< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Piotrus

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 07:47, 5 June 2007 (→Removal of references). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:47, 5 June 2007 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→Removal of references)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for academic evidence

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

I have read the summary of the book written by its editor, Kazimieras Garšva. The summary used hate language, typical for extremal nationalists. Garšva himself is not a historian. I would never use such source as a citation for any other subject than "Nationalism". --Lysy 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very good that you made a comment, more people familiar with this issue will state their view, more chances that we will do everything right here. So, besides your own impressions maybe you have some specific scholars opinion too? Could I ask a favor? Could you translate some findings of Piotrus presented review sources,as with my Polish skills will take much time? If it is too big you can translate it in my user talk. M.K. 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Agree with the spirit but not sure how practical this is. --Lysy 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

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

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Civility

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Reliable sources

6) Per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, Misplaced Pages does NOT discriminate against published sources based on the language they are written in. Polish-language sources are not inherently superior or more reliable than those written in Lithuanian or Russian, and vice versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Miskin's case. --Ghirla 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, since neither I nor any other Polish editor, to my knowledge, ever argued otherwise. However I'd strongly suggest including an additional sentence along the following lines: Sources from regimes known for unreliability, such as from the former Eastern Block, are less reliable then modern Western academic research.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ex Occidente Lux? Why should I refrain from using Soviet works by Alexander Kazhdan to reference articles on Byzantium-related subjects? And who is better authority on Scythian art than Boris Piotrovsky? Are you prepared to stop quoting Polish sources published between 1945 and 1991? I can tell you that "Modern Western academic research" prefers not to enlarge on certain topics and contains large chunks of pure propaganda. Apart from very few clear-cut and obvious cases, we have no method of assessing what is propaganda and what is not, especially when historic documents are cited. Nobody is free of bias. --Ghirla 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not saying they are all unreliable, but "less reliable" in certain areas, particular such as history and relations of countries under the Eastern Block. There is no perfect method, indeed, but there is enough research into historiography (including Russian) to be able to see which areas are less and which are more reliable (see Marc Ferro's The Use and Abuse of History, or such articles as , , , or for a brief selection). Bottom line is that while Soviet (or People's Republic of Poland) research is probably quite reliable when it coms to Byzantium, it is much less so when it comes to Polish-Russian history or relations, and we have academic sources (per links in my previous sentences) which state exactly that. Of course that doesn't mean all such sources should be discarded, but extra care needs to be taken with regards to WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is the following: If you have an article dealing with, say Polish-Russian (or Soviet) relations, either you accept sources from both points of view, or you only accept only neutral and peer-reviewed stuff. But trying to source an article with Polish newspapers and papers of an institute of dubious reliability while telling Soviet sources are all flawed is called double standard. Either everyone has biaises, or no one has. -- Grafikm 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Biographies of living persons violations

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Could you be more specific; for start could you point which part of the policy suggest that is is allowed to mock from living person? And that about usage sources, which do not concur statements which they should reference? Would be great if you quote the policy, which you think allows to do so. M.K. 08:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars

2) Piotrus fueled systematical revert wars.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

This is a misleading suggestion. It usually takes two or more to revert-war. Blaming one party only is simply not fair. I've checked the diffs provided, and usually it was not Piotrus who started warring. --Lysy 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No it is not misleading suggestion at all, frankly saying I do not understand which sources you "checked", probably wrong ones - I suggest you to start from these etc. M.K. 08:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

You can start you investigation from here. Worth to note that source which you say talks about "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" was added on 30, while last revert, which is here presented conducted in 29. So if I not mistaken you saying that Piotrus new about this source one day before, then it appeared, to justify his reverts? Interesting story, but somehow implausible. M.K. 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the unreliable source was added on 28 (); note that 2 reverts were done by a user who refused to discuss the issue at talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Darwinek who presenting now theory about unreliable source, basing on source () which should justify your reverts was added on talk on 30 while last presented diff shows your reverts of 29 d. M.K. 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Melt's reliability and neutrality were raised earlier on talk page by that time, and similar discussions took place earlier on other pages. I was also aware of the critical academic reviews at the time of my reverts, but it was late at night and I didn't have enough strengh to compose a post reflecting those new findings, which I did on the following day. Again, the user who reverted me twice has never commented on that article's talk page.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Dr. Dan

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Misleading suggestion. First of all administrator, who blocked contributor acknowledged that block was controversial. I suggest you better label your "evidences". M.K. 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading criticism. Controversial block does not mean 'wrong block'; as can be seen from archived thread the block was not overturned. Also, note Dr. Dan's reply to the block: "As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did" and "Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil". Unfortunatly, as my presented diffs, endorsed by several other users, show, his work didn't last long enough (or went far enough). That, however, his allies defend him claiming he was never incivil where he himself admitted otherwise, is quite telling.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism", "wrong block" could you elaborate on these? M.K. 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As this ArbCom degenerates almost daily with some of the most absurd statements and amazing comments from you, P.P., I wish to briefly say that due to an illness of a close friend, and his death, and the complications of the funeral and the deep sadness and mourning resulting from that event, I have been unable to log on to WP as frequently as I would have liked to in the past few days. It's also caused me to look at this ArbCom only very sporadically. Rest assured, I intend to present evidence at this ArbCom very soon. As to the above thread, I think Durova's own perspective and commentary on the block you asked her to perform would be more telling than your own. I had some private correspondence with her regarding the block, which is not something that I care to present here. If she wishes to share it, in expressing her thoughts on the block, I do not have an objection to her doing so. With or without that private correspondence, maybe she can shed some light on why it was, or wasn't, "controversial". As to your continual attempts to deflect the reasons that this proceeding was accepted by the Committee, I suggest that you concentrate your efforts on answering those charges rather that concentrating on "how bad Dr. Dan is." Or is the reason that you were brought before this ArbCom is because I'm so bad, so incivil, and so biased against Poland that you lost control of your better judgement, but that now by eliminating me, or succeeding in censoring me, everything will be like it used to be in the "old days" when you could engage in your efforts on the project, unchallenged and unimpeded?.Dr. Dan 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

Could not agree more --Beaumont (@) 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. //Halibu tt 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by M.K

4) M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) displayed bad faith, engaged in personal attacks and harrassing of other editors involved with Poland-related articles in various discussion spaces (, , , , , , ). As for content edits, he showed questionable judgement in relation to neutrality and reliability on Poland-related articles (ex. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight issues with edits like additions of minor facts distorting general articles , , , , , removal of important facts (, , , , ) and for reliability, using unreliable sources related to Vilnija extremist organization and its supporters (like Kazimieras Garšva) - ex. , , , ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Mocking by Piotrus

6) Piotrus mocked contributors.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

I'm sorry, but I'd have to comment on those links as I'm directly involved - and they do not hold the water. The second diff ("mocking from state tragedy and me") is especially telling: in one of my posts I suggested that the Republic of Lithuania did not become independent and in control over the city of Vilna until 1991. That's a plain fact - and that's what the article on Lithuania says. But then M.K. took that diff elsewhere and suggested that I was mocking some tragedy, which I wasn't (besides, I don't find the Lithuanian independence a tragedy, to the contrary).

From my past experience with M.K. I can tell that this is his normal modus operandi: I say something, then M.K. takes my words to some unrelated discussion, suggests I said some things I didn't, and then accuses me of it. And now the shocking part: M.K. twisted my words and accused me of things I never said. And now he accuses Piotrus of not responding to his provocation... //Halibu tt 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets see. Current author who is know through the history for his main space disruption , author who is known for mocking Lithuanian language, who likes present his WP:POINT , who thinks that bad conduct way is refreshing ; specifically targets one ethnic group of contributors (Lithuanians) with others, picks up random contributors and labeling them trolls (if I not mistaken with user:Iulius he never spoke before this message at all) and who accusing other contributor making death threats, a crime act; who reapers on talk page and using an annexation rhetoric and only now explains “that the Republic of Lithuania did not become independent and in control over the city of Vilna until 1991.” Somehow becoming and independent (btw that about interwar?) and conducting annexation is two completely different things, plain fact indeed. Who was immediately asked for clarification , but there was no answer at all.Modus operandi? M.K. 10:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even here by calling the city of Vilna by that name demonstrates your provocative style of editing regarding Lithuanian related matters. And that has been a major point of contention of M.K. and others. As a simple example, Halibutt, when you created the Antoni Bohdziewicz article, you told us he was born in "Wilno". When I agreed with your earlier insistence that Vilna was more historically "correct", for the sake of consistency I changed it to Vilna. The object of this ArbCom, the Prokonsul Piotrus, changed it back from Vilna to Wilno, repeatedly (see history of Bohdziewicz article). When in the interest of attempting to remove the confusion and strife and childish game playing, I changed it to the current accepted name of the city in English, Vilnius, I got results. You then all of the sudden found "Vilna" to work better. I find it strange indeed that anything, anything but Vilnius will do as far as the both of you are concerned. Dr. Dan 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Our disputes over the proper naming of Vilnius have been endless. They mostly revolve around deciding when it is appropriate to use the current name, Vilnius, which entered mainstream English usage rather late (for example, it was first used in a Time magazine article only in 1972). There is a legitimate case to be made that for articles involving the history of the city, other names might be more appropriate. At any rate, the argument over the name in the Antoni Bohdziewicz article is a legitimate content dispute, nothing more. Balcer 02:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Balcer please! Give everyone a break. The Russians who once upon a time called Vilnius, Vilna, and the Germans who called it, Wilna, in the past too, call it Vilnius today. Only our little Polish club on Misplaced Pages has a problem with that "diplomatic" courtesy. Wrapped up in a "nationalistic" enigma, this group continues to want to call it "Wilno" whenever they can get away with it. P.P. and Halibutt have repeatedly flamed this issue. What's even more hilarious is how this little club (including your own efforts, Balcer) tells us that the correct English description for Cracow has become Kraków (complete with the little diacritic ó) and we will simply have to learn to live with it. (please see WP:NCGN talk : Cracow/Cracow again. It's much more than a content dispute and you know it. Hopefully the Committee will take a look at it at WP:NCGN talk:Cracow. Dr. Dan 03:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Baiting by Piotrus

7) Piotrus baited different contributors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Stalking by Piotrus

8) Piotrus stalked different contributors.

etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing by Piotrus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Misleading information in evidence section presented by Piotrus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Rude Evidence presentation by Piotrus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

This seems irrelevant and misguided. If you didn't want Piotrus to suggest you and the other people who sided with you in the initial statements have a common point of view, which is different from the common point of view of him and his defenders, then you shouldn't have filed the case. I think you might want to read through some previous arbitration cases to get a feel of how the process works and what it tries to accomplish; other cases which deal with multiple editors of different nationalities conflicting over subjects related to their nationalities include Armenia-Azerbaijan, India-Pakistan, Hkelkar, etc.. Picaroon (Talk) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed right about that I have little skills in ArbCom, my last participation was in Darwinek's case. But I somehow think that you a little bit wrongly understood my words, as I do not say that it is due to different view of developments but how these views were presented here. As you are professional in this area, feel free to move or remove this part from this page. And if there is something more wrongly done let me know. M.K. 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Violation of WP:VERIFY by Piotrus

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Wheel-warring

1) Piotrus used to indulge in wheel-warring but seems to have been reformed in this respect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As long as it's not clearly defined which facet and period of Piotr's activity in the project are examined in the current arbitration, this seems to be a pertinent observation. --Ghirla 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff provided is from November 2005 !!! --Lysy 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to direct clerk's attention to this talk question about timeframe.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of foreign language to discuss opponents

2) Despite multiple protests, Piotrus has the habit of discussing his non-Polish opponents on talk pages of English Misplaced Pages in a language they don't understand., , , , , , Such communications are known to have been occasionally incivil: "If we speak about Ruskies , there are a couple of nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet, so we have the constant Cold War with them".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have urged Piotrus many times not to call me Gyrandol or other offensive terms and not to discuss my actions in English wikipedia in other languages than English. I want to know what is being said about me. With an increasing degree of mutual understanding, much mistrust will disappear. --Ghirla 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule forbidding use of non-English on private talk pages; I tend to reply in Polish if users post to me in Polish (please note all of the above diffs are either my replies to notes in Polish (sometimes on other talkpage), posts by others users to me (for which I can hardly be blamed), or Ghirla's comments (even more so...). I have supported use of English on public forums, asking others to post in English (ex. here, here and in many other places). As for the use of nicknames and perceived if unintended ethnic slurs, I have done so only few times in the past and apologized to him in our unfinished mediation (see points 1 and 2). I don't use Polish on en Wiki - maybe once every few weeks - and I don't recall I had used any nicknames or slurs since our mediation (even if it was broken and my concenrns unaddressed by Ghirla's wikiholidays).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope that we have settled the issue once and for all. --Ghirla 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear this issue has been settled long ago, as Ghirlandajo himself admits (admittedly making his whole statement self-contradictory). Dragging out old misunderstandings here is inappropriate. Balcer 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The diffs provided by me refer to the period when I was active in English wikipedia. Since my part-time return in May, I have deliberately avoided disputing with Piotrus or editing the articles edited by him. The timeframe of the current dispute is nowhere apparent. --Ghirla 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Accusations of vandalism

3) Piotrus regularly accuses long-standing contributors of vandalism or calls them vandals (, , , , ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Ghirla 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All edits from March'06. Again, this has been addressed by our unfinished mediation. I am certainly not overusing the v-word anymore; but please note that some of the comments I made above are still quite valid (some articles needed attention (, ), some users needed to be warned ).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am glad to hear that you desisted from calling your opponents "vandals". You know that I haven't been around for a while (contrary to your assertion, it was a wikiexile rather than wikivacation, and I'm still active part time in Russian Misplaced Pages), so I can't really assess your progress in this respect. It'd be great to hear Irpen's opinion, for a change. Unfortunately, I am told privately that most of your traditional opponents decided to give you some slack in this arbitration, since you seem to have been on close terms with the only person capable of paralyzing ArbCom decision-making process.. More's the pity. I believe we should speak out once and for all, so that A/C could focus on more urgent disputes. There is no need to come right back to the same issue again and again. --Ghirla 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my presentation indeed, Piotrus somehow enjoys placing vandalism warnings, despite that they are completely false. M.K. 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Canvassing

4) Piotrus resorts to canvassing in order to push pro-Polish POV into the articles about the history of Eastern and Central Europe (, , , , , ).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This has become regular in other national segments of Misplaced Pages, unfortunately. But I think the example was set by the Polish notice-board. Tireless canvassing escalates trivial conflicts into large-scale wars that last for months and years. --Ghirla 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This - canvassing - is actually a claim I hear often whenever two or more Polish editors happen to be seen together. Again, the language of my old (March'06 again...) notices might have been a bit to ironical - it has changed since then as I (hope) I've learned to be more neutral - but please note I never suggested editors how they should vote. I believe X-related board is for annoucement of X-related discussions. It is my belief that the more editors are aware of a discussion, the more neutral it will be as the always vocal but tiny minority of different strong POVs will be shown as just that - a tiny minority. I have increasingly post at non-Polish noticeboard to ensure diversity of views (as indeed just posting to X noticeboard on X-Y problem is suboptimal), ex. Russian, Russian, Russian..., German, German, MILHIST and others. See also my evidence section for examples of my common posts to RfC and other completly neutral forums, requesting opinions.Therefore I believe that I never violated Misplaced Pages:Canvassing, as my posts never suggest how to vote (I can cite several examples where after my posts Polish users were divided in their opinions), and are certainly not "provocative attempts to stack an ongoing poll" or "aggressive propaganda campaigns". As accusations of canvassing are creating bad atmosphere on noticeboards every few weeks (ex. here, here, here, here, here, here...). I would indeed appreciate ArbCom ruling on whether I (and other users of Polish noticeboard) had or hadn't violated WP:CANVASS to put an end to this issue. PS. Once, Ghirla himself has been criticized for canvassing at Polish noticeboard... (although I think his post, for the record, was perfectly acceptable).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider notices on national noticeboards harmful, because they tend to escalate edit conflicts rather than defusing them. In such cases, an editor of your standing does not even need to express his opinion, as it is sufficiently known to everyone regularly checking the noticeboard. Everyone knows in advance how a Polish or Russian wikipedian will most likely behave if the conflict concerns a Russo-Polish war. This is a generalization, as there is a handful of people on both sides who would be unfazed by nationalist considerations, but it is nevertheless true. --Ghirla 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I completly disagree with your generalization as in my opinion it is majority, not minority, of editors, who will be "unfazed by nationalism". Advertising potential disputes as widely as possible is the best guarantee that a minority of nationalists/extremists/etc. will lose whatever hold they had on a discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not been aware that posting an inflammatory call to arms on a noticeboard frequented by citizens of one's own country qualifies as a sort of dispute resolution. If you had "advertised" potential disputes on the notice-boards of some countries other than Poland, I would have agreed with you. However, the least controversial way to ask for a neutral third opinion on a content dispute is to use WP:RFC, which is visited in equal measure by editors of all nationalities. --Ghirla 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I am now commonly posting to other noticeboards (including Misplaced Pages:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board, unfortunatly that board never got popular enough, but I supported the idea of such forum to facilitate communciations), RfCs and such precisely to avoid any bias from 'one country' stance only. Are you?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I currently monitor neither my Watchlist nor any particular noticeboard. --Ghirla 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I must ask: what's wrong with informing fellow interested editors that a discussion is ongoing? No suggestion which way to vote, no threats, no insults - just information. The fact is, none of us is aware of what is going on in all of Misplaced Pages all the time. I see no problem with asking people to have a look at a discussion, particularly on a regional notice board, designed for discussing just such issues. I myself did some informing during this discussion, and Irpen promptly accused me of running a "high scale canvassing campaign" ... "his campaigning on-wiki has been hectic and wide-scale". Undeterred, I did the same during what could have been a heated discussion, but Hungarian editors also ran an information campaign and guess what? Everyone came out pretty happy. Of course, indiscriminate messaging turns into spam, and should certainly be avoided, but within decent parameters - parameters that, as far as I can see, Piotrus has respected, I don't see any problem with making people aware of current debates. Biruitorul 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing is not acceptable for two simple reasons: 1) because it tends to magnify local conflicts of little consequence into large-scale edit wars; 2) because its prime aim is to avoid 3RR by involving more reverters. If you really need a comment on some issue, we have WP:RFC. --Ghirla 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, I wonder how would you comment this announcement in Portal:Russia/New article announcements (sic!) or this one ? --Lysy 08:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied that, for a limited period of time, I followed Piotr's lead and practised the same sort of announcements as a means of self-defense against this. After Piotrus declared at the top of the Polish Wikipedians' notice board that "probably anything visited by Ghirlandajo" qualifies as vandalism or needs attention, does it seem surprizing to you? Unlike him, I discovered that this practice is not a valid method of dispute resolution. Now I regret it and find this practice objectionable, despite Piotr's continuing support of it. --Ghirla 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, I agree on this one with you, and for this reason I'm not a frequent poster to PL noticeboard myself. However, I don't think that Piotrus practices recruiting in the notice boards in the way you're presenting it. All the diffs you've provided are all well over one ear old. --Lysy 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, standards of honest debate demand that if you accuse another editor of canvassing and you have been engaging in exactly the same practice yourself, you should come out right away and admit it, to avoid a justified charge of hypocrisy. That "I have never been hiding" statement, forced out of you when presented with undeniable evidence of your own conduct by another editor, is too little, too late. At any rate, I am amazed that you consider canvassing by Piotrus as wrong, but you justify your doing it as "justified self-defense". What self defense? Were you personally threatened in any way? Truly an amazing example of double standards. And your statement that you were only following Piotrus' lead is an excuse a five year old child would not get away with. Balcer 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I am tired of your insinuations of intellectual dishonesty. As everyone knows, I don't follow discussions where four or five editors from PL noticeboard attempt to discredit me or to talk my ear off by repeating the same stuff over and over again. I have wasted hours and days on this manner of "conversation" which actually leads us nowhere. Soon Molobo's block will expire and you will have a nice company here, gentlemen. --Ghirla 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The box in question was was ill-thought, in the end I and other involved editors have removed it and apologized for any ill-feelings about a year ago. We have also settled this in our mediation. Why are you bringing this year-old issue back?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Piotrus, this is water that has long passed under the bridge. Still, as the editor who removed the box, I am glad it is gone, as it certainly was not accomplishing much good. We all learn from experience. Balcer 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Piotrus and Biru. Simply notifying other editors of an ongoing discussion is entirely acceptable and is not canvassing. The only way it turns into canvassing is when somebody posts a notice instructing people HOW to vote. Now, in my experience, the standard reply has been "but when you post notices on national noticeboards, you're deliberately notifying people who you know will agree with you." That, I must say, is slightly ridiculous. Ever seen what happens when you put two Hungarians/Romanians/Russians/Poles/Czechs/ in a room together and give them something political to talk about? Instant chaos. Nationality alone hardly determines opinions, and is NO guarantor of agreement! ;-) K. Lásztocska 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Further, please note that those noticeboards are not 'for X-nationality only', they are 'for X-issue interested editors', created for and maintained for the very purpose of notifying watching editors of interesting issues; majority of posts to them are not controversial at all. Polish noticeboard (for example) often gets posts from - and is certainly watched by - editors of other nationalities (just as I, myself, post to and watch various noticeboards/project discussions/etc.). As I wrote above, the very fact that once Ghirla himself has been criticized for canvassing at Polish noticeboard should be telling.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you know that a year ago the noticeboard in question was known as the Polish Wikipedians' notice board. I was explicitly asked to refrain from posting on it by User:Molobo, if I recall correctly. Furthermore, the present arbitration was launched no examine your actions rather than mine. --Ghirla 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And I was one of the people who strongly campaigned for the name change to avoid the confusion. Plus the arbitration was launched to examine ations of all involved editors - something you should pause and think about.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it more alarming, actually, that Piotrus engages in unethical off-wiki canvassing. Two examples: he seems to have been behind the scandalous off-wiki campaign aimed at derailing another user's RfA. He refused to either admit or deny his involvement, so we have only a circumstantial evidence but the evidence seems pretty strong. The second example, is his campaigning at one notorious IRC channel where he fed a certain David Gerard with I do not know what to bring this user who I never met before to his ArbCom with remarks that were widely criticized by the community. Even more abrogating is that Piotrus does not recognize such steps being unethical even when this was pointed out to him in an explicit form. --Irpen 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But where is the evidence that there ever even was a massive off-wiki canvassing campaign? The only evidence presented in that long discussion on the Polish noticeboard seemed to be that a lot of Poles voted. (m:Poles are evil again?) I am really disturbed by these constant assumptions of the existence of some sort of Polish cabal. Often times in this ongoing Eastern European war I notice comments that can really only be described as paranoid Polonophobia, as if all Polish Wikipedians are engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to discredit Russia (or whatever) and fill the Wiki with slanderous propaganda. Sheesh, even the Hungarians never get such outrageous accusations leveled against us. K. Lásztocska 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Irpen here makes outrageous charges with no solid evidence whatsoever. I would not be suprised if Piotrus did not deign to answer them. Absence of a yes or no answer in this case in no way indicates wrongdoing. And Irpen has no authority to conduct any investigations of other Wikipedians anyway. Balcer 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which nationality you represent in the project, but I certainly don't find your accusations of "paranoid Polonophobia" either reasonable or helpful. It is obvious a priori that "off-wiki canvassing campaigns" are not supposed to leave lasting traces. In most cases, we can only guess what's been going on. As for David Gerard, I feel there is some evidence that he has been contacted with the purpose of having him involved into the arbitration. Once an arbitrator, always an arbitrator, as the proverb goes. Honestly, how can we expect a fair resolution of the dispute if the owner of the mailing list declares that one party "has been gunning for Piotrus for some time - his edit pattern needs thorough review"? --Ghirla 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Hungarian. (You might remember me from Piotrus's earlier RfC where you accused me--baselessly--of Russophobia, not that that is relevant here.) I don't know David Gerard so I can't comment much further on this, but I call things like I see them. It's obvious to anyone that Irpen has been gunning for Piotrus for a long time and often assuming the worst of faith: a most recent example is here--Piotrus suggested to another editor that he might want to put Babel boxes on his userpage, and Irpen immediately reverted it (twice) with no explanation, and later accused Piotrus of "pressuring" the other editor into revealing "personal information." An overreaction to say the least, in my humble opinion. K. Lásztocska 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Side-comment. I indeed consider Irpen's (repeated) removal of my messages to another editor very uncivil, the editor in question also specifically told me he felt they were ok and was not pressured by them (). Whether the above behaviour falls under wikistalking, coupled with a series of unfriendly and even harassing messages to my talk page (here, here, here, here, here to just name 5 cases from the previous two months) is wikistalking and should be commented upon by ArbCom, is something that may deserve a further thought.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A side-comment to a side-comment. I never ever wikistalked Piotrus. I am an adamant opponent of stalking and, additionally, I find working on the topics where Piotrus is engaged highly stressful, so I prefer to avoid articles were this editor is involved rather than engage in them. That I often still cross my paths with the said editor is merely due to some articles' being concerned of more than just Poland, eg. topics re Ukraine and (to a lesser extent) Russia which are of my primary interest. This is the reason why such articles are at my watchlist. Also, I am concerned when a nationalist POV is attempted to be pushed into a Main page through DYK entries or through tendentious editing of Featured articles. Where I see a provocation at DYK's suggestions page (which I monitor regardless of Piotrus' posts), I try to correct the problem. I hope others actually click on the 5 links posted by Piotrus above and read the appropriate discussions. All relevant pages have been on my watchlist from the past editing or were linked to a DYK/FA's. In one of these discussions I, exasperated by his past accusations of stalking him, made a special effort to provide a detailed explanation what brought me to the particular article and that was anything but clicking on his contributions page. To make it clear, I only check contributions of my friends or new editors in my field of interest. In case of new editors, I even make sure to explain to them that my sole intention of looking at their contributions is to help in their first steps at Misplaced Pages since they are likely to make some easily correctable newbie mistakes. Under no circumstances would I have ever even looked at Piotrus' contributions per se because doing so would only raise further the level of stress from what I would see. This is in addition to my general adverse attitude towards checking other's contributions in general. Finally, in one of the links in the Piotrus' post above Piotrus reveals that he got to a certain page by following someone else's contributions. Anyway, please do click at the links Piotrus posted above. Unlike off-wiki discussions, those links are available for everyone to read. --Irpen 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The links are given and the evidence certainly goes beyond the fact that "lot of Poles voted". I assume no Polish cabal. I see unethical behavior of one user. Let arbitrators read the diffs above and decide for themselves. This can be easily ended if Piotrus says (he refused so far) what was his role in all this. --Irpen 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit, all these links are over a year old now. --Lysy 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Irpen had any authority to conduct all by himself an investigation of Piotrus, complete with questions designed to incriminate him. To me it had all the appearance of harassment. Balcer 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What authority are you talking about? I saw a suspicious chain of events that ended with David Gerard who no one ever saw in Eastern European topics (nor in any content editing for a long time) coming to this ArbCom "gunning" for me. His entry raised many eyebrows and we are still yet to see DG's explanation to the questions asked about his weird entry. My opinion about IRC is well-known. Using a medium where I cannot see what is said about me and respond was inappropriate and did not add any positive momentum to this ArbCom, particularly by engaging a person known to be formerly close to an ArbCom and who still maintains the ArbCom email list. I don't overestimate how much influence DG exerts over the current ArbCom, especially in view of his certain notoriety that was only increased lately, but still Piotrus could have raised any issues he has about myself in the wikispace rather than at the channel known to be a source of so many problems that plagued this encyclopedia. --Irpen 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you, Irpen. It has been an open secret that former arbitrators control the mailing list and are capable of bombing any discussion. This has already been deplored in the Giano case. I hope that one day ArbCom will be able to speak up for themselves and determine who should be on the mailing list. This will be the first step in reviving our trust in the institution which has been so sorely shaken after the Essjay controversy. --Ghirla 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask David to comment on your behaviour. That he did was his own choice, yet that you keep assuming we conspired against you and keep accusing us of this all over wiki, with no proof but your own bad faith assumptions, is a big part of what this ArbCom is about. There is no cabal, people are questioning your behaviour because it violates our policies and common civility; one does not have to know much about EE history to see that much.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you have asked David Gerard. All I know that immediately after your ArbCom was started you asked for the access to the channel we used to criticized together. Immediately after that David Gerard, who is always there, who could not have possibly been aware of any EE topics (or any content issues of WP) comes in with a link someone conveniently provided to him (btw, have anyone clicked on that link?) All I am asking is that you not talk behind my back about the content (or any other) disputes you are having with me or others. There are no issues in these conflict that require secrecy, no checkuser, privacy, immediate dangers were involved. This is unethical and have got to stop. --Irpen 08:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with canvassing former arbitrators is delicate and complicated. Can an "arbitrator emeritus" recuse from the case? I'm not aware of any precedents. I'd like this point to be elucidated if any arbitrator follows this page at all. Anyway, we'll never know how many other former arbitrators have been contacted by Piotrus in connection with this case. That's the nature of IRC for you. --Ghirla 14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I still strongly support the notion that IRC channels, including admin one, should be publicly logged and available online, to avoid such 'what I think you said there' discussions. As I explained to you on my talk page, I asked on IRC for procedural advice about ArbCom proceedings (when to post stuff, where to post stuff, etc.), David was one of the users that replied at some point. I see nothing wrong in asking for advice through channels that allow me to get a reply in few seconds or minutes, considering that traditional wiki questions can be unanswered for over a month (sic!), and even questions on this very arbitration talk can be ignored for days.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To Ghirla's question, I don't think that the fact that DG has power to control outsider's post to the ArbCom list gives him much influence. Emails of arbitrators are publicly available to any editor who wishes to post private evidence. As for Piotrus engaging to communicating with Arbitrators personally during the case, while I think it is improper, it is up to arbitrators what they think of such communication. I am on the record proposing that all parties discuss all the arbitration related matters with arbitrators only at the arbitration pages seen by all. A narrow exception is for evidence that cannot be publicized and Arbitrator's talking to each other. To make a real life analogy, internal communication of the judge's panel, is kept in confidence. However, none of the sides can go in and out to the judge's chambers save exceptional circumstances approved by the judge. That said, I don't think Piotrus' personal off-record communication with Arbitrators while his case is being heard would have much impact no matter what I think of the propriety of his taking such steps. --Irpen 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a small observation. It has been suggested that P.P.'s past canvassing is all over a year old and is therefore no longer an issue. During the recent, and unresolved dispute as to whether or not Kraków is the correct English usage toponym for Cracow at WP:NCGN:talk (which by the way was brought up by me as a matter of using English on English Misplaced Pages, not as a matter of disputing "national pride"), P.P. immediately brought my efforts to the attention of the Polish bulletin board. Personally I do not have a problem when he asks for advice or help from this forum, but please don't try to suggest that he doesn't do so, and frequently do so. Dr. Dan 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who would suggest that I don't use that forum often: I certainly do. After all I edit a lot of Poland-related articles, and this is the board where Poland-interested editors gather to discuss and learn. Bottom line is that Poland-related issues should be noted at Poland-related noticeboards (or wikiprojects, for the record Poland-related noticeboards doubles as Poland-related WikiProject), Russian at Russian-related one, historical and history-related one, and so on. This is what they are there for; trying to suggest that using an X-related noticeboard for X-related discussions is some sort of WP:CABAL is simply illogical.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not invoke the cabal strawman here. Most of the above has nothing to do with cabal allegations. --Irpen 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping

5) Piotr's favorite method of content dispute resolution is to post a civility or disruption complaint on some public noticeboard (WP:ANI, WP:PAIN) and have his opponent blocked from editing. Just one prominent example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. What makes discussing content with Piotrus so difficult, is that you may expect any minute that you will be blocked on account of a complaint that he posted on some notice-board. --Ghirla 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No diffs from 2007 again? Anyway, I will reply to this shortly: I believe anybody has a right to ask for advice on public forums. As an admin involved in a dispute, I cannot excercise my powers in such cases - so I can either shut up and give up, or ask other admins to review the situation. I see nothing wrong with asking for advice or review. Certainly this has nothing in common with "forum shopping", as defined at WP:CANVASS. PS. Ghirla, would you like to post diffs/history logs to examples when due to my 'forum shopping', somebody was blocked and then there was a consensus the block was unfair and resulted due to my 'machinations'?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS defines the term "forum shopping" as "repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like". This is actually what have been done to have me blocked by Friday. I have accepted that block as reasonable, but I can't accept your attempt to have me blocked last December (see the diffs above) when you applied to WP:PAIN, were snubbed by a responsible admin, started to question him on his talk page, then moved the thread to WP:ANI, from whence it was removed by another admin as "forum shopping", yet you instantly restored that thread and started to question the second admin on his talk page, etc, etc. That's what is called "repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like". --Ghirla 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The community consensus was that we should take the matter to DR, which is why we ended up in ArbCom and Mediation last winter, and why we are here. I did hope that the issue would be simpler - alas, apparently it is not. That's all there is to it. Asking for advice is not forum shopping.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ghirlandajo repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite many warnings and previous blocks

6) In addition to large body of pre-2007 evidence showing a stable pattern (ArbCom warning from Jan'06, blocks for incivility, evidence presented in my statement in ArbCom Dec'06), his edits from this year confirm this unfortunate pattern holds: , , , .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Piotrus.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to deflect the discussion of your behaviour. I don't think many people buy into Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility these days, even despite these formidable diffs. This is an old trick. Couldn't you provide anything better than a stale log with two blocks for one of which I received apologies and another resulted in desysopping? --Ghirla 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Removal of references

7) Piotrus has been deleting sourced statements which he does not like personally. For Russian-language sources, the usual motivation is that they contain "Czarist/Imperialist propaganda" (for pre-1917 sources), "Soviet/Communist/Stalinist propaganda" (for 1917-1991 sources), or "Putinist/Totalitarian propaganda" (for post-1991 sources). In this way, every Russian-language reference may be deemed inappropriate and eliminated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I don't like to see Sergey Solovyov and Vasily Klyuchevsky labelled as "Czarist propagandists" and scholarly quotes from Russian-language monographs or compilations of documents routinely replaced with links to Polish blog entries and newspapers. Once a historian says something unfavourable about Poland, he is labelled as "nationalist" or "Soviet puppet", even when his nationality or allegience is difficult to determine. I don't think attempts to impeach or discredit sources that don't suit one's POV will lead us anywhere. If you don't like your opponent's source, provide a source that claims the contrary, rather than removing the reference as "invalid" or questioning its integrity. --Ghirla 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First, please note that I have replied to this argument as presented by MK in the first point of my evidence (on the basis of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight or WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources). Second, I'd like to see diffs were reliable refs are "routinely replaced with links to Polish blog entries and newspapers". Third, please note that some of the above diffs don't involve me, but other editors (ex. , , , nicely showing that many others also dispute those refs), some involve simply moving a referenced piece to another section) and some others are completly not related to any reference removal (ex. ). Specifics of each presented case vary, but usually detailed reasons for why a given source was challenged are to be found on relevant article's talk (where we "routinely" provide academic references to argue the case); in most of those cases arguments of myself and other involved editors have prevailed, as can be seen from the fact that stable (in some cases, even Featured) versions of those articles (in Ghirla's diffs) don't use those sources (or use them in a consensus way). One very current diff as presented by Ghirla () is a good example of a common pattern of such disputes: as summarized on Talk:Mikhail_Meltyukhov#Criticism, the author in question, a modern Russian historian, has been discussed in English-language academic publications twice, with his views described as 'Stalinist and neoimperial concepts' in first and in second his book in question reffered to as containing "shocking falsehoods". We have requested removal of his references from controversial sections until positive academic reviews of his work are presented; what we got so far are arguments that he is reliable because he was interviewed by Russian radio stations and his book was reviewed by... Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial outfit. Challenging and removing such references is not beneficial for the project is perfectly inline with our policies (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Oppose It is worth to note that Dr. Dan by mastering several languages showed and draw attention to Piotrus continues misuse of sources , then asking valid questions Piotrus allows himself to suggest to contributor to keep silent, adding provocative messages on his talk page and you will get the picture. BTW, all here involved Piotrus content opponents (I , Dr, Dan, Ghirlandajo) suggested by the same Piotrus to be placed on civility parole, but somehow I did not saw that he supported his own parole. In other hand it is different story then dealing with Piotrus' friends. I do not remember no single initiative during which Piotrus filled any official request for scrutiny in investigation boards regarding his friends. Same case goes with user:Halibutt's shameful message there he accused other contributor of death threats and similar; in the newest development same contributor Halibutt (probably his conduct should be investigated fully here) stared mocking of state. Instead of denouncing such completely unacceptable "comments", Piotrus chose to support them . M.K. 09:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

There is absolutely nothing disruptive about Dan's comments, at least those I have seen so far, unless there is a guideline that bans sarcasm from talk pages. Dan is capable of looking through Polish-language sources with an unprejudiced view, and he should be applauded for that. --Ghirla 18:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines. In particular the guideline: Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. ' Balcer 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Could you explain how did you draw such conclusions? If I remembering correctly the biggest interaction with you was, then you did this under note "format"; while last time I had issues concerning you, was your ArbCom case, there you have been desysoped and placed on civility parole, for obvious reasons. M.K. 08:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You know very well your sins (including incivility). Other editors provided evidence of your behaviour. That's how I draw such conlusion. Look to your mind and say honestly "I have been incivil, I admit.". I have done that (regarding my ArbCom case) and feel much better now. - Darwinek 19:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that i did not ever called my content opponents using F word or similar. M.K. 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Darwinek has admited he was wrong (IIRC "under influence") and apologized to all offended.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not equal me with Darwinek in the future, who once again was blocked due to incivility and edit-warring as it looks; . M.K. 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC), however after apology he was unlocked .

Don't worry, I certainly see a difference between Darwinek, the 24-most active contributor to this project, and you. Darwinek is able to admit he made mistakes and apologize for them, improving his behaviour in the future and thus remaining a productive member of this project (as clearly shown by his unblock). I don't recall seeing you apologize for your offences or try to work out a compromise in our discussions - which is a big part of what brought this ArbCom about.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Someone should indeed learn to behave at least in ArbCom, why did you post such message in the first place? M.K. 08:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that message may not have been constructive. I thought better of posting it, and removed it less than an hour later, something M.K. neglected to mention (no surprise there). Another example of M.K. modus operandi: pick a diff that puts a user in the worst possible light, without other diffs that may provide a complete picture. Balcer 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that my message was misinterpreted. I did not made a general statment with diff which somehow should prove, as you say, "a user in the worst possible light". I just asked the question why did you post such message in the first place? Why nonconstructive messages is used here? M.K. 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

M.K is requested to seek mentorship

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Piotrus is placed on revert limitation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Piotrus is placed on civility parole.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

8a) Piotrus is warned about issuing block threats to users whom he is in content disputes with, as it runs contrary to a admin's behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Refactored version of 8). An admin must not use these kinds of threats. -- Grafikm 15:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as it is a slight modification of my previuos suggestion and noted important aspect - admin behaviour. M.K. 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Piotrus admonished

9) Piotrus is admonished not to agitate for blocks of his long-standing opponents by posting "disruption" and "civility" complaints on ANI/IRC or urging other wikipedians to post them for him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Piotrus is the architect of my block log, so I guess I know what I talk about better than anyone else. When seemingly authoritative people say "See evidence of X being incivil ", that will make someone look at a link with "incivility" already in mind. The proposed remedy is rather rhetorical, as Misplaced Pages has failed to develop a mechanism preventing this sort of abuse. --Ghirla 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, his editing pattern dealing with content editors through civility issues became real problem.M.K. 08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is IMHO the core problem with Piotrus' behaviour. If IRL you taunt someone really much and then get punched in the head, don't run back to momma crying. Either don't start, be polite, or accept. Especially with witnesses around. -- Grafikm 13:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you addressing this comment to ? --Lysy 13:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, of course... I edited the message so it is more plain. This kind of attitude must be stopped. -- Grafikm 15:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

First you shoud present the diffs for those 'taunts'. Second, a general note: while I completly agree that admins should not block those they are involved in disputes with, it is completly illogical and even disruptive to argue that admins (or anybody...) should have no right to even complain about and/or bring attention to what they consider is disruptive behaviour of users they are involved in dispute with. Otherwise, what you are saying is that if an admin notices what he believes is disruptive behaviour from a user he is involved in dispute with he is completly powerless. The only bigger folly would be arguing that we should forbid all users from discussing others' disruptive behaviour, and eliminate WP:CIV/WP:NPA/WP:AGF and related policies (which I suspect some in this arbitration would indeed welcome).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who would welcome the elimination of WP:NPA, Piotrus? Could you be more specific? These constant suspicions and insinuations against fellow wikipedians are hardly in tune with our guidelines on civility. --Ghirla 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo is warned about incivility and personal attacks, and placed on civility parole

10) Ghirlandajo is warned about incivility and personal attacks and since such warning from ArbCom in last January was ineffective, is now placed on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Piotrus.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, this appellation to WP:POINT is all too predictable. You may have noticed that I did not ask you to be placed on revert parole, although that looks like a natural solution if one cares to take a look at the history page of Pinsk massacre. Perhaps you have missed a point. It's your behaviour that is examined. And, unlike many other people, I never agitate for sanctions, let alone blocks, on flimsy grounds of "incivility" or "menace to the project". --Ghirla 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ghirla was by far and large inactive since the Piotrus-Ghirla RFAR was archived (see contribs). Hence this measure looks indeed like a WP:POINT. -- Grafikm 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody grows up and stops beating these dead horses

11) Here's an idea. How about everybody takes a deep breath, steps back for a minute, and admits that everyone involved in these perpetual disputes, being human, has done wrong at some point or another. Acknowledge that to some extent, national biases in historical matters are inevitable, and the important point is to discuss matters like intelligent adults and try to come to some sort of agreement/compromise. Everybody stops accusing each other ad nauseam of tendentious editing, canvassing, conspiracy, forum shopping, cabalism, nationalist extremism, etc. etc. etc. Agree to assume good faith as a general habit. Don't be dicks. Don't bait your adversaries (that includes not launching another one of these ridiculous RfCs or RfAs every two bloody months.) Live in peace like intelligent 21st-century Europeans: if you can't bring yourself to actually like each other, at least try to keep up some sort of cool but civil relationship. No paranoia. Quit wasting all your energy on these endless trials and back-and-forth sniping--you realize you've made the headlines in the Signpost over this?--forgive each other past offenses, resolve to do better in the future. PLEASE?!

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by K. Lásztocska 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but this was tried and proved a failure before. We tried formal and informal mediations, RfCs, and many other forms of DRs. I personally tried many times to settle our differences in discussion and suggest reaching an understanding through cooperation on non-controversial topics. Alas, we are here, and I am afraid all sides (for there are more than two...) have shown they cannot settle their differences without an outside help. Too many people on both sides believe they have been wronged and/or that they are 'right'. There is too much 'bad blood' for all concerned to just go back, as much as we can wish for it. We need, for better or worse, ArbCom to tell us who has been right and who has been wrong, otherwise we will keep pointing fingers and creating a mess.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. When can we expect a ruling? K. Lásztocska 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know but See here for clerk's comment on this. The sooner the better, I think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Piotrus, I believe outside intervention is essential. These conflicts have been going on for about 2 years now, and if there is one thing we know for sure, it's that they will not go away on their own in the near future. Balcer 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse K. Lásztocska's impassioned plea. Well said! Even if it's not completely practical (and I don't quite see why not—maybe because I don't really know all the history of these epic conflicts), the sentiment is admirable. Turgidson 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

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

Removal of important facts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

This diff is indeed not relevant, I don't know how it got here - it is not in my evidence; I probably messed up something when I was copying diffs for workshop, please accept my apologies. All 20+ other diffs in that section are however quite relevant; I crossed that one off.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for academic evidence

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and consensus

Assume good faith

Harassment

Civility

Disruptive editing

Reliable sources

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Biographies of living persons violations

Revert wars

Disruptive editing by Dr. Dan

Disruptive editing by M.K

Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern

Mocking by Piotrus

Baiting by Piotrus

Stalking by Piotrus

Disruptive editing by Piotrus

Misleading information in evidence section presented by Piotrus

Rude Evidence presentation by Piotrus

Violation of WP:VERIFY by Piotrus

Wheel-warring

Use of foreign language to discuss opponents

Accusations of vandalism

Canvassing

Forum shopping

Ghirlandajo repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite many warnings and previous blocks

Removal of references

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

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

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

M.K is requested to seek mentorship

Piotrus is placed on revert limitation

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

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

Piotrus is placed on civility parole.

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

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

Piotrus admonished

Ghirlandajo is warned about incivility and personal attacks, and placed on civility parole

Everybody grows up and stops beating these dead horses

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Removal of important facts

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion