make some members believe I should be banned for a year. I used to laugh when I saw an Email about something I had seen and responded to as necessary three or four days prior; obviously I'm not laughing anymore as I'm being lynched (my perception, as it appears that every word I've written in my defense is being completely ignored) based largely on circumstantial evidence based on the assumption I check my Email every ten seconds to see if I (and for that matter, all the EEML members) need to immediately run and disrupt Wikipedia. I'm disgusted. I have yet to see a single diff confirmed as disruptive. I've responded to all my attackers' evidence, it's all disruption they started.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Peters. I am not the devil's advocate, but... Firstly, in the US, there is an established caselaw on internet and non-internet jurisdiction. Just search for "International Shoe test" for the start. DonaldDuck is right in pointing out that Estonian, not US, server was involved. So, there are damn big chances that the US law analysis is irrelevant completely. Further, if there is a conflict of any US state law (whether Ca or Fl or NY) with federal US Wiretap act, then federal law would be applied, so your research in Fl and Ca state law is useless anyway. And it is even more irrelevant if we note that Wikipedia itself was not a "hacker" in any way, haven't been running, hosting or supporting mailing list infrastructure and so on. So, I am confused by your statement that you are a professional in data privacy issues. I am not going here to delve into the piercing of corporate veil to explain you the difference between the actions of corporation and corporation employees, and to explain who are corporation employees. Secondly, you kinda have to determine for yourself, if there was a hacking and who was a hacker. And there you would have big problems, at least, because Tymek voluntarily shared his acc. Personal e-mail delivery failure as an evidence of hacking of a mailing list? Well, would be happy to learn the IT expert opinion if it is. But you better ask your provider or Digwuren what was the reason, Digwuren would know for sure as he has logs and other stuff. Thirdly, mailing list and personal e-mail account is not the same thing. And you would have to present the evidence "beyond the reasonable doubt" that it was hacked by the third party. Fourthly, if indeed there was a "whistleblower", then you would just waste your time and money for the court fees and greedy lawyers like me. At the end of the day, I've seen nothing substantial in your arguments so far, to infer that the mailing list was indeed hacked. What I have noted, however, is that your "group" was planning to infiltrate pro-Putin group. Guess what would be the average US judge reaction on that? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I took that IP's statement in a rather different manner than you guys are. I saw Godwin and thought he was making a roundabout accusation about nazi's via Godwins Law. Thats why I assumed it was going to get removed. Didn't realise Mike Godwin was Wikipedia's lawyer too. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote Review for Carcharoth

Not sure if this should go on his talkpage or here, but I figure a clerk might be able to handle it so I'm putting it here.

Carcharoth has doublevoted at least once (FoF 13:Tymek, account sharing). I believe his abstain vote is the double, but obviously I can't be sure. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He fixed it. Archive me pls! 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Will this be over before XMAS?

Just wondering. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that it should be, yes, and I hope it will be resolved a good bit before then. Vassyana (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions about remedy 11C

All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.

1. "All list members and sanctioned editors". Do you also mean Ostap and others who were not even mentioned in Fofs?

2. "vote-like process". Do you also mean discussions to reach consensus at the article talk pages? Discussions of the categories?

3. "threads directly about or involving them". Do you mean discussions of articles that were previously edited or created by a list member?

4. "Eastern European topic area, broadly construed". Does it cover Soviet Union and Russia which are not a part of Eastern Europe? I mean subjects like Siberian Baikal Amur Mainline that goes outside Europe or Soviet-US relations. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to edit in the area without being engaged in discussions, and almost every argument can be viewed as an attempt to influence the outcome of consensus. This looks like a de fact indefinite topic ban for 17 editors in a very wide area. Is it?Biophys (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I regret I have to concur with Biophys' analysis, being that it's suggested we go off and write about needy areas we know nothing about in order to improve WP. "Improving" WP is keeping flagrant lies out of it, or at least so I thought.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

1. "All list members" means all list members.
2. "Vote-like process" is intended to be inclusive of !vote discussions and polls. This is a tiny fraction of discussions.
3. The mere existence previous edits is insufficient to substantiate direct involvement. For example, some wikignome edits or edits going back years hardly constitutes direct involvement in current discussions. Direct involvement does not extend to the entire group, but rather to the individual editor involved. If you as an individual editor are not the subject of discussion or otherwise directly and substantively involved, the exception does not apply. If this is not clear enough and/or people are going to push up on the boundaries, the remedy can easily be adjusted to explicitly preclude all such participation except the right of response to conduct complaints about the affected editor.
4. While there is some debate whether or not Russia is part of Eastern Europe, Asia, or straddling both, under a broad construction there is no question that it applies. (For any "broadly construed" measure, if there is any doubt, presume it applies.) If the scope is unclear and/or people will push the edges to find loopholes, it can easily be adjusted to include the entirety of Eurasian topics from Germany to all points east.

I hope this helps clarify. Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If Polish-speaking Wikipedians who are conversant with Polish history are effectively banned from writing on Polish topics, who is going to write those articles? Will it be individuals who do not speak the language and have no substantial knowledge of the subject? Nihil novi (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no broad ban of such contributors, but rather only a specific set of editors affected, these questions seem moot. Vassyana (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, thank you for answering my questions. So, you make Lishenets of Ostap, Hillock and me, even though we personally were not found guilty of canvassing in Fofs. Fine, you do what's the best for the project. Speaking for myself, I never ever voted only to support a "comrade" and frequently voted against, especially after learning about discussions through emails.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for others, the only "bad" thing Ostap did was joining the list to tell Piotrus about his bad taste in ... music. He also said that ethnic conflicts are disgrace. But that earned him whole remedy 11.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus

• Extreme concerns about Piotrus's involvement in this RFC. Shooing away his adversaries while participating in the discussion. This is exactly the type attitude that has kept the topic area a battleground. For now I'm not voting to ban, but have changed my vote to abstain while I review more contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for FloNight

Regarding this comment Move to abstain for now due to concerns about abusing the dispute resolution process. Could you please explain what "abusing the dispute resolution process" are you talking about?  Dr. Loosmark  22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Above you wrote that he is "shooing away his adversaries while participating in the discussion". That's not exactly "abusing the dispute resolution process". Requesting a RfC or a mediation can only be a good thing. It's interesting that Skapperod is against that but not very surprising, he's milking this EEML case for months. IMO his comments on that talk page were anything but helpful.  Dr. Loosmark  23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Piotrus: regarding Talk:Schieder commission, I see FloNight is linking the section in which I started a WP:RFC, so I presume this is what she wants us to discuss. I invite everybody to review that talk page and section. I noted than an RfC may be useful on Dec 6 ([1]); on Dec 8 I started a neutrally worded RfC. RfC brought one new editor, User:Hans Adler, whose input seems quite helpful. On Dec 9 I asked if editors are interested in mediation and I also said I will be limiting my involvement with this articlle ([2]). Please note that two neutral editors don't see any abuse or disruption from me: [3], [4] (Hans sais it clearly here). How is DR being abused there? If editors participating in a discussion cannot reach an agreement, using 3O/RfC/Mediation to bring new, neutral editors is the right, proper way to solve problems, right? I am not shooing anybody away; I have said multiple times on that page that participation of others is welcome ([5], [6], [7]). If any of my comments give impression to the contrary, I am more then prepared to apologize for them and refactor them, or if other editors there desire so, stop my involvement there immediately (nobody on that page had indicated any of my comments were inappropriate; if they said so I'd have apologized/refactored them already). PS. I should note that I did in fact ask an editor to cool down on that article: I asked this of... Radeksz. I still believe that my comment to him was civil and proper. PPS. I do believe that there were unhelpful comments made on that article, creating a battleground, and baiting Radeksz (particularly with comments like this), also first post does nothing but attack creators, if "further contributions of the EEML are obviously not helpful " is not shooing editors away, I don't know what is.... PPPS. In either case, I've refactored my posts there to remove any possible battleground misinterpretation, and I am withdrawing from editing the article. I hope neutral editors attracted via RfC can improve the article without our input. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I can say for myself is that I'm leaving the article alone. For the past few days I've been quite angry and some of that anger is directed very specifically at an editor who helped the drama along and publicized my personal information. I was trying to be civil and polite to Pantherskin as well (please see my initial comments at the talk page of the article, or on his user page [8]) before his repeated personal attacks got the better of my temper.

So yes, I'm gone from that article. And other aspects of Wikipedia as well.radek (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of repeated personal attacks if you are the one who attacked me [9]. Pointing out problems with an article and tendentious editing are not a personal attack, and I tried it politely and in a constructive way initially. I understand that the last few days have been stressful, but that is not ane excuse to label other editors as liars. Pantherskin (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone remain calm here, and avoid making provocative comments. If this goes off topic, I am going to close it. KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never looked at this case (not even now), and am here only because Piotrus just sent me an email telling me his behaviour at the RfC Talk:Schieder commission#Is the article neutral? is under discussion here in connection with a possible ban. I believe that prior to my response to the RfC I have had no interaction with Piotrus or the other current actors at that article.

I came to Schieder commission because of the RfC. I am not particularly interested in German history from that era, or in German–Polish relations, and consider myself neutral. The article looks very Polish POV, but after a bit of research in recent German sources I came to the conclusion that this is primarily a matter of style and completeness. (The word "selectivity" would be a bit too hard.) The main thesis is accurate and is in fact the most important aspect of the topic as it is covered, e.g., in an excellent Wikipedia-style article published by the German Federal Centre for Political Education. The main problem is the lack of nuances and of any details that don't directly contribute to the main thesis. I am trying to fix the article (still in the sighting phase), but I am not interested in the conflicts at the article or in anything like blame or guilt for the situation.

The first response to the RfC (neutrally worded by Piotrus, I believe) was a forceful statement by Skäpperöd, an editor who had participated in the pre-RfC debate. That was of course not helpful, and in my opinion Piotrus was justified to ask the user not to do this. Once there was new input (from me) it did of course make sense to involve me into a discussion. I don't know why only Piotrus discussed with me; in retrospect the other involved editors may have read Piotrus' "This section is for neutral editors, not parties of the arbitration" literally rather than as a request to wait for neutral input before discussing in that space. That he actually meant the latter seems to be clear from the following "Please don't poison the well", which I guess was misunderstood as a general attack rather than the very precise description of the unwanted behaviour that it was.

In that particular case Piotrus seems to have used the dispute resolution process exactly as intended and with good success. He made one communication error, but apparently in good faith and clearly without dramatic consequences. Now he has started a discussion on possible mediation. I am a bit puzzled by the timing, which might well have political reasons as it does not appear to be necessary right now, but I am sure that doesn't count as abuse of the dispute resolution process. Hans Adler 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A RCF is goodness, of course. Starting one to draw in neutral editors is fine. But IMO, Piotrus was silencing his advocaries by not permitting them to discuss the article in a section of the talk page, while allowing himself (a true party in the case) the right to do so. He has a pattern of manipulating situations like this in order to control article content. Based on the vast number of times that he has plotted to control content in the past, I can not assume good faith that it was a simple communication problem. Based on his ongoing pattern of conduct, Piotrus seems to think that he has more right to talk about issues than people with a different point of view do. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I do not think that I have more right than anybody else to discuss any content; if any of my posts came across that way, I apologize and I am more than happy to refactor my posts (as I did to the one mentioned by Hans as potentially confusing) and step away from that particular article. Thank you, Hans, from taking time and commenting here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus did show his determination to resolve the issues in the article. Most of his comments on the article talk page seem to be a push toward a resolution, rather than igniting the fight. Unless I missed some outrageous remarks (could you point me to them please if there are any), Piotrus is only guilty in being over-involved in the debates, but I could see his motives and the methods, and none of them strike as sinister to me. And everyone, including the righteous arbitrators, who is earnestly participating in debates is guilty of manipulating opinions. I agree with Hans on all of his points. And even though I may be involved in the EEML case, I consider myself neutral on Poland/Germany relationship. And I consider myself resilient to manipulations. (Igny (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

FloNight, in that section Piotrus asked for a mediation, and immediately Skapperod, an editor known for usually having a POV directly opposed to Polish editors, appeared from nowhere and wrote a, IMO, provocative post. Piotrus wasn't discussing the article in that section and Skapperod had every possibility to discuss it all over that talk page. In case of a mess in that section there were far less chances that a truly neutral editor would wish to comment (at least that's my experience).  Dr. Loosmark  02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FloNight, I don't find your response convincing. Even granting that you are right about Piotrus' general behaviour (I am not going to check since apparently wading through this case wouldn't be enough – I would also have to locate secret evidence in order to understand most of the arguments that are being made???), your bad faith assumption still rests on a single post by Piotrus – an immediate response to Skäpperöd's post. Think about it:

• Suppose that at 17:29 you have worded an RfC like this [10],
• and then someone with the opposite POV of yours who is already part of the dispute on the article posts into it at 18:32 like this [11].
• Wouldn't you get a bit angry? Wouldn't it be very natural if your response at 19:08 would be a bit too forceful and slightly imprecise? [12]

The RfC asked for feedback about the article from uninvolved editors. The first response was feedback about the article's authors and their motivations from an involved editor. That's a typical example for the technique described in Poisoning the well.

The idea that Piotrus has been plotting here doesn't make sense to me, especially given the timing and the complete openness with which he posted constructively in the RfC once a new (my) opinion had come in, and right after his ambiguous request "This section is for neutral editors, not parties of the arbitration." In context it's clear that he actually meant that the RfC is primarily for new input from uninvolved editors, which may then be used to start a general threaded discussion. This is exactly how RfCs usually work. No reasonable editor would feel intimidated by a request that does not reflect general practice and is immediately broken by the requester anyway. Hans Adler 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is Piotrus' and Radeksz' general behavior. Note this findings of fact: 1 2, 3.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. We have partially secret evidence for previous bad behaviour and public evidence for its continuation/repetition. The crucial problem is that bad judgement in the evaluation of the public evidence does not inspire confidence that the secret evidence was evaluated correctly. Hans Adler 10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous statement was a bit too strong under the circumstances. Finally I have read part of the Proposed decision page and understand FloNight's reaction a bit better now. That doesn't mean I can follow her evaluation of the specific situation, though. Hans Adler 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing FloNight is concerned about Piotrus's tendency to make good appearances for himself while hiding his agenda underneath. Piotrus appeared to be concerned about the neutrality of the page when he told Skapperod to go away; however he himself continues to participate when he is clearly not neutral either (instead of recusing himself as a non-neutral editor like he thinks Skapperod should have). Note that Piotrus does believe that users that are partisan or have a COI should recuse themselves. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_5#In_English_for_the_rest_of_us.3F Triplestop (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not want Skapperod to go away, I wanted - as was correctly interpreted by the neutral RfC respondent, Hans - for Skapperod to stop discussing editors (poisoning the well approach to discussion) which do not create an atmosphere inviting for potential comers from RfC (in case my comment there was not worded clearly, I have already refactored it, even through no party of that discussion has asked for that). The section you cite from archive is quite irrelevant, as it concerns arbitrators, not content editors (and NPOV clearly states we are all non-neutral, so if only neutral editors were to be allowed to edit an article, there wouldn't be anybody doing so :>); in either case I have recused myself from that particular article already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Skäpperöd

Since I am discussed here:

• The article was created on the list with the intend to misrepresent sources, there are e-mails on this in the archive. That happened in September, before the archive was leaked. This can be confirmed by anyone with access to the archive and the sources in question, and that assessment has already been made.
• The article was proxied by Radeksz while his topic ban remedy has already passed. Finishing up the list work just before the remedy enters in force shows that there is no intend to change, and in the process of Radeksz copypasting a little too much it also revealed that the list is still active.
• The efforts of EEML members to silence my criticism at talk by declaring me a liar and non-neutral are very much of concern, as is Piotrus' adopting the role of a mediator on the article talk. The article will need careful re-evaluation of the sources, re-structuring along the lines Igny proposed on talk, and additional sources.
• I came across the article because Radeksz requested DYK credit for it, and looking at the article, I found that it consisted of the list version plus a faction of the current list traffic. Drawing attention to that and earning attacks from the list for that does not make me responsible for the mess in any way, nor does it exclude me from further commenting. I perceive the attacks against me as "hang the messenger".

Skäpperöd (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Skäpperöd (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the article was discussed on the list before (in fact, as you note, it was a semi-public knowledge for a while; it was an article that many list members were interested in creating and were researching the issue for months). *I* have not called you a liar and *I* have not adopted a role of mediator (I proposed a mediation; there's a huge difference). However I do not believe it is a good course of action to discuss the authors of an article instead of content, which is the point I was trying to make on talk (my apologies if it came heavy handed at any moment, but WP:NPA should be respected, and beating a dead horse in a new RfC section is the surest way to scare off any potential neutral editors (or confuse them into thinking other neutrals have joined in)). I do respect you as an editor (I love what you are doing with history of Pomerania topic, even if I may not always agree with your exact POV); I see no reason why you (or anybody else) should not be able to participate in that article; I don't care how you found it; I welcome your comments on content and edits in the article; and I do hope we can in the future focus on discussing content, not one another. Having said all that, I'll repeat that I am taking a long break from editing that particular article and I also intend to limit my general involvement with the project and EE subjects for a while; if for no other reason that due to major amount of stress this entire situation and associated disappearance of a lot of good faith visible in many comments of many editors (on all sides) is causing me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod's post above is a bit manipulative in several way:
1) per policy Radeksz or anybody else can post for a banned user under some circumstances, that was already addressed on this very page.
2) at the moment no ban remedy is in effect, that too was already explained to Skapperod here by a clerk or an Arb i don't recall.
3) nobody "silenced" Skapperod's criticism on talk, he was only asked not comment in a specific section dedicated to comments of neutral editors. Skapperod is very welcome to work on the article, propose changes, criticize it, suggest improvements, find additional sources etc etc etc. he can even nominate the article for deletion if he wished so.
4) Skapperod is non-neutral in that he usually has a POV directly opposite to the POV of Polish editors. He constantly links of tons and tons of evidence here (i won't comment on it, but some of it is IMO not exactly objective.) The idea that he'd now assume the role of a neutral observer when Polish and German editors disagree is bit comical.
5) Piotrus has not adopted the role of the mediator on the article talk, on the contrary he requested a formal mediation.
6. asking for a third opinion, RfC or a mediation should be encouraged as a positive thing. Having as many neutral editors (not previous engaged in EE arguments) as possible can only benefit the project. They usually bring a fresh view on things and improve the cooperative atmosphere.  Dr. Loosmark  16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There was never any attempt or intention to manipulate anything in

regards to that article. If there is need I can quote the emails where the Comission is mentioned to prove it. The idea of this article started a long time ago with the discovery that such commission existed and composition of its members that were mentioned by Skapperod during his defence of using it as sorurce, regardless of discovery that Schieder was a former Nazi:Schieder was the head of the commission, and he had a Nazi past. Yet there were also other people in the commission with not such a past, eg Oberländer had broken with Koch already in 1938, and Lukaschek was in the anti-Nazi resistance. [13]. At first it wasn't clear what exact past Schieder had(it turned out he supported Nazi cleansing of Jews and Poles etc(For examole The business of genocide: the SS, slave labor, and the concentration camps‎ - page 284 Michael Thad Allen - 2002 Schieder advocated what we would now call ethnic cleansing of Poles as well)), and it turned out that Oberlander's break with one Nazi official's faction didn't mean break with radical nationalism and support for German conquest of Central and Eastern Europe, ethnic cleansing plans, or that Lukaschek despite opposing Nazis was supportive of claims against Poland and organised German propaganda before the war against Polish people. In short-it turned that the commission had very dubious credibility. And yes, Radek didn't proxy for me, such claim comes from limited insight into emails-in fact we discussed the commission and searched for information on it for a long time-discovering more details on how Nazis and nationalists influenced its work, and goals. Radek sent me then a draft of the article and I helped him with references and sources. Again if there is need-this can be quoted from emails.

As to Piotrus reaction-I believe it was desire to attract opinion of neutral editors, and Skapperod isn't seen as neutral in this topics due to his previous defence of the commssion and former Nazi historians(the commission consisted of several respected historians[14]). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question to arbs: new FoF on Disruption - alternative or not?

Are new FoF on Disruption presented by bainer superseding alternatives or additions to older FoFs on Disruption proposed by Coren? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. By my reading (and as reflected in my courtesy implementaion notes), for F10 and F10.1, there is nothing in any of the comments by the arbs indicating that they are considering these to be alternatives, while for the others (12 and 12.1, 14 and 14.1, 15 and 15.1, and 16 and 16.1) bainer says explicitly that F12 is his "second choice", indicating that these others are being offered as alternatives. However the obvious parallelism between all of these is suggestive, and perhaps bainer simply forgot to qualify his vote on 10.1. This neads to be clarified by an arb. Paul August ☎ 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're intended as alternatives. I missed indicating as much on #10 and #10.1 originally; I've fixed that now. --bainer (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen, I've updated my implementation notes accordingly (still waiting for a clerk to verify and validate). Paul August ☎ 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Eastern Europe, broadly construed"

Could an Arbitrator define this? Not that I personally care as I am quitting the project, but am asking on behalf of the others so that they do not inadvertently violate these so called remedies. Does this include articles such as Baikal Amur Mainline, Kuril Islands, Australia–Russia relations, Albania and the European Union and the Cold War, for example? --Martin (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What about biographies of people born in EE but who emigrated (ex. people in Category:Polish Americans or their notable descendants), or philosophical and scientific concepts that were created there (ex. Polish notation, Kerosene lamp, Delta wing)? Could I create an article on culturalism, a sociological mode of reflection first described by a Polish sociologist, Florian Znaniecki? Can I contribute to article on macroeconomics, if I have read works of Michał Kalecki, a known Polish macroeconomist? Can I cite his works? Mention his name? What about contributions to general subjects that touch in some way on Eastern Europe; for example history of rocketry can be seen as related, due to Kazimierz Siemienowicz, a 17th century Polish noble, being seen as one of rocketry's founding fathers? Would anything related to space travel be off limits due to the dominating figure of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky? I am thinking about writing an article on feudal fragmentation, but will I be allowed to mention feudal fragmentation of Poland as one of examples? Where are we supposed to draw the line? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose articles like Copernican heliocentrism is covered by this topic ban too because Nicolaus Copernicus figures predominately? --Martin (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the World Wars? If I write an article about a battle on the Western Front and then discover Polish troops participated in it, does it mean I broke the topic ban? Could I finish the article, should I ask for exception here, or request a speedy deletion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest as the best solution, Prokonsul? Do you think a full ban would be better? Seriously, you already are challenging any solution to the problem with kerosene lamps, delta wings, and whether or not you can edit articles concerning Polish collaborators via their mathematical contributions. Not to mention the Western Front. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Piotrus editing those pages, however if he violates the spirit of the ban then those enforcing it must aggressively turn a deaf ear towards any Wikilawyering. A preventative site ban to deter any further battle ground activity on these pages is probably needed though. Triplestop x3 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@clerk, I addressed this question directly to the Committee. This is an important question also asked by Biophys above and concerns all 17 members of the list, not just Piotrus. Dr. Dan and Triplestop taunting Piotrus is just not helpful and should be removed from this thread. --Martin (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While you addressed the question to the committee, you posted it on a talk page. I got a couple arbitrators to comment below. If you have a private question it can be emailed directly to the committee. Regarding taunting, I do not think their edits rise to that level. I am keeping a close eye on everything and if anyone gets out of line I will take care of it. KnightLago (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So the arbitrators don't actually read this page unless you ping them? --Martin (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they read this page. But if you want a quick reply it is sometimes necessary to draw their attention. KnightLago (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban covers articles (and sections, and topics) about the topic. That part of the topic incidentally takes place in Eastern Europe, when not material to it, would not be covered. Polish notation, for instance, isn't about Poland in any significant way and that someone involved in a topic happens to be Polish, or Bulgarian, or whichever isn't significant unless the nationality itself is topical. — Coren ^(talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a problem anyway, due to the granularity of the decision. It talks only about articles and discussions, not about topics within an article. If you look at Territorial changes of Poland, or even just Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, then perhaps you can imagine how many location articles are potentially affected by disputes about whether their German/Polish/Russian/Czech etc. name should be included, and who founded/first mentioned it. Similarly for notable people from the region. Does the article about the mathematician Stefan Banach fall under "Eastern Europe, broadly construed" because it regularly gets edit wars about whether he was Polish or Ukrainian? What about other notable people with arguable nationality where there have been no disputes yet?

I guess my point is that "Eastern Europe, broadly construed" is so much wider than e.g. "pseudoscience, broadly construed" that it will be automatically interpreted differently, at least by a substantial number of admins. Don't you really mean "Eastern European national conflicts, broadly construed", and that on the level of topics that the editors aren't allowed to touch, rather than articles? If that's not what you mean, you should make that fact explicit to avoid misunderstandings. Hans Adler 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Coren. The issue is the addition (or removal) of material about the topic. So, going to an article that is primarily not about the topic and adding material directly related to the EE topic would be off limits. An example would be going to articles and adding a EE related category. That would not be permitted.

But because the article may have a very slight mention of the topic does not mean working on it is a problem if the part edited is completely unrelated to the topic. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Those clarifications are much appreciated. If in doubt, is there a place one can ask for a review of potential contributions? Could they be made in one's userspace, or on simple wiki, and then approved for transfer to mainspace / en Wikipedia by a neutral admin or another trusted and neutral user (or should such queries be addressed directly to ArbCom)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most arbitrators oppose transfers from userspace. Piotrus_topic_banned_3. DonaldDuck (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, but it doesn't quite answer the question. I know a "topic ban covers articles (and sections, and topics) about the topic", but as an illustration to aid understanding, are the following topics in/out/partially okay:

• Baikal Amur Mainline and Kuril Islands
• Foreign relations of Romania
• Albania and the European Union
• Leninism
• Cold War
• people in Category:Polish Americans?

--Martin (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if contentious areas are to be excluded then

• Baikal Amur Mainline is out because of issue of stalinism and repressions
• Kuril Islands is out because of Russia/Japan issues
• Foreign relations of Romania is out because of Moldavia/Romania issues
• Albania and the European Union is out because of Albania/Kosovo/Serbia issues
• Leninism is just out
• Cold War is definitely out
• people in Category:Polish Americans: depends

In more general, if Google search on "[title of article] dispute" or controversy, returns anything related to EE, it should be excluded as contentious. Can't you edit pokemon instead?(Igny (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

What about the articles I listed above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Say, radio should be ok, but a dispute between Popov and Marconi may not be. On the other hand, the dispute between Tesla and Marconi is in grey area. Same goes with other scientific articles on topics where EE scientists contributed. If there was a dispute or a controversy arising from EE, it (the dispute, not the article in general) should be avoided. . (Igny (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

I think Coren and FloNight clarified the matter, although their views seem to be partly different. Coren was very clear. He said: articles or subsections of articles about the topic. That certainly allows editing any articles mentioned by Martin excluding any sections about Eastern Europe in these articles. World "related" by FloNight does not clarifies the matter because everything is related to everything.Biophys (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "Baikal Amur Mainline [in Siberia] is out because of issue of stalinism and repressions", "Kuril Islands [in the Sea of Japan] is out because of Russia/Japan issues". Igny, do you realize how far this is from Eastern Europe?Biophys (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How far is it from Russia? Russia is as Eastern as Europe gets. (Igny (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

You forgot that per EEML participants' philosophy, Russia is oriental despoty, having "Asiatic ancestries". I just wonder, if they consider brother of Caiser Vilhelm (czar Nikola II) or perhaps his wife - sister of Elizabeth I, Rurik viking family, or German Catherine II to be Asiatic? And they have maps different from yours for that reason. I only briefly would like to mention that Polish nobility until Poland demise and fall to Austria, Prussia and Russia were sincerely considering themselves of Sarmatian origin, see Sarmatism. I would disagree however that this Polish practice existed till 19th century. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Your question is a good illustration of part of the problem. Russia is 1.7 times the size of Europe. If we include it in Eastern Europe (an ill-defined term, as the article states), then Eastern Europe will be more than twice the size of Europe and will be a close neighbour of the US, in complete contradiction of how Europeans think about Eastern Europe. Such a definition only makes sense in the appropriate contexts, i.e. Eastern Europe in relation to what is west of it. As soon as you try to relate Eastern Europe to things in Asia you quickly get into absurdities. Here are very rough differences between the Kuril Islands and various places:

• Russia (Kamchatka): 20 km. [16]
• Japan: 30 km.
• Adak, Alaska: 250 km. [17]
• Anchorage, Alaska: 2000 km.
• Yekaterinburg (Russian city on the Asian side of the Ural Mountains): 6000 km (1/7 equator).
• Moscow: 7500 km.

If Arbcom doesn't give a more precise definition of "Eastern Europe, broadly construed" to work with, I predict a number disagreements and conflicts like that about whether the British National Party article is Troubles related. Hans Adler 09:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hans, is Turkey European state? You probably know this modern fashionable EU entertainment. Agree, however, that Arbcom should clarify.Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of "broadly construed" is to avoid limiting it to a strict definition. People are expected to apply their judgment. If they turn out not to have any judgment then it's probably advisable to avoid all areas where they think there's an arguable case for it being covered by the restriction. 80.65.247.36 (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad definitions cause disputes between admins with vastly different interpretations. That's the main problem. One admin thinks Bering Land Bridge National Preserve falls under Eastern Europe because it's so close and Taliban does because they got big after the Soviet Union's withdrawal. If such an admin blocks, others with raidally different interpretations will assume bad faith. But I am off now; I don't want to dominate this discussion. I just hope I am wrong and there will be no such trouble. Hans Adler 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is open to numerous interpretations. In particular, Poland is a part of Central Europe rather than Eastern Europe. See Eastern Europe: "One prevailing definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural (and econo-cultural) entity: the region lying between Central Europe and Western Asia, with main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and limited Ottoman influences." They should replace "Eastern Europe" by Eastern Block I guess. Biophys (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, don't invent new things. The proper way of conduct would be - when unsure - don't edit the article. M.K. (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, edit nothing.

Seriously, Poland is part of Central Europe, which is generally held to also include at least: Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and, often, (parts of) several other countries. Inclusion of these countries under the term "Eastern Europe" is a holdover from dichotomous Cold-War ideologies. Nihil novi (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(By some surveys, Poland is in the dead center of Europe. Nihil novi (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

In relation to the above section it is clearly evident what broadly construed means, and much of what is written by list members is tantamount to wikilawyering, and it obvious from some arb member comments that this would be the case.

May i make the suggestion that list members contact an admin who would be responsible for WP:AE, perhaps User:Sandstein, and ask for his opinion...it is obvious from the mailing list archives that those being sanctioned believe that that admin does a fine job at arbitration enforcement, so they should value his opinion quite highly.

But it should be clearly obvious that an eastern europe topic ban includes anything to do with eastern europe, whether that be geopolitics, sport, people...everything. This is exactly what my "Russia" topic ban includes, and so it should be NO different for list members. Under my "Russia" topic ban i can not edit any article relating directly to Russia and i am also not able to include details in a non-russia related article which is linked to Russia. For example, Air Botswana is an article which i 5x expanded, and in it i was unable to include information related to a potential takeover by a russian businessman. In an article on an argentinian cargo airline i was unable to include information related to one of its aircraft being shot down in soviet territory after running guns from israel to iran as part of the iran-contra affair. I would also be unable to edit an article on kostya tszyu...an australian boxer...because he is of russian heritage.

I am fully aware of what my topic ban includes and it should be no different for list members. However a couple of further points:

• i fail to see why list members would be allowed to edit articles in their userspace, whilst i am not afforded the same opportunity. What is good for the goose, and all that. If i am unable to do so, i see no reason why list members should be able to do it. Perhaps the pd should be changed inline with my topic ban which covers ALL spaces across wp.
• perhaps the arbcom should change the pd to include "eastern europe and former countries of the soviet union". This way there can be no wikilawyering as to whether russian territories in the far east would be included, and would also include countries such as kazakhstan, of which some also class as eastern europe.

Comments from arbcom members on the above points would be welcomed. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that you had been topic-banned. I hope that whatever precipitated it can be remedied in the near future. The same goes for those who are now undergoing the current proceedings.

I do think the atmosphere has become more civil over the past year or so, with less ranting and mutual accusations. Nihil novi (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Igny, Russavia, Coren, and FloNight are correct in their clarifications here. If there is any doubt, it would be best to presume a topic/article is included. If some additional clarification is desired on a case by case basis, WP:ECN, WP:AE, and WT:EEUROPE are all at the disposal of editors seeking feedback. Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: Account migration and signatures

Proposal:

• "Members of the EEML are required to stick to the account names they held in September 2009, i.e. as listed here. Their signatures must include the exact name of their account."

Rationale: Enforcement of the remedies should not require specialists. Also, block logs and sanction notes as outlined on the respective user talk pages must be accessible without an unreasonable amount of research.

Examples making this remedy necessary:

• user:Molobo has migrated to user:MyMoloboaccount during this case. His original account can easily be restored to him as outlined by MBisanz, so his block log and the conditional lift of his permaban are accessible.
• user:Martintg has changed his signature to display as "Martin" (e.g. here). That way, he is not identifyable as a EEML member in discussions without further research; besides, a user:Martin really exists and is probably not happy with Martintg's current signature.

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 100s users who had sanctions and changed signatures or have a new account. If Skapperod wants to introduce this novelty he should propose it as a general policy, making special rules just to punish soecific users is ugly.  Dr. Loosmark  12:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had time to think about this, I would tend to agree with Loosmark. My position used to mirror that of Skäpperöd at a time when the community was not aware of this situation or just wasn't interested. I think everybody has read the memo by now, so Skäpperöd's proposal is no longer as important or as pressing as it once was. In other words, it probably isn't necessary. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For once, I agree with Loosmark. Skäpperöd, this proposal is really really far-fetched. However, I don't know if you're aware, a somewhat weaker rule is already in force as a standard procedure, per this announcement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but would you agree that the situations in the "examples" section that made me propose the remedy should be fixed accordingly, i.e. Molobo be restored his Molobo account and Martintg discontinue the use of the "Martin" signature? Brünnhilde's tears (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see where you are coming from, but I think that would stretch too far past the username policy. I would expect that genuine signature abuse can be handled on a case by case basis without too much difficulty, and sanctioned users are not allowed to switch accounts without notifying the committee already. — Coren ^(talk) 15:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• (ec with Coren) The Molobo situation is quite unproblematic since the new name clearly points to the old one, and whatever tricks were to be applied now wouldn't make it any clearer either (you can't actually merge two accounts; the two would always remain separate, under whatever name). And I don't think anybody has ever bothered demanding changes of signatures. As long as the sig correctly links to the account name, as all sigs should, a shortened display string has never been treated as a problem, no matter whether a user was under sanctions or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And anyway, if all users previously sanctioned by Arbcom were to be obliged to spell out their usernames in full in their sigs, I would be in a lot of trouble myself. – FauЖ pas (☹) 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed on ruling/Is administration discussion also covered or only content creation

The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed.

Does it cover potential aspirations for adminship ? Say a editor who engaged in incivility in EE topics, had used sources about EE that were determined highly biased and discouraged by Wiki community(not on the list), had displayed striking POV in EE topics an so on, tries to be elected into an admin status. Are people covered by sanction prohibited from pointing out the problems associated with such editor, or is this sanction restricted to content writing only ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If neutral editors find a problem with their conduct then they will ensure a fair outcome. If EEML members were allowed to vote then they would most certainly oppose anyone who would be detrimental to their POV pushing campaign, hardly in the best interests of the encyclopedia nor a fair outcome for the candidate. For the sake of fairness the EEML participants should NOT be allowed to vote on anything broadly construed as advancing their political agenda. Triplestop x3 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the many bizarre things about this case is that there are a number of editors here who continuously answer questions directed to the Arbitrators.  Dr. Loosmark  23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, can Triplestop point me to edits where I have misrepresented or not portrayed reputable sources in a fair and accurate manner. If scientists agree the moon is made of rock, then 20 editors showing up with sources confirming that it is made of rock when someone contends the moon is made out of cheese is not a "POV pushing campaign". ArbCom cannot rule on content, therefore consistency of an editorial POV based on sound sources is now "pushing" a POV when that POV is attacked? This is laughable. I have no political agenda on Wikipedia, only the fair and accurate representation of sources—because that is all I ever need. How about allowing those to whom the inquiry is directed answer instead of constantly editorializing based on no prior experience with those being lobbied against. Someone asking a question is not an invitation for an immediate spearing from the peanut gallery.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you misunderstood me Triplestop-my question was directed at Arbcom members. They are politicised editors who could possibly attempt to present themselves as neutral and gain adminship, using the opportunity that people knowledgable with their past actions are silenced. And just what is my "politcal agenda" you write of ? Using reliable sources ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious. If one of the EEML participants ran for admin, would they be "politicised editors who could possibly attempt to present themselves as neutral"? Triplestop x3 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That depends on the member in question. Anyway please don't start off-topic discussions. Anyway still waiting for clarification--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the many bizarre things about this case is that there are a number of editors here who continuously respond to other opinions in a negative and unproductive manner. Congratulations, btw on your new found "degree", Loosmark. And to Molobo, may I suggest that if you have a specific issue that you would like the ArbCom committee to address that you use another channel to do so, if you are unhappy with the result. Once it's placed here, it becomes a matter open to discussion. Or at least that's what I understood that the talk pages were designed for. Getting back to the point..."Does it cover potential aspirations for adminship (sic)?" In a democracy, and I hope that most of the governing principles of WP have remained in tune with such precepts, unless you're a felon you should be entitled to throw your hat into the ring. After that the community can work the rest of it out. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus this back on the topic please. KnightLago (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Knightlago, my last two sentences focused on the topic. You were probably busy and neglected to admonish Dr. Loosmark, formerly Loosmark, when he veered off the topic earlier. Forgive my presumptivness (sic) for now bringing this to everyone's attention. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan I think it would be best if we don't comment on other editors' signatures because it risks to derail the topic (and I know how much would dislike it if that would to happen). Also I don't think that the clerk KnightLago needs to be taught how to do his job.  Dr. Loosmark  02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, we'll let the ArbCom committee consider whether your remark concerning my derailing of the topic is accurate. And Knightlago doesn't need either of us to "do his job". Let's just make his job easier. You stay on topic and I'll stay on topic. Again, I think one should be entitled to throw their hat into the ring, in my opinion, in response to Molobo's question. And again, then the community can work the rest of it out. How's that? O.K.? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but you won't turn the tables just like that. It was you who tried to do KnightLago's job not me. I wasn't writting stuff like "you were probably busy", "you neglected to admonish" etc etc. to the clerk. As for Molobo's question I think it would be good that apart from your opinion we hear the opinion of an Arbitrator too.  Dr. Loosmark  12:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, "nice try", once again you stay on topic and I'll stay on topic. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Still trying to put the blame for your off-topic mockery of my signature and your accusation to the clerk that he's neglecting on me? [18].  Dr. Loosmark  12:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We are still off topic; if this continues I am closing this. Dan, my request to get back on topic was directed to everyone, not just you. And as you said, only the last two sentences of your comment were on topic. Loosmark, I do not know why you added Dr. to the front of your username. If it was done to taunt someone else then it shows a lack of maturity, if on the other hand you recently received a degree, congratulations. Questions directed to the arbitrators on this page can be commented on by everyone. As I have said many times before, if you have a question and you want it to be answered solely by the committee it needs to be emailed directly to them. Let's please get back on topic. KnightLago (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadly construed means just that. If a need is felt to ask whether or not it applies, the chances are that it does. To be explicit, if I were an enforcing administrator, I would consider an RfA prominently featuring EE matters to be within the scope of the restriction. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that editors that were highly unneutral and with determined POV might shift to a course of editing for a certain times other articles, and later applying for adminship using the opportunity that people who know their edits best will be silenced. Later they can use admin authority against people they were in dispute of in topics they presented POV and to which they will return. Do you believe such situation is recommended. Why should I be not allowed to remind others of the past problems of the editor by providing wikilinks to specific actions ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There are actions and then there are interpretations. You should not worry much about people not seeing some questionable actions of an editor running for admin. Because I think someone would point that out. But certainly community would not need your interpretations. (Igny (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I am not talking about interpretations but pointing to clear actions. As to "You should not worry much about people not seeing some questionable actions of an editor running for admin"-I already had seen a case where an editor with highly questionable remarks and history of conflict was elected to an admin status, without those issues being brought up in election(not dismissed-they simple were not known to people debating), due to people he was involved with this not noticing his bid for adminship--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, everyone who runs for adminship, who thinks and insists that he can be an admin, should deserve a chance to be an admin. In an encyclopedia which anyone can edit, this seems only natural. Only obvious vandals should be excluded, but the content disputes in the past of the editor should not prevent the said editor from gaining adminship. After all, that is just a bunch of useful tools, and Wikipedia is in a need of more admins, not less. Of course abuse of the tools should be the reason for the immediate desysop. (Igny (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe

If I may, I'm at loss here: what's the point of this remedy? What kind of disruption have I caused to the Eastern European topics? Where's such significant misconduct? Look at my list of article created or just other contributions - this remedy doe not make sense in my opinion. I have always tried to maintain balance in those debated articles and to be as neutral as possible. I haven't created any battleground stuff and have done my best to get rid of such things when encountered. Banning me from EE topics would effectively mean that I cannot contribute to Wikipedia on topics in which I'm well-informed. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, who cares what's the point if it is not going to pass, except maybe for voters in the next ArbCom election? Colchicum (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no indication from ArbCom regarding my time-sapping responses to evidence presented "against" me or regarding the truthful account of my appearances upon being "canvassed" (that is, having already been there before ever reading Emails), the "likeliest" explanation is that there is no interest on the part of ArbCom regarding anything we have to say, and that any and all protestations are being viewed as more evidence of our bad faith, "not getting it," etc., etc., etc. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I had my act of contrition prepared. Being treated like scum on- and off-Wiki (my perception) has led to my deleting it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that several remedies are not even loosely tied to any FoF, such as 11C. Is that even acceptable in arbitration cases? --Sander Säde 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

11C is more than loosely tied to the findings and facts of this case. Canvassing and vote stacking is a major part of the picture. The relation is clear to myself and at least some other arbitrators. Vassyana (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

11C is in fact an indef ban on EE topics. Like said every contribution and discussion can be silenced by turning it into a vote. Flonight in fact has been kind enough to argument her support for this paragraph using such explanation. I really see no sense in this, if there is to be an indef ban why not state it openly rather then use such thing?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bans with thin (non-)majorities

I am uncomfortable with seeing "remedy 2" (Piotrus 3 months siteban) currently pass with the absolute minimum "majority" of a mere 3 supports, with 1 oppose and 4 abstentions. Now, I can see how the math works out, but it just doesn't feel right. A remedy as serious as this one, on a major longtime editor like Piotrus (and with all negative and positive things that can be said about him, he doubtless has been deeply committed to the project) deserves at least the courtesy of a clear vote that every arbitrator has taken a considered stance on.

Risker, Carcharoth, Vassyana, FloNight: do you really not care whether a major figure of this project such as Piotrus is banned or not? You should.

I can understand how such a result could come about in such a large and messy case, and I know you guys must all be tired of voting and re-voting here, but please decide this properly. One way or the other. A lame non-majority with more abstentions than supports would risk looking cynical.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstenations don't nessesarily mean 'don't care'. 'Can't decide' is also a reasonable motive for abstaining. A real court says doubt = not guilty. This court says definatly yes, definatly no, or doubt = abstain. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it would still be good if one (or better yet two) of the abstentions could become votes supporting or opposing. Apart from anything else, if we follow your logic above, at the moment there is more doubt about whether the proposed ban is appropriate than there is confirmation that it is appropriate. Varsovian (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

All remedies should require an absolute majority of participants. Otherwise one can vote for, all others abstain, and the remedy passes. That clearly does not reflect sentiments as reflected in ballots. Abstention is not "I go along with whatever is decided, even if by one person", that is an abdication of responsibility. Abstention is "I am not convinced that either voting for or against is the appropriate action," that is, I request the proposer of said remedy consider an alternate solution. This is why, if certain remedies do not pass, other remedies (perhaps more moderate) are then proposed which do pass.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The most responsible thing to do when opposing or abstaining would be vocalise what it is that makes you vote that way and what would convince you to vote otherwise. This is done often by arbs saying 'I could support a shorter duration' or similar. Obviously this is not a perfect world and that may not always be viable. Vecrumba's analysis, while technically true, falls apart when common sense is applied. The Arbs would never allow a vote to be 1 pass with 8 abstinations. Even our current situation (a 3 pass vote majority being objected to) proves this. People just would not accept it a 1 vote pass remedy. It is true that abstaining should be kept to a minimum, but its also true the line from acceptable to too much is very fuzzy. Personally, if the case were to be suddenly closed and the votes tallied as is, I believe this would be an acceptable grounds for a clarification/appeal request. Otherwise it looks like a single added or changed vote could change the picture significantly on several proposals. Since it appears FayssalF has suddenly decided to vote on principles, I count a minimum of 5 proposals that could swing either way depending on his vote. This is not over yet. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I share the concern raised by Future Perfect at Sunrise. For a remedy as serious as a ban, I think a majority of Arbitrators should participate in the vote. The abstain votes all were made more than a week ago. In light of the failure of 2.1 and 2.2 to pass, perhaps one or more of the abstainers would like to reconsider their votes on 2. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably would be good to see additional votes here, but the existing guidelines were quite clear before the voting started. If there is a need to change those guidelines I am sure there's an appropriate way to do so; intervening in an active case by changing the way votes are counted after the fact is not the appropriate way. Bringing up such changes after a vote because one doesn't like the vote result brings to mind the comment from Stalin, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how." csloat (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Stalinum? Is that the best you can do?

Nobody has complained about the vote result. We merely have suggested that more Arbitrators should be active participants in the vote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have merely suggested that the problems with the way votes are tallied are better addressed in a neutral forum rather than at the end of an actual vote. Do you really disagree with that? csloat (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your lobbying for discussion in a subsequent "neutral" venue is effectively not neutral as my impression based on your commentary at these proceedings is that you support sanctions.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "lobbying" for anything -- you're just making stuff up. I understand if you don't like the vote result, but that shouldn't be the prompt for an overhaul of the vote-counting rules. I'm amazed that what I said about that is even the least bit controversial. csloat (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're amazed that quoting Stalin in an Eastern Europe dispute is controversial? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding FoF on canvasing - 10B) etc.

Currently canvasing FoF on EEML plotters sounds like this : user:X participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing. While from previous evidence it is clear cut that those activities were involved in order to influence the decision making and is disruptive. However, current FoF makes no direct assertion that such campaign was improper and later EEML plotters could argue that canvasing was allowed per outlined WP:CANVASS and that FOF dont state the nature of that campaign of canvassing. Therefore I suggest to Arbiters adding words like disruptive, improper to the original formulation of FoF in order to avoid wikilawyering in the future. M.K. (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The principle regarding canvassing - 4, already contains the word "disruptive". --Martin (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That 4 is proposed principles not a individual finding of facts. M.K. (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from other issues I have, if "disruptive" is added to the finding regarding myself I would demand an explanation of exactly what, in the content of my alleged responses, was disruptive (that is, represents a position which cannot be backed up by a fair and objective representation of reputable sources).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of so called "reputable sources", but question about disruptive votestacking and stealth canvassing, in which you and your buddies systematically participated.M.K. (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the thing is, M.K, that most of us would've voted the way we did actually vote, a message in the list referring to a vote or no message. Speaking personally, considering the few cases listed as FoF on me, I voted just the I would have done without the notifications sent via the list. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, FoF on my vote regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations is not really valid, in that I have voted keep each and every case I have participated in AfD's on 'country X-country Y relations' - I simply believe they deserve an article (note that my 'fellow briadier' Biruitorul was generally of the opposite opinion in that case :O)--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in your explanations for your motives here, so don't bother with it. As this thread is not dedicated for the theme: why I voted in this way... . M.K. (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not, I am, and this is not your talkpage, so you'll have to bear this. Colchicum (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on pointless comments: if you have noting to say on topic, don't say at all and save some space. M.K. (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the canvassing was improper is directly on-topic, like it or not. Colchicum (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If someone would have shown up and said the same thing, and done so before reading any note about something, then it's a "BTW" (not request) and not a response to canvassing. "Canvassing" says the editor would not have showed up otherwise and showed up only to stack votes.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand 11C-please explain

All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.

• Why indef if other bans have limited period ? Shouldn't be it for a year or so ?
• What does vote process mean ? Any vote ? What about comments ?
• What about disruptive behaviour when upon any activity by editor a vote process is started by the second party ? Doesn't it mean in effect an indef ban ?
• What does broadly constructed mean ?
• Please define what "other threads directly about or involving" mean ?
• Flonight upon attempt to avoid disruption by adding a restriction responded "I think that anything less that a full broad topic ban is going to open up the door to endless discussions about whether something is covered or not. " So we should take as indef ban on any discussion and content creation ? Why isn't it defined as so then, and introduced in cover of something else ?
• Again why should this be expanded on administrative matters like RfA ? Why shouldn't we present any real and existing evidence ? Was there any faked source, example that Arbcom discovered in use by mail list members ?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk

I am going to be traveling for the next week and a half or so. I have asked all of the other clerks to watch the case pages in my absence. If there is a problem, or you have a question, please email the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. I wish everyone happy holidays. KnightLago (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've arranged for another clerk to close the case in KL's absence. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator Votes on Remedies 17 and 17.1

I am posing this question principally for consideration of the Clerks and Arbitrators, and I preface it by saying I have no opinion about the editor who is the subject of proposed remedies 17 and 17.1. I have no idea about whether a sanction is justified; I am merely puzzled by the possibility that remedy 17.1 should be considered passing. My reason for raising this question is as follows:

• Proposed Remedy 17 contemplates a 1 year ban for Dc76, and is supported only by Coren and Rlevse.
• Proposed Remedy 17.1 contemplates a 1 year topic ban for Dc76, and has received formal support from bainer and FloNight
• Neither Coren nor Rlevse have taken a formal position on proposed remedy 17.1, but it seems a logical consequence of their support for a total site ban that they also support a lesser sanction
• If this is so then there are actually four arbitrators in favour of proposed remedy 17.1
• Since Vassyana has abstained from proposed remedy 17.1, four votes in its favour would constitute a majority

Is there a standard practice established for situations such as this? EdChem (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I formally protest the notion that a simple majority of non-abstaining ArbCom members is required to enact bans. A simple 1-0 majority with all others abstaining (for example) to enact bans is unconscionable. Counting abstentions with the majority allows ArbCom members to vote for sanctions in the 1-0 example I cite while professing to be undecided. Only an absolute majority of the total should count for any sanction.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The thin majority proposals you are concerned about are unlikely to pass. In most cases an alternative will have greater support. The implementation notes are being updated as I speak. Once that has been done, it should be clearer where the areas of concern are, if any. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer EdChem's question, neither 17 nor 17.1 are passing. The normal procedure would be to propose an alternative that gathers in the support of those that supported one or the other, but that is not likely to happen now that arbitrators have voted to close the case. What is passing is a finding of fact about Dc76. That may be relevant in later proceedings, and is in effect, on the permanent record for this editor. It would have been nice to resolve everything related to this case, but, in effect, the arbitrators (including me) are saying: that's enough for now, it's the best we can do, if there are future problems, go to arbitration enforcement or ask for the case to be amended. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) EdChem, Unless Coren and Rleves support the proposals by voting for them then they will not pass despite their support of stronger remedies. Vecrumba, arbs abstaining on a proposals is type of affirmative act and can make a proposal pass. An active arb not voting on a motion is the same as opposing it and has the same effect on the outcome. Sometimes arbs make a choice to abstain to help a motion or case proposal pass. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just voted on the topic bans to help reduce the ambiguity. Rlevse is, however, on a Wikibreak until the 26th. — Coren ^(talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

On what basis, there are no FoF of disruption against these people? The remedies 11B and 11C cover the canvassing FoF. --Martin (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth and FloNight, thank you for clarifying that the policy / practice is that only explicit votes are considered. I can see the practical desirability of such a position, even though it will lead (at times) to logical inconsistencies. In this case, it appears that Dc76 is very fortunate that Rlevse is on wikibreak and is unlikely to clarify his position (as Coren has now done) as it seems likely that clarification would lead to proposed remedy 17.1 passing. As an aside / observation, ArbCom should perhaps consider privately the issue of when an alternative would pass but for the missing vote of an arbitrator who is temporarily unavailable but supported a harsher formulation. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Remedies 11B and 11C

I'm not thrilled by passing remedies 11B and 11C for all members of the email list because I think that less harsh remedy would suffice. After I leave the Committee, I plan to watch the contributions of members and suggest that the 2010 ArbCom relax these remedies for some parties that are not otherwise named in the case and do not get into any further conflicts during the next 45 days. I know that some of you will not find this satisfactory because you think it is too harsh, but I think it is in the best interest of the Community to pass these proposals and close the case now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What is in the best interest of the Community is that the ArbCom passes only proposals which are necessary.  Dr. Loosmark  00:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these remedies is that it is being applied to editors who haven't edited Wikipedia for two years. I don't understand why the committee is sanctioning User:Alexia Death with these two remedies. --Martin (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see three problems with Proposed decision in general. First, it disproportionally punished one side in a multi-side conflict. Second, this is all based on publicly posted private emails. It well could be that someone posted the stolen emails from the hacked account because he wanted Arbcom to think that leakage was done by insider. Finally, it introduces the idea of collective responsibility for writing emails, something that was rejected even in CAMERa case. But once again, this is Arbcom responsibility to make such decisions.Biophys (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference was for editor specific sanctions. With the flurry of voting in the last day, more of these have passed and I'm now opposing the the remedies (11B and 11C) that I think are too harsh on some members of the mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The group-3RR and group-votestacking limits are the only remedies likely to reduce future damage, as they deprive the group of their major on-wiki tools - off-wiki, nothing can be done anyway.

What is a few months topic ban going to achieve in this case? Nothing but the respective editors waiting for it to go by, and/or proxying via their not banned friends. Look at the Molobo precedent. Handing out short bans to a few is just an invitation to continue as usual, and it is very unlikely that fragments of the off-wiki coordination, such as the leaked mail archive, surface again. And from the archive it is crystal clear that they have no intention to stop where they were when they were disturbed. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is just incredible to see that some Arbs decided to give free ticked to the EEML plotters for waging a revert wars again ! Coordinated reverts were one for the primary reason why EEML was established in the first place. Gosh. M.K. (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban is a stronger remedy that a 1RR restriction. I'm not inclined to support sanctions against people that have no specific Fof with diffs or other evidence against them. If the topic ban is lifted on a specific editor, then I will suggest other restrictions as needed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the disruption in the EE topics will only stop when editors with battleground mentality like Skapperod will get some remedy too. Here he's again trying to get rid of all of his content opponents at once. What he says above it's not nearly true, many members of the EEML will get very long topic bans (some IMO too long), so it's very far from truth that the ArbCom is "giving invitation to continue as usual", quite the contrary. And the ArbCom will probably keep an eye on the situation closely in the future (and hopefully not just the ex-EEML members but also editors like Skapperod too.) Anyway the initial comment by FloNight in this thread is a completely correct and logic one, every editor should get a remedy exactly proportional to the things he has done. (Giving somebody a remedy for something he has not done is absurd). Frankly I am surprised that the ArbCom didn't choose this approach from the beginning.  Dr. Loosmark  18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To label me with "battleground mentality" is not only untrue, but also offensive. Please redact. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that needs to be retracted here is your accusation that the ArbCom is giving quote "an invitation to continue as usual". It's deeply untrue and insulting to the Arbs.  Dr. Loosmark  19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The disruption in EE topics will likely stop when RS rules are enforced (ending the use of Nazi and far right sources for example that happens from time to time), attempts of owning articles and basing them on highly political and one sided works that border on historic revisionism. I remain optimistic that any editor with good intentions for Wikipedia doesn't desire its articles sourced by such material, and future will bring more focus to RS on Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, FloNight. What you did was very much encouraging. You said you plan to watch the contributions of members. Yes, that would be great. Then I would rather give this another try and start editing something relatively neutral, say about artists and writers, do some gnomish staff, download images, or something like that. Let's see how it goes. Let's hope that no one from the opposite team follows my edits, just as I am not going to start any conversations with Russavia and others.Biophys (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Implicit ruling on content?

Regarding 11B) and Coren's "and find new, less contentious, areas to edit in productively":
I have been studying Soviet actions and its legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe longer than any of the ArbCom members have likely been alive. In the absence of evidence presented of a disruptive on-Wiki edit, I wish to know why I should refrain from standing up to the edit-warring brought on by editors bringing attack content and unsubstantiated POV declarations regarding versions of history to an encyclopedia and go off to edit Orange (fruit) and Coffee. You've read the evidence (have you?) regarding characterizations of my actions presented by my detractors and my responses. This sort of editorializing commentary by a ruling ArbCom member is not only inappropriate but totally unacceptable unless ArbCom is now implicitly ruling on content, that is, my "EEML member" content is bad and disruptive (as it is being discouraged because I am being explicitly told to go elsewhere), and my detactors' content is good and their conduct collegial (as it is all that will be left if my ability to contribute is silenced).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, "indefinite" restrictions are not sanctions, they are censorship.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Vecrumba, isn't your expertise but the improper battleground mentality that has poisoned the editing atmosphere in that topic area. Like all "indefinite" remedies — whether they are from ArbCom or the community — they can be reexamined after some time has passed; they are of undecided duration, not of infinite duration. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a finding of fact about improper battleground mentality in regard to Vecrumba. --Martin (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To Coren -- Thank you. Then please simply state "to be reviewed after..." and your proposed timeframe. Given the tone of the proceedings here and the draconian measures some have proposed, I can only assume the worst unless stated otherwise. As long as I bring reputable sources fairly and accurately represented, I am not responsible for those who choose to make WP into a battleground should they wish to introduce content which does not. That I cut my teeth countering paid propagandists on WP is whose fault? Not mine. I've spent far too much more money on sources than I should to bring reputable content to WP in the face of those misrepresenting the past and present. (Until now, it was worth it as a learning experience.) The bottom line is that ArbCom cannot rule on content. That gives lies and facts equal footing. That is what invites and enables battlefields.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to try to guess at a duration before the case is even closed; that's why there was no duration set down. I can tell you that a request to review the indefinite remedies is unlikely to be heard earlier than three months, and six is what most abs look for. What we'll be looking for is strong indication that, should the remedy be lifted or eased up, the problems will not recur.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion: should the sanctioned editors continue to edit collaboratively with each other, coordinate and discuss always on-wiki. Yes, it means that if anyone steps over the line they'll be put to task, but it also means that people will be able to trust that no backroom machinations are going on. Remember that this is what caused the whole mess: other editors lost trust that you weren't collectively gaming the system in order to win content disputes — until you dispel that impression with transparency, that trust will not return. — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What strong indication are you looking for from Alexia Death and why? Which impression should such users dispel? What kind of trust should she regain? Colchicum (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, regarding "Remember that this is what caused the whole mess: other editors lost trust that you weren't collectively gaming the system in order to win content disputes."

If my privacy were not violated and my personal Emails weren't announced to the world as a majority of Emails out to get Russavia, then read, then people who know nothing about me create circumstantial evidence of timings that I responded to canvassing (as opposed to my explanation) then we wouldn't have accusations which led to editors "losing trust." This is the first conspiracy I've ever seen that (a) no one could point to any change in on-Wiki behavior and (b) no one could produce evidence of on-Wiki contributions which are less than reputable. Quite honestly, whatever opinion my detractors in these proceedings have of me has not changed, their having just putting Bandags on the same tired accusations. (Have you read the "evidence" regarding my alleged "edit warring?") Nor do I care about ingratiating myself to them as all that matters is fair and accurate representation of reputable sources. Who here that has actually dealt with me on content "lost trust" in me? All I see is budding opportunism outside these proceedings using "EEML EDITOR!" to deride editors; same tactics, different word for WITCH! At least on the surface it's not as patently offensive as "ethnofascist POV pusher" or denouncing authors as POV based on the spelling of their surname. And you want to ban me because I'm responsible for "continuing disruption"?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for the "three to six months" explanation, that is good enough.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. My detractors insist I push a nationalist POV; sadly, I only write what I find in reputable sources—it's much simpler that way, both in writing and in defending content.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  06:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what ArbCom generally looks for, but this three to six months means that time spent productively editing in other areas not simply idling as that time period elapsed? EdChem (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's generally the case, yes. We can and often also take into account constructive editing on other projects when applicable (that usually is the case when editors have been banned, since they obviously could not edit productively here). — Coren ^(talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) I regret that I am still waiting for on-Wiki diffs supporting the draconian 18.1, i.e., which do not require mind-reading and interpretations based on assumptions of battlefield mentality, nationalist POV, and general bad faith on my part, that is, put me in a box and then punish me for being in the box. Is ArbCom really ready to travel down this course and set these precedents?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I opposed 18.1. However, I find this defense to be questionable. A finding of fact documents several instances of on-wiki participation immediately following canvassing requests. Additionally, the "battlefield mentality" and "general bad faith" are very well exhibited by your comments on this very page. In this section alone you decry a restriction preventing group reverts as inhibiting your ability to stand up to edit warring and POV pushing, when it only prevents tag team reversion, and characterize your opponents as paid propagandists. The explicit words, along with the tone and implications, of your posts reinforce perceptions that you have taken up a battleground mentality and engage opponents in bad faith. Vassyana (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this behaviour fall under CANVASS sanction ?

User Skapperod has engaged in copy and paste texting demands harsher sanctions to several Arbcom members and this board(I sincerily believe posting this here and to a specific admin would be enough)

Is this not a improper canvassing as defined under : [19] Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Could I request clarks in this Arbcom to politely react to this?

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

If my concern is not valid, then I have nothing against closing this, if it is I would welcome clerk reaction. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent the following message to three arbs who retracted support votes on the pd page yesterday:

"I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best"

The above post illustrates pretty well why I posted these messages, I request this be archived. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What for did you write that messages on relatively obscure talk pages? You could have written it here. There was no need to go around lobbying with the Arbs trying to get rid of your content opponents, it illustrates pretty well your battlefield mentality.  Dr. Loosmark  11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This your post is as unfounded and way out of line as the canvassing allegation, please redact. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

there is nothing wrong with contacting arbs on their talk pages...in fact several of the eemlers have done so on numerous occasions during this case...i dont see you accusing them of battlefield mentality now do we? Of course not. A clerk should close this section now as there is nothing untoward in contacting an arb openly as was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs)

There is a difference between contacting an Arb on their page to ask them something and sending the same message to many Arbs lobbying for sanctions. Btw could you please sign your posts otherwise the page becomes a mess.  Dr. Loosmark  12:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren's factual error regarding the Miacek account sharing FoF

Regarding Coren's rationale in supporting this FoF: "given it is now known unequivocally that this has occurred at least once on that mailing list already — the presumption must be that the offer was serious like the other". Miacek's joke offer came in June [20090602-1428], before Tymek's offer in August [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]. Therefore Coren conclusion is mistaken. --Martin (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion is not based on any particular sequence of events, I do not believe that one caused the other but simply that the seriousness of one affects the presumption towards the seriousness of the other. — Coren ^(talk) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, that does not make sense. The implication of your FoF comment is that Miacek was aware of Tymek's offer, an thus the presumption is that he made his offer in that spirit or at least atmosphere. However Miacek makes a sarcastic offer in June, then quits the maillist shortly after, long before Tymek makes his offer in August. Miacek has already stated in his original evidence that he did not agree with the EEML, that was why he quit. Do you realise you guys are basically punishing an EEML dissenter? What kind of message is that? --Martin (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the canvassing FoF

Some comments regarding these FoF.

The first part of the Canvassing FoF: "Xxxxx participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing" is not a finding of fact but an opinion, because it makes the assumption that there was a planned campaign to begin with. Unless there is some email found that states, for example, "could you join our maillist because we want to conduct a campaign to influence AfDs", it remains an assumption. The second part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions" is a valid finding of fact. The third part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is not a finding of fact, it can never be detemined as fact if someone voted in response to an email (was it even read?) or because they checked the article/noticeboard/contributions of an editor. The problem here is that there is no acknowledgement that there are other means of becoming aware of a discussion, the presumption being that it was solely done through the maillist.

A better wording of these FoFs would be:

Xxxxx canvassed on the mailing list:

• Xxxxx has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wwwwwwww [2009MMDD-HHmm]

Now whether that canvassing was disruptive depends upon whether messages were written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, and whether the outcome of actual AfD was in fact influenced. But what ever is determined in this regard, it has always been the case that the canvasser is the one who is sanctioned, not the canvassee, because it cannot ever be determined with any certainty that the canvassee participated as a result of reading the canvasser's notice with any reliability. Putting Dc76, Miacek, Vecrumba under a one year topic ban for one single instance of emailing a notice is unduly harsh, given the lack of an explicit FoF in regard to disruption. --Martin (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not look for certainty, Martin. Arbcom's evidential standard is "perponderance of evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt". — Coren ^(talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"We do not look for certainty, Martin. Arbcom's evidential standard is "perponderance of evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt"" If any of the EEML members would get a lawyer they would have a field day with things like that. You guys are using formulations which you should never do given the nature of the ArbCom, the "processes" it uses and that you deal with many people who use real names on wikipedia. I strongly advise the ArbCom to stop with this practice of imitating a court, "findings of facts" and stuff like that. Use other formulations in your cases.  Dr. Loosmark  21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) I am sorry, but "We do not look for certainty, Martin. Arbcom's evidential standard is "perponderance of evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt"" is unacceptable. ArbCom has patently ignored my discussion regarding bulk reading Email after the fact. Assuming ArbCom's explanation of bad faith outweighs my explanation in good faith is little more than a campaign to justify preconceived guilt. Apparently, if one believes the evidence presented by my detractors, if I am attacked enough times by enough editors I must be the problem and the source of disruption.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing was a regular feature, even one of the dominant aspects, of the mailing list. The complaint about "campaign" doesn't seem to stand in this light, as it seems an apt description by definition. Statements or implications that this was undertaken to improve discourse instead of sway discussions are not credible given the secretive nature of the canvassing and the distinct targeted audience of the messages.

"Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is most certainly a valid finding of fact. The mailing list received a canvassing message. The person was part of the mailing list. Their participation took place after the message. Put that all together and saying they participated after being canvassed sounds perfectly accurate.

To be perfectly blunt, I'm starting to tire of the nitpicking responses and obvious searching for loopholes. That is not directed specifically against Martin, but rather is a general statement about the discourse taking place on this page and elsewhere about the forming decision. At the least, such responses are extremely counterproductive as they are leading to me doubt that lesser measures and topic bans will be effective. Indeed, they are leading to me believe that sanctions will be fought, gamed, and circumvented. Vassyana (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, the intent is not to "nitpicking responses and obvious searching for loopholes", I certainly will abide by those remedies applicable to me. However the point is that this case has run a long time, months in fact, and we have seven archived discussion pages regarding the FoFs and remedies for Piortrus, Radek and myself. These remedies against Birutirol, DC76, Miacek and Vecrumba are relatively new, being posted just one week ago on December 14. So I think some slack needs to be cut here to allow Vecrumba and the others to argue their case, rather than to begin to believe something untoward. In any case, I've said what was needed to be said in regard to these four and will now shut up. I can only hope that the Committee takes it on board in good faith. --Martin (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the fundamental problem, I think, when most of the users being sanctioned still do not show much indication that they even understand what they did wrong to begin with. It certainly looks like gaming the system to you and me, but to them it may look like getting clarification about an arbitrary and unjust restriction. Either way, many of these users have made very clear that they don't think they've done much wrong and that they plan to continue to play "battleground" with Wikipedia as much as the sanctions allow for -- hence the wikilawyering. It is telling that many of these users defend themselves here by stressing that they know more about a particular topic than anyone else or that they are simply removing propaganda and adding factual information to this or that particular article -- it's a sign that many of them still just don't "get it." csloat (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

topic banned from articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe

Does it include criticism of Communism or Soviet Union?--Dojarca (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that is obvious for a very simple reason: many EE wp battles were fought around that topic (the Soviet Union). FoF shows that instances of canvassing happened in AfDs such as Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States, Baltic states and the Soviet Union, Communist genocide, German Soviet.jpg among others. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You should include Soviet Union, China and Africa in your ruling. Eurocommunism is obviously covered. Anything else is not.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

wikilawyering over whether soviet union would be included or not should be deemed unacceptable, as it is clearly within eastern europe, without the need to broadly construe the definition of eastern europe. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest to prohibit the Anti-Soviet agitation rather than EE subjects. One can not consider the Europe anything beyond Ural Mountains.Biophys (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

that is simply wikilawyering. If those sanctioned want to play russian roulette with their sanctions, thats their choice..... Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Then let me explain. These people obviously like political subjects. That's fine. They should not edit anything on EE subjects because everyone is getting tired of stupid ethnic disputes, like Polish-German and others. This is understandable. But do we have any political subject they still would be interested in and allowed to edit? Can they edit for example, something about human rights or Communism in the United States? Or something about international terrorism or weapons traffic, which inevitably involves many international players like Russia? I do not see why not.Biophys (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics. Eurocommunism, Chinese communism or Communism in Angola can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically. An example of a heated discussion is in front of us... Russavia, there's no wikilawyering here and the question is legitimate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)