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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:09, 4 December 2009

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

Case clerk: KnightLago (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Important — please note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 purging the cache.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
User:Poeticbent issued first/final warning. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dr. Dan issued first/final warning. KnightLago (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Sanctions too weak

Sadly, the proposed decision is yet another untenable decision that will do naught to prevent the recurrence of the same problematic behaviors that we have seen exhibited for the past three years. At the very least, we should see sanctions proportionate to the degree of misconduct issued for all of the EEML members who violated policy: Piotrus, Digwuren, Radeksz, Martintg, Jacurek, Vecrumba, and Tymek (who revealed his password in an attempt to incite meatpuppeteers to get me). Biruitorul and Dc76, given their more occasional level of disruption, should be at least admonished. The Eastern European battle has not yet ended; it will go on, much as before. Long-time violators of core policies will not change their skins upon being prompted to engage to participate in a collegial editing atmosphere. We have a long enough track record to be able to discern things for what they are.

Thus, I can only concur with Offliner's thoughts above. What we have seen has it own laws, fundamentally based around the EEML's use of numbers, and will not subside without firm guidance and a reinforcement of what is right and wrong by an effective mechanism. The battleground will perforce only go on as before. It has not even seen the slightest respite in the course of the Arbitration case. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but where do I "violate" policy in all the evidence that has been presented? This is not the USSR, Wikipedia does not use the Soviet procurator model (describe and address defendants as already having been found guilty—I think that's rather where Star Trek got its idea for the Klingon justice system). You yourself choose to escalate the conflict you blame on others by bringing your content disputes directly to A/E and here instead of simply discussing edits in a civilized manner. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One evidence section where evidence that you violated policy would be the one here [1], Vecrumba. Leaving aside framing issues that are not worth my time bringing up, contrary to your charged insinuations to the contrary, this is indeed not the USSR, and there is no "Soviet procurator" model and I am not the "Soviet procurator." If I may be so presumptuous as to ask, however, what–if anything–did you, specifically, learn from this ArbCom? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your evidence. Yours, and other's, invocation of "WP:EEML" (which redirect I will request be deleted) as proof of guilt before the end of these proceedings speaks directly to the procuratorial model. And what is it that this and all the other ArbCom's before it have taught?

Not to shoot the bystanders as much as I believe they deserve it. I was flummoxed when Jehochman opened an arbitration request as Offliner's proxy (my perception), which was at odds with the thoughtful impression I had of him based on an off-Wiki interview. I have since come to the recognition that my initial impression was the more correct and that I should not leap to guilt by association.
Somewhat the same for Hiberniantears and Dojarca, though that Hiberniantears recognized that they needed to report their own conduct rather speaks to a situation that is better left behind by all.
That you are guilty until proven innocent. That mud sticks (if they/you were doing nothing wrong, then...). That victim-blaming is the preferred method of attack.
That personal privacy means nothing, that personal correspondence can be read by anyone in violation of Federal (and as far as I know EU, certainly with regard to revealing privacy information) statutes, that personal vetching can be construed to be the most vile and despicable conduct imaginable including plotting to harass people in their private lives. That I can be publicly described as an fascist Euro-trash faggot off Wiki through no offense of my own, complete with my picture and all personal contact information, and there is nothing I can do about it short of becoming a multi-millionaire so I can afford to sue the Wikipedia foundation and every individual on the planet who has read the purported evidence without my authorization and who has defamed me in connection with the proceedings here.
That allegations of "timing" and "conspiracy" count more than whether edits fairly and accurately represent reliable sources as ArbCom cannot rule on content. I have come to realize that Viriditas' seeing conspiracies everywhere is not a character failing, it is because that's all that can be ruled on. Metrics drive behavior. If Wikipedia processes don't improve, we'll all end up in the same condition, Viriditas just has a lot more edits under their belt than most here.
That editors who attempt to bring integrity to Wikipedia are immediately accused in such a vile manner off-Wiki that they retire from Wikipedia after contributing to, and being a pillar of, Wikipedia since before a time anyone knew much about it.
Most of all I have learned to bite my tongue off if need be when provoked. As ArbCom can never rule on content, and even what is deemed reliable is based on consensus, the only option is to maintain composure at all times and at all costs. In the end, the pushers of unsubstantiated accounts of history and of blatant attack content will overstep the line themselves.

The proceedings here have been a revelatory litmus test on both Wikipedia and individual editors. And there are lessons that are being taught which I prefer to not learn, because if I do, I will be the lesser person for it. I'm deeply saddened that it could be a far prettier picture. But I wouldn't still be here if I had given up hope. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That evidence is funny. "Vecrumba issues call to arms on Ethnocracy", I looked up the e-mail and Vecrumba talks about NPOV. In effect,Vecrumba is accused of calling to follow one of the major Wikipedia guidelines, obviously a horrible thing to do. --Sander Säde 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we all know by now how well the group "enforced NPOV" on all articles concerned with various Eastern European controversies of some sort. It's interesting how you focus on the least incriminating diff of all the ones supplied about him, but even there you have it wrong and it's all a matter of context and clearly a part of the larger backdrop. In this case, it's not even about "enforcing NPOV": that was Vecrumba mailing the more than a dozen members of the list about getting opponents by trying to "invoke NPOV" in an active content dispute he was then participating in. If Vecrumba's preferred content changes for the article were good, neutral stuff, why did he have to ask for backup in defending them by secretly canvassing on a mailing list? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk NPOV, it's easy to figure out which party respects it: the one with community peer-reviewed (for neutrality and stability) DYKs, GAs, and FAs. Which one would that be, hmmm? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I've created lots of content in the relatively short time I've been here. The reason I don't go for DYKs is because I don't care about my contributions showing up on the main page, which I don't think speaks ill of me as an editor. I like the idea of building an encyclopedia where people looking for some kind of content can just search for it or follow the Wikilinks. Something showing up on the front page for one day isn't really my idea of a scholarly achievement. It's also obvious (I was just looking at the leaked archive) that you guys constantly supported each other in going for those DYKs, and that getting them for non-neutral content isn't exactly perilous when so few editors are actually aware of what the nuances of Eastern European politics and history, and are–more often than they are not– simply satisfied with whatever prima facie looks like a satisfactory article in the Eastern European topic space without any exacting scrutiny. So I'm not sure why you're even going there at all, really, although I understand how much you love your DYKs and how often you bring them up when sanctions for the clearly inappropriate warring and a host of other things are discussed now. And I don't think it really pertains to my comment above either. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics." (agreed on unanimously by uninvolved arbitrators) Triplestop x3 19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet oddly enough there are no diffs presented that indicates where Piotrus had actually participated in these "edit wars, disruption or bad faith dispute resolution". The only diff given is where Piotrus protected an article in the "wrong version" to what his colleagues would have wanted. --Martin (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Martintg, you disagree with something approved unanimously by uninvolved arbitrators, who hold the highest position of trust on Wikipedia? Triplestop x3 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Argument from authority? I think the Committee's failure to identify where this disruption actually occurred has led to the formulation of unnecessarily broad sanctions that has a net negative impact on the project. The targeted remedies as proposed by Piotrus are constructive in that they allow good content creation to continue while placing safeguards to prevent future problems. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, authority is very important here. Who should we believe, Arbcom or you, a partisan editor in this debate? The committee is elected to be impartial arbitrators of disputes while it is apparent that you are trying to give support to your allies to win a content dispute. Yes or No. Do you disagree with what the committee has unanimously passed? Triplestop x3 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of answering your question if you are going to claim I am partisan anyway. Sure the committee is elected to be impartial arbitrators, but you seem to be arguing they are infallible, are they? I think when the only evidence presented in a FoF in relation to on-wiki disruption is off-wiki correspondence, then there is disconnect between alleged intent and absence of effect. --Martin (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infallible or not, they are certainly more credible than any of the participants in this case. Triplestop x3 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credible in the on-Wiki edits the participants have made? That the detractors of the EEML members can't tell the difference before or after the list or between the list and not rather speaks to on-Wiki activities being totally consistent for years. If you wish to convict editors for lack of credibility, do it based on on-Wiki edits and then your argument for your position can stand on the merits of actual observed behavior. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that evidence is not valued highly in those proceedings. After all, my 12+3 ban is being discussed without a single diff to back up the FoF, and most of the editors about to be sanctioned don't even get that much :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? Did you see all those evidence pages? And you're getting banned for a long pattern of abuse, but you would rather wikilawyer over diffs. Triplestop x3 01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show me that long pattern of abuse. Here. Diffs. Should be easy, right? I mean, you have all those evidence pages to draw them from... PS. Regarding the evidence pages - have you ever heard: "size is not everything"? :D PPS. Also, this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triplestop and Piotrus, this is not the place to question or challenge each other. If you two would like to talk, I suggest trying one of your talk pages. KnightLago (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Certainly there are several major problems with sanctions. I have outlined some of them above. Another crucial one is that they indeed ignore battleground mentality shown by many editors who are not members of this list... Evidence for this can be found in our evidence section, as well as can be seen here in the form of posts of editors who have continued battling since the case begun (I agree with PU here), on various pages, including this one. I think it would be helpful if an analysis of the past two months (since the case begun) was carried out, and if it focused on the question: which editors, mentioned in evidence, have expressed regrets and mended their ways - and which have kept on battling? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Ant-Nationalist/PasswordUsername himself has continued battling, with this vexatious ANI report, and this currently open vexatious AE report. What is lacking in the proposed decision are any sanctions against some of the more disruptive editors like AN/PU. Given the evidence presented and the ongoing disruption while this case is open, I would have expected that AN/PU would at least receive a topic ban. I can't recall any previous Arb case where both sides were not addressed. --Martin (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That outing complaint is from October. I did not want to answer it then, because Anti-Nationalist (not Ant-Nationalist, of course) was clearly disruptive reporting on Martin or Martintg without warning him. But since he brings it up himself: Martintg once tried to out ME surreptitiously. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That outing complaint is from September. 2007 :) And how is calling you somebody's compatriot outing? What kind of personal information was posted?? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Following this logic Anti-Nationalist calling fellow editors a bloc of nationalist editors is a form of outing since it may reveal personal information about their political affiliations! --Martin (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case of "evil cabal vs. saints"? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could fill us in as to which side edit summaries like this one (from a November 21 edit) belong to? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would fill in as to which side sourced content removals like this belong to? --Sander Säde 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as the side of editing–verification requests for claims coming out of advocacy groups and a dose of BRD, perhaps? (You did see the edit summary?) Here they are side by side, in straightforward chronological order (my diff goes first): [2], [3]. I'm going just go forward with my opinion and say that comprises a good contrast with regard to normal editing vs. EEML. Thank you for making my point. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to wish to discuss the Zumbakis reference regarding the article published with trial results prior to the trial occurring everywhere except the talk page of the article in question, at your filing against Sander Säde and now here. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to abstractly "discuss" anything–what I wanted was page numbers and verification, as indicated in my edit sum. (The source I'd asked to verify had been identified as Cold War-era work produced by an advocacy group.)

What Sander Säde did in response to that edit and its summary was an egregious personal attack, completely characteristic of the ways in which he's attacked his other opponents (as I noted at the AE thread), and completely unwarranted. I honestly find this to be a very clear indication of the battle ground and its culprits–however, it's funny what you manage to make out of this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently know how to use an inline tag, if you had an issue with the source you could have easily placed a ^{[verification needed]} tag rather than wholesale deletion of a section of text with an edit comment that a couple of uninvolved admins over at WP:AE say was unnecessarily provocative given the highly charged editing environment you created. --Martin (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the source to begin with was a single Cold War-era work produced by an advocacy group (there aren't any big-name Holocaust scholars who claim the Estonian trials as fabricated stuff, right?)–poorly sourced already but also with not so much as page numbers given to boot; so, what was the tremendous deal with simply removing the material as dubious? Despite Sander Säde almost immediately surfacing with two new personal attacks, there clearly had been no battleground or controversy there–the article wasn't even edited by anyone for months on end. (The last actual edit was a minor fix as old as October 15.) Are you really saying that a simple edit like that was something that deserved a nasty and all-around ugly battlefield reply like this [4] that Sander made? And he was jusitifiably "provoked" into doing so? Shame on you, Martin. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zumbakis was expert enough to engage with the head of the OSI on public panels discussing Soviet evidence, so get over it. It was your choice to revert and file for enforcement. Again, get over it. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal to ArbCom to please keep this case going longer in order to address the recurring problems caused by users who did not belong to EEML, but who were exposed for their extremism and their disregard for Wikipedia policies in Evidence. The Evidence page is filled with concrete proofs of appalling editorial abuses on their part, thus explaining the presumed need for joint effort against further disruption. However, your unwillingness to deal with the source of the matter could leave the Eastern European corner of Wikipedia crippled. --Poeticbent talk 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again the usual us against them slugfests. As if nothing had happened. I am not even very symphathetic when it comes to the editing of Anti-Nationalist, but the calls for an investigation and topic bans for the other side make me feel uncertain about the extent to which lessons have really been learned. Pantherskin (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With less than 400 edits, you evidently are not very experienced. Arb cases looked at the behaviour on both sides in the past and have ensured that one side is not given the upper hand. At least Offliner has had the good sense to keep well away from the fray while this case is open, not so AN/PU however, who continues with his disruptive behaviour. Non action in his case will only send the wrong signal. --Martin (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a framing. Astounding–utterly astounding, really–to hear such a statement from Martintg. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding the problems stemming from partisan editing in main-space, versus character assassinations and payback, plaguing arbitration and notice boards. ArbCom is there to promote good editing and protect content. It is not a father figure. Meanwhile, the evidence of misconduct works both ways, and it should not be ignored. --Poeticbent talk 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the topic bans which passed already in force? How to deal with ongoing disruption by Piotrus and Radeksz?

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As this thread is focused on something other than the proposed decision, I am closing it. Evidence and accusations of bad conduct should be placed on the evidence page, not here. Questions for the arbitrators should be emailed directly to the committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. I can tell you that as the case has not closed, no proposed remedies are in force. KnightLago (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answers from arbitrators only Dear arbitrators,

(1) Radeksz' and Piotrus' topic bans are already agreed on. Are they in force or not?

(2) If they are not yet in force, how is disruptive behaviour of Radeksz and Piotrus supposed to be dealt with in the meantime? Usually this goes to AE, but since this case has already remedies passed, I doubt that taking disruption to AE at this point would make sense.

(3) Piotrus [5] [6] and Radeksz [7] [8] are currently engaged in presenting a view of some scholars from Communist Poland as a fact and remove all sources, including other Polish historians from the Communist as well as the post-Communist era and German historians. Thus, right now the article is presenting only the view of a faction of Polish scholars and not that this is disputed in and outside of Poland. The removals go along with either deceptive (Piotrus) or personalized and insulting (Radeksz) edit summaries (see aforementioned diffs), and in the discussion I have to endure being labelled as weaseling POV pushing nationalist spreading OR etc pp [9]. From the EEML archive, you know that the EEML is after me ever since I opened the SPI case that led to the block of EEML member Molobo. From the evidence [10], you know that Molobo and Radeksz used this case to file the RfC the EEML fabricated against me. In addition to the ongoing deletions of Radeksz and Piotrus outlined above, now blocked Jacurek has engaged in similar behaviour against me during this case [11]. Since the attitude of the EEML has not changed, how am I going to be protected against the kind of attacks I faced since Molobo's SPI case and that I am still facing right now? Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by non-arbitrators

This is surreal, Skapperod is once again trying to get rid of content opponents. I mean how many more times is this guy going to get away with that? I lost the count how many reports on Polish editors has he filled already and he keeps presenting "evidence" against Polish editors whenever he can. No Polish editor working on the same topic as him wasn't reported by him by one time or another. It's beyond comical and lately he's trying to milk the EEML affair big time. Btw he was already told that the Polish communist sources cannot be dismissed en block but has to be analyised case by case and yet he's again going on about that. I urge the ArbCom to topic ban Skapperod because his ownership of all articles which are connected in any way with Pomerania coupled with his battlefield mentality make it completely impossible for Polish editors to work with him. Loosmark (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly this would happened if Arbiters took proper measures at the beginning of this case. Now, I would advise to wait any see the final verdict, which for some unknown reason is taking far too long. In any other case most active EEML'isters would received permanent ban long time ago.M.K. (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is welcomed at Talk:Pomerania-Stolp. The situation is quite simple: I added a claim, Skapperod challenged it, I started discussion on talk and restored the info once we've had references (and not before!), Skapperod did not add any reference contradicting (or discussing) our sources but started weaseling the text ("A few Polish sources from the Communist era interpret..."). I and Radek have dedicated several hours to finding and translating dozen or so sources (including non-Communist era - not that any source was presented to discredit the Communist era sources...), and I've proposed an RfC to gather more opinions. The above complaint is, sadly, a good example of trying to use wikipolitics to get an upper hand in content discussions :( While I proposed several compromise solutions (ex. this one, where I clearly attributed a controversial claim to certain scholars who make it) Skapperod was skirting 3RR and doing full scale reverts. On talk he ignores arguments he doesn't like (most sections (atm end in him not replying to our simple arguments and requests for sources (per WP:V)), not a single source contradicting our sources and support his ORish in-text discussion of reliability of other sources have been presented (hence our reverts - not approaching 3RR - are quite justified, per WP:OR and WP:V), and now his newest argument, apparently, is "EEML people are evil and as they disagree with me, make them stop editing the article where I disagree with them". I urge the arbitrators to examine this case closely - the talk page is not that big. I think this is a perfect argument against the topic bans. PS. As far as I am concern, Skapperod (nor anybody else) is being disruptive in the article (although it would be nice if Skapperod would revert less and discuss more), till his report here I would say the article was undergoing a regular WP:BRD, with sources being added and a content for new articles being researched (I stubbed Warcisław VII and I suggested to Skapperod we create an article on the Treaty of Pyzdry where we could move most of the extra information that is being controversial in the Pomerania-Stolp article). I am - as my post on talk and compromise edits in the article demonstrate - quite open to further changes in the article, provided the other party (Skap) actually takes constructive part in a discussion. What is disruptive is an attempt to bypass the normal article development process via wikipolitics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you cite as a "compromise" [12] is actually the removal of the sourced views of all scholars cited who offered different interpretations than one view of a few selected Communist scholars that the "compromise" edit left in place. To call that a compromise is deception. And no, EEML going after Skäpperöd is not "normal article development". Skäpperöd (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you accidentally forgot to mention, "unimportant" fact, that you and your EEML buddy engaged in edit warring yourselves. Typical. M.K. (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD, with the stress on discussion. I and Radek did far more discussing than reverting; in fact I believe I stuck to 1RR almost throughout the entire time, with one exception of 2RR when I disputed the really weasel-like and ORish "A few Polish sources from the Communist era interpret..." (same with Radek). Of course you attempt to present our edits in the worst possible light. Typical :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrates pretty well one of the strategies the EEML was set up for and which are under scrutinity in this very case - revert as a group to not accumulate individual reverts. With the effect that now all sourced views differing from your favourite one are removed from the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which source, pray tell, that you've added, has been removed in my latest version? And if you are worried about numbers, I've offered to start article RfC - surely, if your version is more reasonable, neutral editors from RfC would help you out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics."

"Radeksz has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics."

This discussion is about YOU. Yes, the OP might have been edit warring as well. That may very well be. So unless you are denying what arbitrators have unanimously agreed on (the evidence is on the evidence page, don't ask me to copy it here), I don't see how attacking the reporter is relevant. Triplestop x3 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even get what you are trying to argue here. I've presented my arguments above, and any neutral editor who would read the talk and diffs would see who is trying to help the encyclopedia (finding and translating dozens of sources, proposing compromise versions, etc.), and who is trying to POV-push (violating WP:WEASEL, WP:V, WP:OR...). But then, this case wasn't about helping the encyclopedia from day one, but about getting rid of certain editors, with any means necessary, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopped, that then these bad editing practice were pointed out here, EEML'isters would finally distance from such practice for good. After reading "replies" above I have no hopes, that EEML members are willing to change their behavior at all. M.K. (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What bad editing practices? Daring to disagree with editors who violate WP:WEASEL, V, and OR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Arbcom has unanimously agreed that what you try to label as "disagreeing with editors who violate WP:WEASEL, V, and OR" is "participating in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics." Triplestop x3 18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before this unnecessarily spirals more out of control than it has already, it would be nice to get an answer to the original question. Are the topic bans in force or not? As for all the supposed offers of compromise, Prokonsul, you are no Henry Clay. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Remedies do not go into effect until the case is closed. Triplestop x3 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disruptive editing? Fine: show me a diff and explain to me how it is disruptive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why must you continuously Wikilawyer over diffs? The evidence page is loaded with diffs. Sure, you can accuse your content opponents of presenting you in a bad light, but that argument wears thin when you use it against uninvolved arbitrators. Triplestop x3 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperrod's rants against communist sources, as he calls them, is more and more weird. Should wikipedia dismiss all sources written by scholars who lived in communist countries? I think not. It's hard to work on articles with sb with such attitude. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've raised the issue of using communist era sources on RS several times; I've also noted possible bias (of Polish sources) on talk of Pomerania-Stolp. The community consensus at RS in the past was however that in order for such bias to be discussed, sources have to be cited that discuss it (and they weren't - which is why Radek raised the OR issue on talk). In the end, even most problematic, Soviet Stalin era sources are not always wrong - it depends on what is being discussed (they are probably reliable if they discuss history of the Byzantium Empire, not so if they discuss Marxist economy :>). In this particular instance, to recapitulate what I said on talk of Pomerania-Stolp, it is possible for both Polish and German sources to be biased, as the history of Pomerania is seen somewhat differently on both sides of the border. That said, no sources discussing bias of this issue or of any sources have been presented on talk, and the article does contain not only attributions, but key qualifier (added by me over the course of trying to create a compromise version) - that the vassalage was short lived and of relatively little consequence to the history of the region. This confirmed by both Polish and German sources, and the only problem the article has were strange attempts at ORish weaseling and attacks on Polish sources ("Polish communist historians claim", etc. - even through in conclusion they agree with the German (communist or not) ones...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before Piotrus' and Radeksz' deletions (edit summaries "compromise ..." and "Jagiello"), the article contained

The sourced fact that the text of the treaty does not define what the oath was for
Four sourced ways the treaty was interpretated in Polish historiography, with the respective dates, scholars' names and periods
A sourced view of a German scholar with respect to the Polish discourse

After your deletions, the article offered one interpretation of the treaty, presented as a fact. To call this "ORish weaseling and attacks on Polish sources" on my part is a baseless personal attack, and the quote "Polish communist historians claim" was never made by me. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Skapperod: here's another compromise version for you. This should include all referenced cited. Is this satisfactory for you? I would have proposed this one earlier if you had answered my post from 4:16 pm yesterday (I am still not clear what is it that the German language source you cite exactly says). I really don't understand why we have to bring a regular and up to this point civil content dispute here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case is here exactly because it is not a "civil content dispute", but the coordinated deletion of sourced views from the project, and presenting the one left over as a fact, with deceptive and personalized edit summaries, with personalized and insulting talk page postings, by two EEML editors who have coordinated reverts against me before and whose topic ban is already agreed on. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification of the FoF

I'd like to ask for FoF like this one to be clarified with diffs to disruptive edits and with a statement whether this FoF summarizes my entire 100,000+ edits wiki-career or a few exceptional situations. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to present specific diffs to show that the overall sum or pattern of your contributions has been disruptive. Even still, the evidence page is lined with diffs, that provide actual context. Your post above amounts to Wikilawyering. Can I say this any louder? Triplestop x3 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triplestop, stop this nonsense immediately. Anyone is free to ask for clarification of anything. Accusations in the face of such a simple request are uncalled for. KnightLago (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As two arbitrators - NYB and Vassayana - noted, the wording of this FoF is problematic. It uses few exceptions and generalizes from them (the fallacy of activity). Diffs are crucial as they can actually allow quantification (although the cited five emails do that, to a certain extent: five emails don't make 5+ years of editing disruptive). My challenge for anybody to dispute that evidence presented is composed of anything more than a few exceptions still stands unchallenged. I believe that the evidence presented should allow to address this concern fairly easily, for example by saying "participated in edit wars (twice - diff, diff) and bad faith dispute resolution (thrice - diff, diff, diff)" or something along those lines. If you believe that exact quantification is too time consuming, then perhaps a clarification could be made whether examples listed in this FoF are or aren't exceptions to my behavior, something like "on several exceptional occasions participated in edit wars and bad faith dispute resolution". I consider this very important, as without clarifications, this FoF can be used, out of context, for years to smear my name and ALL I've ever done for this project. PS. For the record, I believe that such negative reinforcement is exactly the reason why experienced editors are leaving the project. Who wants to stay and edit when his 100,000k edits, dozens of FAs/GAs and such will be summed up as "he was disruptive" (and then cited over and over again, out of contexts, by editors seeking to drive one away from this project). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I agree. Something like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Piotrus will be good. Except, now not only are there diffs (see the evidence pages) but also "definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred" that can be used. And I did not label your "100,000k edits, dozens of FAs/GAs" with that FoF, it was similar behavior that led to that FoF. And Piotrus, how does asking your "why restrict editors whose content creation is 99% uncontroversial?" not amount to gaming the system? And you accuse me of wanting to "get rid" of you "whatever the cost". Where is the evidence that I have ever edit warred against EEML users? Triplestop x3 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triplestop in the last 5 days you made 23 posts here. Is there a reason for this sudden mega interest in this case? I have never seen you editing in the EE topic area before. I think you made your position clear and repeating yourself at naseum is a bit tiring. Loosmark (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in a case like this, the input of neutral editors is, or should be, very much appreciated. They cannot be accused of having a personal agenda to get anyone off the project. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the input of neutral editors should be appreciated however the problem is that the neutral editors here are few and far between. I mostly see people who hold grudges and try to settle old scores or content opponents of the people from the list who try to get rid of them. And you can very well tell apart the neutral editors from the non neutral ones by the way they present their points and the tone they use. Loosmark (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, which group do you consider yourself to be part of, the "neutral" or the "non-neutral" one? As for..."opponents of the people from the list who try to get rid of them", I think you're neglecting the fact that the evidence shows that the EEML participants conspired to "get rid of a lot of people". If by providing evidence of this, or questioning statements and remarks made here, strikes you as inappropriate, that's something you need to work out by yourself. Just the same it is logical that the parties that interacted with the EEML in the past, positively or negatively, would be in a better position to participate here. As for your other observation, regarding that the participation of presumably "neutral" parties would be welcome and benefit the discussion, this "diff" [13] makes me wonder about your belief concerning that. Or does a "neutral" and "uninvolved" party that takes a different position than yours become "non-neutral" all of the sudden? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am reasonably neutral. What about you, do you consider yourself neutral? As for everything else I think you should re-read what I wrote again. Everybody is welcome to express his opinion about the situation however there are ways and ways to do it. I won't reply to the last part of your comments because it's a straw man. Loosmark (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not neutral. How could I be? As a target of this group which strategized (sic) ways to "get rid of me", I'd have to be a fool to pretend neutrality. Would making a statement like, "I think I am reasonably neutral" make me so? Or would it give people a good laugh? So much hypocrisy has been bantered around here lately that I would prefer to not contribute to it. I'd prefer to be frank and express myself concerning this matter as I see fit. Civilly of course. As for "straw man" don't you think you guys overdo that one? Kind of like your comment on my use of "surreal" (but liked the word enough for you to use it shortly afterwords). Yes, I re-read your edit..."Triplestop in the last 5 days you made 23 posts here. Is there a reason for this sudden mega interest in this case? I have never seen you editing in the EE topic area before." When did not editing in the EE topic area before, preclude participation here? Another question, why your mega interest in this case, and why would your mega interest in this case be of more value than Triplestop's. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That and you will notice the arbs are 'not in love with the wording'. My interpretation of that is because the wording sounds like it is accusing you specifically of edit warring, for example, but read carefully it is really accusing you of covertly arranging and directing edit warring via the mailing list. That would fit with the fact that they are quoting the mailing list emails and not the on-wiki diffs. In other words, you are not being accused of disruption, you are being accused of aiding and abetting the disruption. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording needs to be clarified, because we should not have different interpretations. Quantification is important, to avoid generalization from few exceptions. The emails cited are discussed here ([20090825-2011] [20090826-0252]) and here ([20090206-2304][20090216-0055][20090731-0652]); please note for example that with regards to edit warring, even if list members are treated as one, 3RR was not broken. Where is the disruption and bad faith DR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first diff only leads to the proposed decision. I cannot look at those emails so I have no comment on them. The following responses are based on your link to what of those emails are published.

20090206-2304 - Arbcom and RfC's are concidered dispute resolution. Using them for your own political ends is bad faith DR. Further, your thought crime defense hinges on the idea that you were discussing wether an admin SHOULD be desysoped, whereas the quote itself discusses HOW you're going to desysop him with the idea of should he be being implicitly decided already. I personally would prefer there to be on-wiki follow-through before raising it from 'bluster' to 'disruption', but I expect there is enough bad blood between you and Deacon that Arbcom is taking it a bit more serious.

20090216-0055 - Lacks context, but I expect the answer to "good start for what?" would be enlightening. Were I to assume the answer to that question was "A good start towards getting Jehochman discredited" then secretly arranging to harass and disparage people would certainly be disruption.

20090731-0652 - There is a difference between discussing inefficiency in the current ANI/3RR board with an effort to fix it and discussing inefficiency in the current ANI/3RR board with an effort to exploit it. Obviously I would need to see the rest of the email to decide which of those two it was, but with what little I do see it leans towards the latter.

Also, I don't think I need to remind you that breaking 3rr is not the only way to determine an edit war is underway. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. As you say, it would be nice to see on-wiki diffs that any of those emails lead to bad faithed disruption and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed but only leads to discussion of the emails, not the emails themselves. My impression is that you are asking for comment on the emails, not the discussion of the emails. So unless you are willing to make those particular ones public then I cannot comment on them. I apologise with placing this out of timing order, but I really don't have anything helpful to add to the discussion below. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that discussion of edit warring "tactics" is important if you don't bring reputable sources to the place. If you already have reputable sources fairly and accurately represented, it's not reflective of "planning," it's reflective of vetching regarding the techniques other editors are teaching and of the concomitant cynicism WP has bred to which no one, unfortunately, is immune after years upon years of exposure. A pox on editors for vetching off-Wiki in personal correspondence which no one has yet shown resulted in on-Wiki disruption? I've already dealt with a pile of evidence which (conveniently?) leaves out complainants starting the conflicts presented, and, IMHO, therefore points to bad faith in their original edits as well as their evidence presented here. I regret that I therefore won't dignify Offliner's "thoughts." Let's judge good faith and bad faith by on-Wiki activities. Period. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of on-Wiki disruption is presented on evidence page. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently none of the diffs presented there were good enough to make it into FoF... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Donald Duck, I believe I've responded to said evidence and that what has been characterized as "edit-warring" on my part has been, in fact, my countering of disruption of Wikipedia by other editors. Feel free to come discuss any disruptive edit of mine on my talk page. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Regarding "...Well, apparently none of the diffs presented there were good enough to make it into FoF" can be responded to with apparently the evidence against the EEML and its activities were good enough to make a strong case against it and to put a stop to it. One can only hope that it will set a precedent and warning for future like-minded endeavors not to be pursued on Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the precedent that wikilawyering trumps quality content creation and dedication to this project has been estabilished long ago, and this case is hardly challenging it. And the results of ignoring the basics are becoming increasingly apparent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Dr. Dan, the case was started with a loaded release of the archive grossly mischaracterizing its contents. Again, let's see the on-Wiki activities and diffs. If they aren't absolutely clear, which they should be given the judgements and invective being heaped upon the EEML members, then there's a bit of a problem. Convicting an entire group of editors for plotting over the better part of a year when there's no on-Wiki evidence to show for it is an issue. (As I've mentioned, evidence even includes contentions that the mailing list has always existed. Even those here to denounce the EEML members can't tell the difference.) PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned repeatedly, too many of the participants in this EEML , and I'll admit they are not all equally guilty, some probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong other than defending the "honor" of something or other, remain in denial. A major problem, however, is that the ringleaders, who should have known better, have refused to acknowledge that their behavior was wrong, is wrong, and unacceptable. Even as late as now, with this case nearing its conclusion, it drones on. And Prokonsul, you are mistaken. If you truly understand that this concept estabilished (sic) long ago (and not by you), was violated, then you would not dispute that this case not only challenged the denial that it was violated, but appears to have taken care of it. At least for the time being. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus has already admited that some things they did were wrong so why are you pretending that he didn't Dan? Not to even mention that you are the last person who can give morals on wiki behavior but lets not go into that. Loosmark (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, is there any reason to keep debating this over and over? The horse is dead. Go have some turkey leftovers. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go have some turkey leftovers? If you don't have anything smart to say not saying anything is always an option. Especially since your last appearance here caused the abandonment of the project by Manning. Loosmark (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps that was just too tongue in cheek to come across correctly in print - my point was simply that continuing the same argument for pages and pages isn't solving anything. As for your second remark, unless you have facts that the rest of us don't, please don't make those kinds of attacks. Shell ^babelfish 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument for pages and pages? I don't know about that, seems to me we are still on the same page. Apart from that everybody has the right to ask the ArbCom a question. As for the second remark I stand by it, the last time you made a sneaky attack on Jehochman, who is btw a candidate for ArbCom just like you are, and the clerk Manning banned you. After that you started to protest about it loudly and then somebody accused Manning of being biased off-wiki. I'm not saying that you are directly responsable or that you even know the person who attacked Manning but it's clear that your initial comments directed at Jehochman somehow triggered the whole thing. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well I have to scroll a bit to get all the way down the page, but technically, you've got me there ;) And of course anyone has a right to ask a question, I'm actually referring to the constant back and forth about who's behavior is worse or whether or not there's any "real" evidence - something you seemed to allude to in your early post mentioning the lack of neutral editors commenting here. As for the rest, in trying to understand Jehochman's vehement defense of the right to have "private" off-wiki bits that affect the Wiki, I came across the complaints that are now an ArbCom request. I did not intend to attack Jehochman, rather, I was trying to quietly nudge Jehochman into realizing that his comments might be biased for that reason. If three comments to Manning about his decision on his own talk page is "protesting loudly" then yep, consider me guilty. Shell ^babelfish 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jehochman's vehement defense of the right to have "private" off-wiki bits that affect the Wiki."
Hmm as far as I remember his comments, I don't think that is what Jehochman said or meant. I'm too lazy to check it again, maybe he'll clarify his position if he still reads this page. Oh and "quietly nudge"? ;) Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please get back on topic and not go down this road again. KnightLago (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is just silly. Looking back at original question in the beginning of section, only arbs can answer that, others can only speculate at best and that doesn't really help at all.--Staberinde (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Piotrus continues

In the spirit of giving, soon to be upon us, I submit evidence of continued disruption by myself: I've just finished my 300th DYK (that makes 18 Eastern European DYKs since the case started - see full list). I implore the Committee to ban me as soon as possible; if this case drags on, it is likely I will commit more such infractions, or finish another dastardly plot, like 20th-something Featured Article. Woe be us all, if that happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK's do not outweigh your participation in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that sanctions where not meant to be punitive, only preventative...--213.219.108.154 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This post doesn't make it look like Piotrus really understands for what reasons the temporary topic ban is on the table. What pretty much answers the question whether a topic ban will be really preventative. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he understands even less that if something were to happen to him, like an accident or illness, that Wikipedia would survive and still have DYKs. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Loosmark (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you and others tell, this decision by Arbcom is unfair and counterproductive. It would be reasonable to issue an RR restriction to everyone involved, just like Thatcher did. Who will now benefit from this decision? Russian and German nationalist users? Punks who are placing defamation in ED? BTW, I forget to congratulate all Russian users with the great celebration taking place each November: the Day of liberating Moscow from the Polish occupation. Nasha vzyala! ["we won!"] Tak derzat! And remember what comrade Putin said: "glavnoe, eto chtoby ushi ne torchali" ["leave no traces"]. This is my last word here.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it then that very few non-partisan editors agree with you? And in response to Piotrus there is no question that EEML particpants have caused significant amounts of trouble, wasting time that could have been spent on making more DYKs. Triplestop x3 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? For many reasons. This is a hostile environment. It is so extraordinary hostile that people are placing each other's private emails in public places and debate them. In order to survive here one follows a number of rules that prevent commenting in such cases. Rule #1. Silence is gold. Rule #2. Do not care too much about the content if you do not want to end up like Piotrus. Shell said something about dead horses above. That's an attitude. They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. Happy editing. Biophys (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for bainer (and other ArbCom members)

In light of the fact that you voted to support the principle Off-wiki conduct:A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct, how does that justify a finding of fact that I "participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution" based soley upon off-wiki evidence? Has the standard for grave act of serious misconduct really been set that low? Since when is canvassing (which was admitted to months ago) considered such a grave act of serious misconduct such that a broad topic ban on content creation is preferable over a ban on participating in EE AfDs? It's alleged that remedies are meant to be preventative, not punitive, but if we are going to have punitive remedies, can we at least have the punishment fit the crime? --Martin (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FoF in regard to "canvassing"

In regard to bainer's FoF in regard to canvassing, the issue here, as I have stated a couple of months ago, is whether AfDs are merely a vote or conducted on the merits of the arguments. The evidence shows that the existance of the EEML had no material effect on the outcome of the debate, pointing to the maturity and robustness of the AfD process. To claim otherwise and sanction people for "canvassing" is to admit that Wikipedia is immature. In my case:

Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Merge_eSStonia [20090203-0500], of a total of 9 support votes (compared with 2 oppose votes), only three participants were EEML members at that time, including myself as the merge nominator and Digwuren who was previously involved in that article anyway. Therefore removing the one single vote of Vecrumba leaves a total of 8 votes in support. "Canvassing" had no effect on result

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7#Template:Notpropaganda [20090407-2342] "Canvassing" had no effect, result was deletion.

The articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–New Zealand relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations which would have otherwise been deleted, were merged on the basis of Wikipedia's policy that implies if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [14]. Hence "canvassing" had no effect.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) [20090804-0059]. 6 deletion votes, 15 keep votes. Remove the 5 votes of EEML members who had not previously edited the article leaves 9 keep votes. "Canvassing" had no effect

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide [20090806-0526], was subjected to 2 subsequent AfDs [15] [16] after the EEML was revealed to all during the AfD discussions, yet the same result: No concensus. Therefore "canvassing" had no effect.

--Martin (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the canvassing had "effect" is irrelevant. You are still disrupting the representative participation of the community which skews consensus. Triplestop x3 04:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course effect is important. How can there be "disruption" when there is no effective change or skew in "consensus"? --Martin (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if I shoot someone I should get away with it because they survived? And who's to say if I keep shooting people some are not going to survive? My point is that canvassing is disruptive ipso facto and a preventative sanction to prevent further canvassing from having "effect" is needed. Triplestopx3 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Manning.radek (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a valid analogy. Notifying someone of a discussion is not morally equivalent to murdering someone in cold blood. We can all religously chant "canvassing is disruptive" until this article of faith appears ipso facto, but it's not what the evidence actually tells us. We are a part of the representative community in regard to matters involving EE topics, no EEML member is outside that circle of EE involvement. If all EEML members voted in every AfD mentioned, then yes, I would agree there was canvassing, but that did not happen. List members only participated in those AfD discussions of interest to them and supported/opposed according to their own view. So where is this "canvassing"? People have tried in the past to fly AfDs under the radar by miscategorising the discussion. I want to be informed of any AfD debate in my area of interest without having to waste time wading through discussion categories. Isn't it about time Wikipedia grows up and institute mature robust policies rather than play these silly games? This is resulting in people leaving the project in droves. --Martin (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are still defending the practices of the EEML is once again proof that a the temporary ban is preventative and not punitive. Pantherskin (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really miss Manning.radek (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my perusal of the archives of the mailing list, two process discussions stood out to me in particular. Those being Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29#Category:Moldovan_linguistic_and_ethnic_controversy. The first discussion (notpropaganda) is a discussion which I myself instigated for the reasons stated at the TfD. One will note that most "uninvolved" editors in the discussion went the way of delete as per the nomination. It is my belief that the mailing list members have used the mailing list to skirt around policies such as concensus building and NPOV in an effort to push their own agenda - whether one wants to call it an anti-Russian agenda, that is up to them, but I am broadly construing it as an anti-Russian agenda. The comments by editors in the first TfD would back this somewhat. Because there was sufficient evidence that the template in question was divisive and pointish the list members were not able to subvert community consensus. However, at the Moldovan CfD, they were able to subvert consensus building by using the mailing list to canvass amongst themselves, and their participation in that CfD made sure that it stayed put. Several editors point to their interest in these areas, but for instance in the case of Martintg, I don't recall him being all that interested in Moldovan topics outside of being canvassed on the list. It is because there have been instances where the list members have created false consensus by sheer numbers, that the entire lot of them should be banned for a period of at least 6-12 months from all process discussions. If they abuse the good faith of the community, which they have, there needs to be consequences, not a pat on the head, and a "run along". But consequences.--Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) re: "Whether or not the canvassing had "effect" is irrelevant. You are still disrupting the representative participation of the community which skews consensus." Without the EEML, I would have found all the articles and talk pages I found and commented on and would have participated in exactly the same way. How do I know this? I can't even access personal mail during the day. I only read my personal mail every 3 days or even once a week and I check Wikipedia multiple times a day. 1 in a 100 times I saw a note about something where I wasn't (a) already aware of it and (b) had already participated if I had an editorial opinion to express. As I see it:

The findings presented as the EEML conducting a "campaign" = a priori guilty as charged, presumes the EEML was formed in bad faith and participated in in bad faith and the members of the EEML list would not have found "items of interest" on their own anyway
the findings of timings = proof of canvassing = presumes cause and effect

I can tell you categorically in my case there was no effect and the charges of canvassing are not only circumstantial but also irrelevant, as there has been no indication of disruptive conduct on my part. Additionally, as no one has yet detected any change in editorial behaviors before the list and during the list, the list is irrelevant to on-Wiki events—in fact what we have seen is the opposite, that behavior has been so consistent on the part of EEML members that it is proof the EEML has existed for years, it's just not in the archive. I'll have more to say when the posting of findings is complete as I'd rather address everything at once. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Russavia, you must be feeling awfully confident. Thank you for confirming that you want everyone banned for a year so that you and editors who share your viewpoint—as demonstrated by the attack content you, Offliner, and Anti-Nationalist (you three in particular) have attempted to create—have free reign. My perception, of course. As for my contentions of "attack content" on the part of yourself and others, I stand behind my presentation at Evidence, do not misconstrue my comments here as a "personal attack." Good luck to you on your ban-hammer request, I trust it is seen for what (I believe) it is. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attack content that I, Offliner and Anti-Nationalist have attempted to create? That we desire to have free reign in this area? But alas, my dear Vecrumba, I can only speak for myself, and will do so, and I can say that I have absolutely zero desire to have any free reign in any area of Wikipedia, for I am not here to advocate and to pick off opponents as the list members have done, but to help build an encyclopaedia in a collegial atmosphere. If that means ensuring that disruptive editors, such as those on the mailing list, are removed from specific areas for a period of time, then so be it. Therein lies the difference between the reality and the reality that you wish to portray. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my dear Russavia, perhaps I was only imagining "Off with their heads!" here and your melt-down over Dyukov et al. at The Soviet Story. If you wish a collegial atmosphere focused on building content fairly and accurately representing reputable sources, consider leading by example instead of showing up merely to lobby for decapitation. Do please show me any on-Wiki contribution of mine which constitutes "disruption." PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to thank Bainer for his extensive review of the evidence and listing, one by one, all instances where inappropriate canvassing has occurred. This makes it easy to assess if any disruption occurred, and teaches all editors about what behavior is inappropriate with an example. I also want to note that in recognition of his concerns even before his detailed analysis was posted I've raised this issue before (see here and here). To summarize them, I do agree that canvassing requests should be made publicly, not privately. I also want to point out that I habitually make such requests publicly (by starting Requested Moves, announcing the votes on public noticeboards and such), and that I made private requests only in the few rare cases (the 7 cases in 10 months that Bainer has now listed). Further, as others have pointed out, some editors might have learned about the votes from notifications in other places, not via emails (some didn't read them often, some didn't read them at all); so to automatically assume all votes by group members are a result of an email is also a fallacy. Finally, I want to point out that canvassing done on the group was done not to gather yes men, but to inform editors of subjects of interests; I've had some people ask me to inform them of such issues via email as they don't watchlist on wiki pages listing them, for example. Please note in the links below 1) the lack of pure support/oppose votes and 2) that despite more than 15 email recipients, on average, 1-4 people had interest (and I would like to think, knowledge enough) to vote. Now, onto discussion of my actions:

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States [20090711-1625]
  - I announced this on the group as it was precisely the type of content that the group members shared interest in, nonetheless only 4 group members joined. Please note that I've - as usual - canvassed to attract attention to this in other places, such as on the milhist deletion list (now, if I wanted to have only group member votes, why would I do that?). There were many other votes (close to 20 total), and , in any case, the issue was revisited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in the West after this arbitration case has started; this time, despite the lack of participation by the group members (as some of them, even having learned about the vote via other means, were now too scared to participate in it), the community verdict was a rather strong keep (again).
- Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 12#File:1Comp_obwSambor_inspecDrohobycz_Burza3.jpg [20090818-0328]
  - This was an interesting issue, a rare image-centered discussion, and I raised it on the email list partially due to it being so strange. As usual, the group members did not outweigh the community members; a non-free user rationale was provided and expanded, and the discussion eventually ended in no consensus. While I think that the group members who voted there made sound arguments and engage in discussion, I would have no problem with restarting this discussion and vote, particularly - as you will see - it is the only one in which group members participation might have "swung" the vote.
- a series of requested move discussions started by Bobanni (talk · contribs): Talk:Władysław_Siemaszko#Requested_move, Talk:Commission for the Determination of Place Names#Requested_move, Talk:Recovered Territories#Requested_move [20090830-1820]
  - I stand by the requests I made there; they were all initiated suddenly by a user with little experience in moving articles, and were all problematic due to going against estabilished noncontroversial MoS policies. The first one was an almost unwatched article that was strangely to be moved against our long standing naming policies (use of diacritics); second and third ones were against naming convention (no need to disambiguate if there are no other entities to confuse this one with). They were all snowballs, even without members participation.
- Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga#Requested_move [20090907-0129]
  - Short story, this attracted 4 votes, but nonetheless there was no consensus to move. It is also the only example where it is clear that that the group members disagreed with other editors (although as the discussion had only participants from two camps that disagreed from the very beginning, and did not attract any outside voters, one can hardly talk about any community consensus in this case).
- Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion#Requested move [20090910-2144]
  - I and others also canvassed by advertising this move in multiple places, including related articles and noticeboards (ex. here or here, here and so on). I have not voted in this vote; 4 other group members voted, disagreeing with one another (3 supports, 1 oppose). It is a complex issue, that will need to be revisited in the future.
- Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki#New naming discussion [20090913-1754]
  - Not a vote, just a discussion. Responses from the list: one. After convincing arguments by an editor whom I initially disagreed with, there was no opposition to carrying the move he wanted.
- Talk:Web brigades#Merge. again [20090913-1833]
  - Responses from the list: two - one support, one oppose. Notably, the proposal also attracted support from some of the people who regularly disagree with us - such as Offliner. In fact, on that particular issue, I believed (and still believe) some of the group members were wrong, and it is the reason I started this discussion. In the end, despite what I think was a support for the original proposal, no merge was carried out.

Regarding my votes in other discussions, I stand by all of them - I have responded only to notifications where I found I could contribute to the discussions in question. Most of them did pop up on my watchlist anyway, and I voted often before I got the email :)

To sum up, only in one instance the community consensus might have been affected due to my actions regarding canvassing in private. In five out of those seven cases the community either outnumbered and agreed with the group members anyway, or there was no consensus among both the community and the group members. As I've pointed out above, I understand now more about issues with such canvassing and will not repeat it. But I do not believe than any of the cases above were disruptive to project; in fact, I think that they were all constructive, as they generated meaningful discussion. In the end, WP:IAR is still a rule. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia and Vecrumba, (and to everyone else) please stay on topic. Let's also keep the sarcasm to a minimum. Calling each other dear is unnecessary. Please stay focused on the proposed decision. As always, this is not the place to be interpreting or justifying your or anyone else's actions. That can be done on the evidence page along with differences. The case is now in the home stretch, so please remain civil and remember, this case is not going to be won or lost on the proposed decision's talk page. Let me know if anyone has any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should mine and Martin's replies be copied to evidence, or are they fine here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the FoF, it merely states the facts (hence the name "Finding of Fact"). The part about who canvassed the list is not questionable, the parts on who participated after the canvassing is merely a statement of what happened; nothing is implied. This is important evidence and should stay. Triplestop x3 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Russavia. Four highly productive content editors are banned for a year from all subjects they used to edit, and this is not enough for you? One suppose to be "everyone's best friend, not a shadowy figure in the corner", as one man said. Agree?Biophys (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Canvassing" et al.

I am assuming there is an appropriate point at which I may respond to the "findings." When is that? Thank you. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Regarding proposal 3.2), "Piotrus is allowed to create new articles pertaining to the topic area in his userspace and request them moved to mainspace by uninvolved administrators". It does not seem that this proposal will pass, but given this edit by Piotrus [17] it seems that a temporary topic ban could be circumvented by creating English articles on pl.wikipedia which could then be posted on en.wikipedia by someone else. Would this count as a circumvention of the temporary topic ban? Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stalking me, and worrying how to prevent creation of uncontroversial content creation. Anyway, I'd appreciate clarification on this from arbcom, particularly in light of 1) the fact that Russavia has been doing just that (creating articles on simple en wiki and having others move them to en wiki (past example, latest request) - for the record, this is not a jab at Russavia, but an illustration of how topic ban are pointless - I don't understand why he is not allowed to create those articles here, they are constructive and helpful and so on) and 2) our policy on allowable meatpuppetry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut to the chase, Prokonsul. Was there cabal? Did you participate in it? Did you contrive plans to "neutralize" contributors who you disagreed with? Were they stalked? Was it wrong? And lastly, if the shoe were on the other foot, would you be in favor of having such editors allowed to continue as administrators, and editors on Wikipedia without reprimand? That would be more enlightening than the number of DYKs that you've been working on, and all the rest of this banter. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really really miss Manning.radek (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan has been issued a first and final warning. The case pages are not for interrogating other users. Also, Piotrus has been asked to choose his words more carefully and email any questions directly to the committee. I encourage anyone who has an interpretation question to do the same thing. Please remain calm and civil. The case is close to wrapping up. I plan to work on redoing the implementation notes tomorrow, and have sent another email to the arbitrators asking them to work on concluding this case. KnightLago (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I may have been overly optimistic. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision needs to be revised: Network Piotrus, Radeksz, Digwuren, Molobo, Jacurek et al still active

[18] This oversighted diff proves Radeksz, blocked Jacurek, blocked Molobo, Piotrus, Digwuren still coordinate off-wiki. Why Durova was mentioned there also needs to be clarified. The diff proves that the group is using other venues than the mailing list (which is also evident from the hints to the IM network in the EEML archive), that there is at least one subgroup of the EEML (Piotrus, Radeksz, Molobo, Jacurek, Digwuren) and that articles are still "developed" collaborative with all the blocked users on the list and then copypasted on-wiki by the ones who are not (yet) banned.

I am confident there are enough people who are able to analyze deleted diffs. Maybe some of them are able to translate the Polish traffic. I request this case not be closed as long as the analysis of the diff takes, and that the arbs discuss the relevancy, i.e. if not the remedies must be adopted now that it is evident that there is no intention at least of the named users to ever stop. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal also seems to targetting arbitrators active in this case (Piotrus appears to say that Flonight has shown her true colours), and there also seems to be involvement against User:Jehochman. There appears to be some solid evidence that these guys just are not going to stop with their antics. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that about: Radeksz setting up a private wiki for his "huge family"? See also this analysis of the diff, Abd and Vecrumba on board? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed to arbitrators to make sure they are aware of the situation. Let's keep the speculation and accusations to a minimum. This page is solely for discussion of the proposed decision. Russavia, let's please avoid further use of the term cabal. It is a loaded word that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. KnightLago (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can stop using cabal for time being. However, of interest is that one of the emails has the subject identifier of [POLKAB], which most likely stands for "Polska kabała" (or Polish cabal). Interesting, no? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Mailing_list_still_active. Private wikis are nothing to do with us, as anyone can sign up for wikispaces. I think it is quite telling that they are still targetting users - this time around arbitrators and admins currently up for election for arbcom. And also telling that User:Digwuren seems to have a somewhat unhealthy continued interest in goings on in WP, even though he has retired. His proposed remedy definitely needs to be relooked at. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have been made aware of this, and will be looking into it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Polkab" stands for "Polska Arbitration". It was about the impact of the case on Poland related articles and WP:Poland. I replied to it after seeing Piotrus request for clarification above saying that if I had seen Russavia's "List of Ambassadors..." article on Simple Wiki I would have copied it to En Wiki for Russavia myself as it was a good article.

And Skapperod, yes, I do have a huge family and I started a personal wiki for us and you better step back on this. You're basically outting personal information from an oversighted edit.

Durova showed up because she's more or less randomly in my gmail sidebar (I had emailed her once in the past and the sidebar has all the email addresses I sent, arranged alphabetically).

I also send a message to a few folks expressing my opinions on the current AC candidates. I stated that at the moment I didn't plan to vote either "for" or "against" Jehomann - I was (and am) undecided. I forwarded him the relevant part of my message.

You people are insane. Seriously.radek (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]