Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:10, 9 November 2008

Question for Alex

The last time the two of us - you and me - interacted, it was in August, when you made your first and only edit (revert) to an article that Irpen was also reverting. We have not interacted for months (I can't recall any other interaction we had in 2008!). And now you are here, apparently having read this case in depth, posting proposals that sound very much like what Irpen would say... For the record, could you state how you got involved in this case, and whether the text of your proposals was discussed/suggested to you with anybody? PS. I have no problem with users asking others for input using off-wiki methods, but I believe it should be stated (ex. like I've clearly stated in this arbcom that I asked Lysy, Halibutt and Balcer for input).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Waiver of the expectation of privacy in this matter

I would like to make a following statement. Upon an accidental discovery of Piotrus' black book several months ago I was shocked beyond what I can describe. Because I put Alex in a very small group of Wikipedian I respect most, I decided to share my frustration with him as what I have seen overwhelmed and distressed me too much. Thus, I communicated to Alex both my discovery and how I felt on this matter. Alex is free to share with the community what his take on this was back then. I just want to free him from any obligation he may feel towards me on preserving the privacy of our correspondence. I assert that there was no collusion of any sort and, of course, some are free to think what they want. However, I want to say that I have no qualms if Alex shares anything I wrote to him on any matter that directly or indirectly relates to Piotrus. --Irpen 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I have off-wiki contacts with a few wikipedians. Usually it is an administrative business with some users asking for administrative actions or having some private discussion about administrative matters, etc. I have participated in three Melbourne meetups and have some social interactions with people I met there. I have reasonable close relations with Irpen, we discuss a lot of things related to the real life as well as with wiki-related business. He indeed wanted me to help mediate the conflict over the Boleslaw_I's_intervention_in_the_Kievan_succession_crisis,_1018 between you (and your admirer) and Deacon. I am sorry but it was a conflict between an expert in the field and a devoted amateur. You were reverting version based on fundamental university text books to a version based on a newspaper. There was no POV conflict there just plain ownership of an article. I have put my thoughts on the talk page and of course reverted. The conflict eventually led to the present arbcom case. Maybe if I would interfere earlier the conflict could be sought by more gentle way. That is why I would not need anybody to point me out to this case, I was following it from the very beginning. When he found the resurrection of the black book Irpen complained to me first telling me quite bluntly that he would leave the project unless something is done. I have no further options than to recommend to give his grievances to the opened arbcom. Well, to be honest I feel like I have answer while I started my participation so late not to why I have started my participation at all since I was involved in or closely follow many of the editorial conflicts already mentioned here. And well, yes, my edits are mine unless I specifically said so, I have not got screenwriters yet. I am not sure I have provided all the info you wanted, so please continue asking if you need something else Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have completely no problem with your communications. I wouldn't even have dared to ask about it and thus intervene in your privacy if not for the reason that your honest reply proves my point: we all use off wiki communication to discuss Misplaced Pages, and usually it's all in good faith and contributes, not detracts to the project. Please note that one could use bad faith to argue that your one comment and one revert in Boleslaw article can be seen as revert warring after off-wiki canvassing and that you were meatpuppeting for some cabal... I don't see it that way as I assume good faith - but there are arguments, right there on the evidence page, that twist innocent, good faithed edits and portray them just like that. If others did assume more good faith, there would be no need for this arbcom... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the edit history and talk page, I can tell: this article was a subject of a long-standing content dispute involving many editors, two of them are Irpen and Piotrus. Then, all the sudden, Deacon joined the "battle" on August 23, just before opening of this case. Why he did it? That is an important question. Irpen, did you also share your frustration with Deacon?Biophys (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, please think a little higher of our intelligence. This all is not about off-wiki communication per se. There is nothing wrong with off-wiki communication. It is only wrong to use it to call in reverts, to stack votes or to shop for blocks. This is my problem with your off-wiki communication, rather than its mere existence.

Biophys, I lost count on how many times just on the pages of this case you post completely nonsensical statements that contradicts some easily verifiable facts. That you rush into making rash statements instead of checking facts first does not help your statements to be taken seriously.

Now some facts: I completely withdrew from editing Misplaced Pages on July 8 (and Pitorus' black book was the main reason why I saw editing Misplaced Pages too stressful to continue it), briefly checked in on August 25 prompted by posting of an outrageous text presented as the nationalist conflict workgoup report, of which I was alerted by email, to post a dissenting opinion .

While at it I checked my watchlist. I noticed edits in the article in question (which I edited for a long time before) and a conflict between Deacon who rewrote it based on scholarly books written by top scholars in medieval Rus and Piotrus, who was acting as if he owns the article and was repeatedly making wholesale reverts of all Deacon's edits (including the ones he did not object to) . Noticing that Piotrus does not explain what's wrong with Deacon's version which is based on the most respected book published on Russian medieval history but simply reverts (and repeatedly) to a version based on a relatively obscure article in Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), I reverted Piotrus and posted to the at article's talk. Again, the war raged while I was on a wikibreak!

If you simply checked facts, you would spare us all some waste of time. As for what got Deacon to this article, I assure you that it was not me. I was not even online back then. If you followed Misplaced Pages coverage of medieval Rus, you would have noticed that Deacon wrote and edited a lot of articles in this field and I was not surprised to see him at this article. If you were, ask him what brought him to this article. I have nothing to do with this. --Irpen 05:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, thank you for criticism. I will change my evidence section to be taken more seriously.Biophys (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. All I want is that you get the facts straight first before making any statements, particularly at the ArbCom pages. You failed to verify some easily verifiable stuff, be it Relata Refero's being "called in" by me to the Holodomor denial article, my edits to Holodomor or, now, my having anything to do with the Deacon/Piotrus conflict regarding the Boleslaw intervention article that took place while I was not editing at all.

We all can make mistakes and miss something easily visible. But seeing this too often from you, several times already just within the few pages of this arbcom, it seems to me that you have a habit of rushing to judgment based on factually incorrect assumptions that are not that difficult to clear up on your own. In the future, please spend a little time verifying the facts before making wide-ranging accusatory statements. --Irpen 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about this article?. Then you obviously edited it. Alex talked about this article.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking about this article. Yes, I edited it before the conflict between Piotrua and Deacon over its content. But you alleged that I have anything to do with Deacon's getting to that article while I was in fact not editing Misplaced Pages for over a month. Please reread what I said above again. Thank you. --Irpen 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I so far alleged nothing. I only asked a question: "Irpen, did you also share your frustration with Deacon?". You replied: "no". Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RM'd comment.

Piotrus' insistence that ethnicity if a fundamental quality of editors contributes to making Misplaced Pages an ethnic battleground

Actually, the "piece of the puzzle" that is missing is that Piotrus' whole argument here (as stated above) as well as his continued vilifying of me) all rests on a presumed agreement with his questionable thesis--that all editors on Misplaced Pages share his own admitted quality of having an ethnic based "POV." By his own admission, Piotrus insists that this is true for all editors. Like his ally Greg, he seems not to be able to grok the notion that an editor--regardless of ethnicity--can aim for fairness and balance to articles. Although Piotrus does not share his anti-semitic colleague Greg_park_avenue's pathological obsession with Jews, Piotrus is indeed, by his own admissions above, absolutely insistent that all editors share his admitted personal commitment to ethnicity being the primary motiavtion for all editors. This of course, is simply a not very sophisticated ploy in which Piotrus can paint those who disagree with him as "true believers" having an ethnic POV (e.g., his insistence that a "Jewish POV" is operative behind any edits that seek to remiove anti-Jewish biases). This rather unsophisticated argument of Piotrus' only works if one accepts it's premise--that all editors are motivated by an ethnic "POV." While I have noticed that some others share his view, I am confident that this is not a principle of this encyclopedia project. Boodlesthecat 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed, it was in the wrong place and out of template. Also, moderately inflammatory title. Refactor please.--Tznkai (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Attitude to problem resolution proposed principle

Starting section to discuss the Attitude to problem resolution principle to help real discussion to take place instead of the standard "votes" along the party lines. --Irpen 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Molobo evidence

Since the cited evidence for Kirill Lokshin proposed finding of fact does not discriminate and instead links to all of Molobos diffs, including Molobos outrageous commentary, I provide them here grouped by date and with my commentary, since I believe that anyone who has actually reviewed them will have difficulty using them for the proposed FF, with the possible exception of the Friday 4th of January 2008 edits for which I already was placed on restriction, see this!

• : 1 January 2006. A question at the Holocaust article.
• ,: 2 January 2006 Discussion on the U.S. complicity in the 1944 - 1950 expulsions of 14 million Germans from Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe.
• ,,,: 4 January 2008, on Causes of world war II. The diffs were the result of baiting by Molobo both here and previously, e.g. the "collective guilt" sandbox stalking explained here and that same day Molobos writing unsupported assertions that the German public supported Nazism and Genocide. The edits this very bad day led to me being put on the Digwuren restriction by Ioeth.
• : 3 March 2008, Invasion of Poland, On Background and Polish politicians views. Based on this: "Davies, previously US ambassador to Moscow, is pretty pessimistic, but Beck sees things differently. The Germans should come! If the Wehrmacht attacks, Polish troops will be in Berlin within three weeks. Davies thought Beck was completely crazy. And he turned out to be right." Piotrus had chosen to delete the topic from the article page, and I was questioning his decision.
• : 4 april 2008, discussion with Szopen about Bloody Sunday, where he brings up the Racak incident.
• 10 April 2008, discussion with Szopen about Bloody Sunday at the Racak talk page
• : 10 July 2008, Someone labeling me as having a slanted viewpoint point on the subject (the article I had created).

The above diffs are linked to as a group, coupled with with Molobos commentary, by Kirill Lokshin, as evidence for his proposed FF and in turn his proposal for a 1 year ban of me. I'm particularly disappointed by Kirill Lokshins use of Molobos outrageous commentary, but also of Kirill Lokshins choice to include also for example the January 2006 diffs, and the 10 July 2008 one, as support of his proposed FF. My assumption when I made my reply to Molobos evidence, that people would take the time to review the presented diffs, may have been overly optimistic.

--Stor stark7 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply to Stor stark7 We use the workshop page to sort out the type of concerns that you are raising. Kirill's work is good and I usually support him but first I always make an independent review of the evidence and comments related to the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A general comment by Irpen on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin

The following is a single self-contained comment divided into subsections for convenience linking. Please do not insert your remarks in the middle. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Motivation

Instead of, or rather in addition to, commenting on the individual findings and remedies in the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin (as of 28 October 2008), I would like to make some general comments on the proposal as a whole.

Background

First, we should draw some lessons from the past EE Arbcom decisions, such as Piotrus 1, Occupation of Latvia, Anonimu, Digwuren. The following comes to mind:

1. Other Arbcom decisions related to the EE conflicts were also authored by Kirill Lokshin.
2. It is difficult not to see that the past Arbcom decisions did not help improve the situation. I guess not everyone agrees on whether past ArbCom decisions merely failed to improve the situation or made it even worse. Personally, I think the latter is the case. But lack of an overall improvement from the past Arbcom's decisions is clear. This by itself is not necessarily a criticism of the decisions' author, see below.
3. Whether this sad situation arose from sloppy ArbCom decisions instead of more deliberate ones, and whether other decisions might have improved the situation is also a matter of opinion. Possibly, the problem is more in the utmost difficulty to find a solution that may actually work. Maybe this is even (almost) impossible and no one (including the Arbcom) can be faulted for failing to do the impossible. But it is important to keep in mind what was tried and what did not work before deciding what to do.

So, let's look at what was tried and failed in the past decisions when we are trying to avoid the past mistakes.

Mess in the case' pages

First, all of the past arbitrations, and especially Digwuren, were derailed by the inappropriate actions of some of the participants in the evidence and workshop pages. When anything useful is buried in nonsense and noise, it is extremely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. The amount of nonsense currently in these evidence and workshop pages (see ) is now approaching the signal to noise ratio in the pages of the Digwuren's case. There is at last a first slight acknowledgment of the problem in one of the findings proposed by KL. A good first step but clearly insufficient.

I have asked the arbitrators and clerks, in general, to do something about this signal to noise ratio, both now and during the Digwuren's case. So far, there has been no remedy. The mere FoF acknowledging the problem is clearly an inadequate solution.

1. Occasional mistakes may be forgiven but editors who post tons of outrageous rants to the ArbCom pages should be sanctioned and restricted to the talk pages.
2. The low quality of the evidence and workshopping needs to be identified by the arbs, and preferably removed or at least <small>smallfonted</small>. If this includes some of what I wrote, I will accept that. But merely saying that "there is a problem" is inadequate. The problem has to be addressed, not just acknowledged.

Once the pages are cleaned up and become useful again, we would have a better chance to get something out of this case that may actually work. While wild allegations about the Wikipedians being connected with KGB or its successor agencies and other egregious rants pollute these pages, they will remain hardly useful.

Without useful input from the editors intimately familiar with the case, arbitrators, who cannot be a priori familiar with all significant details, are less likely to produce the remedies that would help.

"Editor Bubba edit-warred"

"Editor Bubba edit-warred " is a finding Kirill posted with respect to several of this case's participants . However, links to reverts by Bubba (either few or many) are clearly an inadequate justification to say that Bubba (be it Piotrus, Deacon, myself, Relata Refero, Alden Jones or anyone else) "edit warred" because an edit war is defined not by a number of reverts alone but by a lot of things.

The most crucial characteristic of an edit war is the presence or absence of discussion. Also, it may be worthwhile to look what these reverts actually are. I am not talking about making an editorial judgment about content, something that ArbCom can't do, when the content being reverted is even semi-reasonable. However, many articles are being attacked by outrageous and dedicated SPA POV pushers. Such accounts ignore talk pages (or troll at the talk pages) and persist with the same edits for weeks or even months. And sometimes their edits are complete and utter nonsense. Also, there is a clear difference between just a revert and a revert accompanied by a patient talk page explanation. So, the definition of an edit war is by no means simplistic and certainly cannot be reduced to a simple number of reverts.

We have to ask ourselves more than whether a person has reverted. Among the questions we have to apply are:

• Does the editor discuss only when he runs out of reverts?
• Does it seem that he discusses in good faith?
• What content was reverted?

These questions need to be answered before finding someone guilty of "edit warring".

Even 3RR is by no means a definition of edit-warring. 3RR is simply a policy aimed at the edit warring reduction. A two per day reverter may be an edit warrior and 4 reverts may actually not be an edit war. Thus, as I am sure Kirill and the other arbitrators would agree, the definition of an edit war is by no means as simple and simplistic as the number of reverts and KL's proposal does not address this yet.

Treating symptoms

Lacking insightful specifics in the PP and FoF sections on what principles (policies and user conduct) are being violated and how, this proposal inevitably turns to unsubtle remedies. This is the approach that has already brought us disaster from the Digwuren case, where overly harsh and blind bans and loaded gun proposals ("general" or "discretionary sanctions") led to more disruption rather than less. Surely, in this case a hang-them-all approach should not be tried again, and get expanded to include all the witnesses, too.

The logic of these decisions seems to have been as follows: "this is all a huge mess and we don't like the messes" and "let's just sweep this unseemly mess with a huge broom" or, as KL called it himself, "Get the big hammer out".

An outright ban of any party to this arbitration except Alden Jones, whose entire activity consisted of reverting various articles to Piotrus and running a huge sock farm , is outrageously excessive. No matter how tempting it seems to again just "Get the big hammer out, then", an abritrator needs to patiently sift through diffs, notice the details, notice the subtleties and propose precise rather than crude solutions

The same applies to the remedies that call for Piotrus and myself to stay away from each other and (amazingly) even "each others' " articles despite our interests lie in the same set of topics. It is also non-workable for the host of other reasons, some already pointed out at the workshop. But the main problem with this approach is that it is written as if this ArbCom is about a personal conflict between Piotrus and myself. It is not! ArbCom is about conduct and policy violations.

I don't have a personal problem with Piotrus. I outlined in my evidence, what problems in his conduct seem to me an obstacle (not the only obstacle of course) for this sector of Misplaced Pages to function reasonably. Piotrus asserts complete innocence of any wrong doing and claims that my own conduct violates policy and is an obstacle. He also blames others, and other editors have made their own claims and assertions. The arbitrators have to decide based on the evidence presented here (and to be able to do it they better clean it up first) what the policy violations were. And they have to be as specific as possible when doing so.

Yes, this requires a huge amount of work on the arbitrators' part by sifting through evidence, separating the wheat from the chaff in it, analyzing what was tried, whether it succeeded and if not, why. This is much more difficult than to just acknowledge that "it's a mess" and try to get rid of it by "getting a big hammer out". But I hope the editors who ran for the spot at the Arbitration Committee did not hope that the problems they would have to deal with would be possible to solve without a lot of effort. --Irpen 19:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is a single self-contained comment divided into subsections for convenience linking. Please do not insert your remarks in the middle. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments

A general comment by Piotrus. I think that those proposals, addressing individual editors are a vast improvement over inefficient general remedies from last EE arbcoms. No, I am not completely happy with all of them (but they are also incomplete, Kirill explicitly noted this with his placeholders), and I do think they represent a step in the right direction.

Reply to Irpen. Yes, this is about more than a conflict between us two, and current findings/remedies do seem to address more than just us.

Conclusion. Let Kirill (and others) do their job, I'd hope that Kirill will let us know with a comment when he thinks he is done, than we can review his complete proposal. So far it looks better than what we have seen in the past arbcoms (which, among other things, had very little arbitrator participation in the workshop).

PS. See also my min-essay on edit warring. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to be in a way of anyone doing their jobs. To the contrary, I want this job done and I posted my thoughts on what I see so far. --Irpen 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the use of "edit war": Misplaced Pages:Edit war uses the term to mean a situation "when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area", and that is the sense in which the term is used in my findings; I am commenting on the repeated reverting in and of itself, not necessarily on the presence or absence of other activity coincident with that reverting. Perhaps this is simply a terminological ambiguity. Given the scale of activity being examined here, I'm not sure how much detail you're expecting to see in the findings; do you want each revert to be individually commented on? I don't think that would really clarify matters much. Kirill 03:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Response

Kirill, IMO this is purely a semantic question and it was clear in my mind but as we seem to see it differently, I guess we should clarify to make sure we are talking about the same notions. It basically comes down to this. Do we apply the term "edit war" to describe the editorial conduct that is considered bad (battle-like attitude towards articles to push the content that fits one's "true beliefs") or is it a not necessarily negative description that is applicable whenever we see multiple reverts. For example if an article is being attacked by a persistent pusher of truly terrible edits (or even vandal), is continuously reverting him also "edit warring"?

That some edits get reverted in the course of the articles' development is not necessarily a bad thing. A bad thing is a battle-like attitude to the content. So, if two users racked up the comparable number of reverts over the same period of time, they do not necessarily fall under the same indictment.

Let's now study two of your proposed FoFs, for example about Deacon and about Piotrus:

Deacon of Pndapetzim

6.5) Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred (, , , , , , ).

Piotrus

6.17. Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly edit-warred .

The FoFs are completely identical, while the finding about Deacon is supported merely by several links showing that he reverted Piotrus several times, while the finding about Piotrus is supported by the section of M.K.'s evidence that, for example includes this:

And another one:

• 12 January - 28 February 2008: Piotrus tries without discussion (emphasis added) to get rid of a picture
• 13:34, 29 February 2008) I comment: "For quite a time ,a single registered contributor is trying to remove a particular picture...".
• 14:01, 29 February 2008 (half an hour later) Darwinek, who never ever edited this article before, reverts to Piotrus version
• 14:50, 29 February 2008 immediate revert of Darwinek; these two reverts are Darwinek's only contributions to the article.
• 14:55, 29 February 2008, Piotrus proclaims: "And for the record, it's not a "single editor"; others apparently agree with me too (ex. link to recent Darwinek's reverts)."

Comparison

From the Deacon's FoF it is only clear that he did several reverts. Was he willing to discuss at the talk page? If so, does it seem that he discussed in good faith? If we actually look at his reverts, do they look good faith or POV-pushing? Is there anyone who mysteriously shows up whenever Deacon has a content dispute to revert to his version? Did it happen this time? What would the answers to the very same questions be if they are asked about Piotrus' reverts.

So, FoFs miss rationale that shows that anyone who "edit warred" behaved badly. Or are the findings supposed to show that Bubba_1, Bubba_2, Bubba_3, etc. simply all reverted more than N times over the course of M months? This by itself does not indicate any bad behavior and if the finding does not show bad behavior, I wonder why it is needed at the ArbCom.

So, to answer your question: "I'm not sure how much detail you're expecting to see in the findings; do you want each revert to be individually commented on?", I simply assumed that by saying that someone "edit warred" you meant to say that someone behaved badly. If you did not mean to say that, I don't know what are these findings for. If you did, I expect findings to show the bad conduct which a mere number of reverts simply do not prove. This requires deaper than cursory studying of the evidence. But that is the main arbitrator's job. --Irpen 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I a party yet?

I am somehow confused if I am a party of this case or not, thus, I am not sure there I should put my comments. Feel free to move my comments from Comments of the parties to Comments of the others and vice verse whatever is fit Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Workshop#Motion_to_recognize_more_parties_and_rename_this_case. Short answer: who knows :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, in these larger cases, the committee has moved from a focus on who is formally a party, and more toward making sure that anyone who might be covered by the proposed findings and specific remedies is on notice of the case, which you obviously are. Feel free to post in either section, whichever is more convenient for you, and there is no need to move anything. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sufficient on-wiki discussion for admin actions?

Thatcher wrote,

"Admins who take on-wiki action based on IRC conversation without sufficient on-wiki discussion and consensus will be subject to severe sanction".

Cla68 wrote,

"After this, if it comes to light that anyone used IRC for an admin action that wasn't also discussed on the admin-only board before the action was taken, then desysop the involved admins immediately."

Both comments are very strange - I don't know of any general requirement, either in policy or in practice, for any onwiki discussion before any admin action is taken. Thatcher and Cla68, are you really suggesting that every CSD deletion, block, or protection has to be discussed before it can be accomplished? What bureaucracy that would be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intent of those particular proposals is to require that admin actions be (a) undiscussed or (b) discussed on-wiki (or presumably discussed off-wiki but not on IRC), but not (d) discussed on IRC but not discussed on-wiki. Kirill 03:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's both unenforceable (there's no way to tell if something was discussed off-wiki), bureaucratic (if someone alerts an admin to a problem via whatever means, the admin shouldn't hesitate to make a clearly correct action simply because the alert was not on-wiki), and backwards (a key role of off-wiki communication is to avoid drawing attention to sensitive issues in the way that an on-wiki discussion would). In many cases, the issues are straightforward and no on-wiki discussion is perfectly adequate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is the following hypothetical scenario, which I cannot envision will ever occur. Someone alerts an admin about a serious BLP problem via email, which the admin fixes right away without discussion. Arbcom later closes a case, finding that the admin's action was completely justified by BLP, but also finding that, because the notification was off-wiki, the admin must be desysoped. The quotes at the top of this section seem to envision that a scenario like that is desirable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to stop administrators from getting the echo chamber effect when seeking opinions. That can happen if they use the same narrow group of admins for a second opinion. Also encouraging on site discussions, unless there are privacy issues, prevents the same group of users from dominating particular discussions in every instance when their wikifriends are involved because they are notified during off wiki conversations with their wikifriends. I agree that in no instances, should independent admin action be prohibited for straightforward situations. No one is calling for that to happen. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the echo chamber effect meant to be limited by having a wider range of admins in the same location, rather than having them broken up into small groups of 2 or 3, or communicating by email? I don't see how IRC is related to the issue of wikfriends contacting wikifriends. Indeed, some of our current examples of this sort of coordination (which I will not detail on wiki for reasons of decorum) don't make use of the admin IRC channel at all, and many pairs of editors on the admin irc channel are not friends. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Important distinction, "2 or 3 groups of admins communicating by email" or in their totally private IRC channels, like here, is going to always be an inevitable part of life. People with bad ethics comprise a part of any group including the Misplaced Pages admin corps. This has nothing to do with finally ending the abuse that comes from #admins which is dangerous because of its alleged connection with Misplaced Pages, an allegation all the more hypocritical because this channel's fans refuse to disclaim it on one hand but refuse to submit the channel to the Misplaced Pages's regulation either. The untenable ambiguous status is what they actually like to see and this is what I find an extreme hypocrisy here. If the channel continues to insist that the Misplaced Pages has no control over it, just disconnect it from the Misplaced Pages and remove all links to it from Misplaced Pages space. Treat it just as Misplaced Pages Review, an external site about Misplaced Pages whose policy we don't host for a good reason. It would then de jure become what it has been de facto for a while. And users who go there to discuss and design blocks, would not be able to claim that what they are doing is anything but illicit. --Irpen 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom has sanctioned editors for off-wiki conduct before and I see no reason why they cannot do so for conduct on the IRC channel. But the quotes above go far beyond just making the IRC channel like wikipedia review - the proposals make a posting on the IRC channel a reason not to take an action. That's the issue I was concerned about when I posted originally. I thought it was already widely known that the IRC channels have no offical status on Misplaced Pages, and that actions onwiki cannot be justified solely through conversation there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way: if someone on wikipedia review points out a bad BLP and I delete it, without mentioning WR or discussing it onwiki, that's fine. But the proposals above suggest that if someone points out a bad BLP in an IRC channel, and I delete it without mentioning IRC or discussing it onwiki, I should be desysoped. Those two sentences don't make sense side by side. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl, that #admins has no status in Misplaced Pages is not widely known. It is claimed to be unrelated or related to Misplaced Pages depending on the context that suits the channel activists better. If it were indeed unrelated to Misplaced Pages lack of such relation would be clear in the form of absence of the medium being mentioned in any Misplaced Pages-space guidance pages. We do not host the policies of external things in Misplaced Pages space. Same should apply to #Admins. Explicit disclaimer reflected in removal all links to it (similar to BADSITES) would solve this problem. Unfortunately, the channelers themselves would not support such measure because this ambiguity allows them to eat the cake and have it to. --Irpen

Well, "related to wikipedia" is such a vague phrase that it's no surprise people will disagree about that. What's well known by now is that editors who make actions on the wiki need to be able to justify those actions afterwards regardless of any off-wiki discussion (IRC, email, etc) the editor participated in. On the other hand, the channels #wikipedia, #mediawiki, #wikipedia-en-unblock and #wikimedia-tech are "official" channels for certain purposes. So it wouldn't make sense to remove all mention of the IRC medium from the wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl, let's not continue to bring the same strawmen about rare cases when the nature of the matter (like BLP) justifies seeking the admin (or oversight) intervention off-wiki. BLP-related admin interventions prompted by email or IRC were never an issue in all these many IRC-originated controversies. Your scenario is a complete strawman as it is clearly not going to happen. --Irpen 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree they were not the issue, however they would be equally affected by the proposed language I quoted above. Baby, meet bathwater. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The "would be equally affected" assumption is based on the assumption of the utmost stupidity and process-wonkery on the part of the arbcom, stewards and Jimbo. --Irpen 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the quote from Cla68 above? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. --Irpen 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As I read that, it suggests a remedy that would encourage the sort of process wonkery you are saying arbcom is unlikely to engage in. My point in posting on the talk page here was to point out I also think arbcom is unlikely to actually engage in that sort of bureaucratic desysoping, and so a remedy encouraging it would be unfortunate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved here from Proposals by Dc76

User:Boodlesthecat

All comments and proposals about, by and to User:Boodlesthecat are moved here, since I don't want any longer to propose anything about him in the section of the proposals I made. Please, discuss him in the sections intiated by others.

(...)

(6) User:Boodlesthecat is prohibited from editing or otherwise substantively interacting with the article Żydokomuna for 3 months.

(...)

Piotrus personally coached Dc76 on his presentations in this arb. This is not material to be taken seriously as objective commentary, Deacon. Boodlesthecat 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(...)

(5) User:Boodlesthecat is advised to use allegations of anti-Semitism, and accusations of "troll", "bigot", "sleaze" directed at other users, and especially at entire nations with outmost care. Should instances of fraudulent usage occure, he can be blocked for periods from 1 week to 3 months.

(...)

Reply to Dc76. Dear Dc76--I've used "troll", "bigot", "sleaze"..directed at entire nations" exactly when? And what is this "fraudulent usage" you refer to? Example? And for your information, I've taken the Zydokomuna article, which was a disgraceful mess rife with anti-semitic innuendo, and brought at least to a measure of respectability, with dozens of reliable sources--in the face of vehement gang edit warring. A three month ban from the artcile is my proposed reward? Golly. Boodlesthecat 00:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The words I cut-and-paste from the diffs Kirill provided above. They are your words, they are in the diffs. Look, I never met you before, I never had the chance to make an impression about you. I am sorry that we met in unpleasant circumstances. There is nothing personal here, please trust me. All I am judging is Kirill's diffs. You can make a point in a content dispute without using such terms. On the contrary, your arguments receive a lot of weight when you don't use them. | By "fraudulent usage" I meant e.g. to call all Poles anti-Semitic - such a thing would be a breach. I introduced this on purpose, so that you can not be held accountable for non-"fraudulent usage", e.g. to call Adolf Hitler anti-Semite. There are of course more subtle examples, not just Hitler. And I meant that you should not be held responsible for calling them anti-Semite. Come on, do you really need the freedom to call "all Poles" anti-Semitic? | With all due respect to your work on the article Zydokomuna, there is an unpleasant caveat that applies to all WP editors: even when we spend months on one article, the moment we put a word online, it's no longer ours. We don't owe the content, and we can not claim any formal reward. The real and only reward is when the anonym reader of WP appreciates the informativeness of an article. Noone forbids you in these 3 months to look for more sourses, to work on other aspects, and after the ban to propose them in the article (in a civilized manner, of course). And by the way, please do notice that comparing to a 1 year ban from all WP, as others above proposed, I only proposed a 3 month ban from one article. You don't have any other subject to work on WP? | If I were you, I would right away VOLUNTARILY agree to even 4 or 6 months off that article. Things are not looking good for you from what I see above. Are you looking for a reason to have grudge on WP or are you looking for ways to contribute quality content? Dc76\ 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to see where I "call all Poles anti-Semitic." If you cannot produce such a comment, then kindly refactor your highly inaccurate accusation above. As for my work on Zydokomuna, I've asked for no reward, I'm merely pointing out the silliness of proposing a three month ban after I spent a good deal of time fixing an article that was an embarrassment to this encyclopedia, in the face of rather vicious opposition by Piotrus and his crew. Now, again, kindly refactor your false accusation above about me "call all Poles anti-Semitic" or making any characterization of an entire nationality. I must insist that you follow your own advice regarding "fraudulent usage"--such an accusation against me is exactly that on your part. Thank you. Boodlesthecat 02:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• There are several problems with the language in your comments in the 10 diffs presented by Kirill above. If you want more specific examples, then for example this, this and this. You think that is civilized language you are using there?
• In the first diff you claim there is a commonplace scholarly view that the root of anti-Semitism in Poland was the Polish anti-Semitic tradition. That is exactly how accusations of anti-Semitism can be missused. And, of course, you call at least two different users chronic anti-Semites (I use the term "chronic" so as not to say the worse words you used there.)
• Now, please re-read how I commented about your language: I recommended you "to use allegations of anti-Semitism, and accusations of "troll", "bigot", "sleaze" directed at other users, and especially at entire nations with outmost care". Then in the response to you, I also said: "to call all Poles anti-Semitic - such a thing would be a breach (...) I introduced this on purpose, so that you can not be held accountable for non-"fraudulent usage", e.g. to call Adolf Hitler anti-Semite. There are of course more subtle examples, not just Hitler. And I meant that you should not be held responsible for calling them anti-Semite. (...) Do you really need the freedom to call "all Poles" anti-Semitic?" Please, kindly, do not put words in my mouth other than what I said. I did not say that you called all Poles anti-Semitic. I asked you if you need the freedom to say such a thing, hoping that we can agree that it is not necessary, and from this obvious agreement to try to work things out. In a 1000 years I did not expect you to interpret my words as me accusing you of having called "all Poles anti-Semitic". My bad.
• My bad. I hoped you really wanted to work things out and that I could somehow help. I even suggested you to do something voluntarily, so that nothing bad goes on your record. But if you don't want me helping you getting through this with a clean record, please do disconsider my proposal and help yourself alone against a 1 year WP ban that awaits you with the proposals of other people. I did not realize right away that you simply want to portray yourself as a victim, so as to have satisfaction in accumulating grudge on WP. In such a case, obviously a person trying to moderate your "punishment" is not what you want. Do you want me to cross everything that concerns you from this section? Dc76\ 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dc76, the fact that Piotrus openly coached you on your presentations here including hints at how to clarify whether your statements are "a praise, criticism of a neutral description" of him lead me to take any commentary of yours regarding those who disagree with Piotrus with a huge block of salt. That strong caveat regarding the credibility of your comments asise, Dc76, the fact that you interpret my statement that "the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna found its support" equal to calling "entire nations" antisemitic or saying "all Poles are antisemitic" indicates to me that you perhaps do not have the necessary background to be weighing in so strongly on this specific case. By your logic, we would no be able to discuss the strong traditions of Racism in the United States out of fear of offending some nationalistic Americans, and we would be threatening editors who discuss commonplace scholarly consensus on American racism with bans. That's pretty silly, but it's the direct implication of your logic. More revealing is your clear bias in this dispute--you threaten me for pointing out and taking action against, e.g., the vicious antio-semitic rants of Greg--(who has been admonished on a number of occasions, and about whom a number of admins and editors have concurred has indeed made nasty anti-semitic statement), yet you serially ignore the actual realities of this content dispute. That dispute is, at bottom, the fact Piotrus and his allies have and continue to introduce Judeo-phobic and anti-semitic content into this encyclopedia. Even still: here is Piotrus pushing the use of an extremist antisemitic periodical as a reliable source in a Jewish history article. A newspaper widely seen to be anti-semitic and extremist, which Piotrus knows is widely seen that way, but who defends anyway. This is the issue; all your other commentary about my supposed "language" is nonsense. I will call a spade a spade. If Greg or anyone else litters this encyclopedia with Jew baiting garbage, I will point iot out. If I am to be "banned" for stating commonplace views that there is a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland, then it would really not be worth my time trying to improve this encyclopedia, because it would indicate that it has no credibility. But I believe the encyclopedia does have credibility--it's some individuals here whose credibility I strongly question. Now, for the third time--are yuo going to refactor your false claims that I said/intimated/implied (however you want to dance around it--why would you warn me against doing something that I havent done?) that "all Poles are antisemites" and/or that I have made charges against "entire nations?" Absent that show of good faith on your part to correct your fraudulent charge against me,, there is no further point in discussing this with you. Boodlesthecat 14:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "Boodtlesthecat called all Poles anti-Semite". Please, do not put words in my mouth. I asked you to not see anti-Semitic people all around you. There is a big difference, but you try to ignore this HUGE difference. It is very said when whatever you say to a user, he tries to twist the language into blaming you out of the blue with anti-Semitism. I take your comment as you don't want me to be proposing anything regarding you in this section. So I am going to refractor the whole proposal. I will move it to the talk page. Dc76\ 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

end

Latter additioins

Yes, given that Piotrus personally coached you on your presentations here and that you repeatedly make fraudulent claims regarding what the diffs actually show, and that you can't seem to write a single sentence without twisting the facts right on this page (now you are intimating that I am "blaming you out of the blue with anti-Semitism" (!!) -- where in the world did you get that from? yes, please you are right, I do not want you proposing anything about me in this section (unless you want to continue to add material that further weakens Piotrus already weak case (up to you!). Boodlesthecat 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The above was added by Boodlesthecat concomitantly to me moving comments here. Consciently assuming the risk of having his IMHO twisted interpretation of me as the last word, I will not comment.Dc76\ 17:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)