Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Piotrus

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lysy (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 3 July 2007 (→Section break: response to M.K about Okińczyc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:57, 3 July 2007 by Lysy (talk | contribs) (→Section break: response to M.K about Okińczyc)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Arbitrators active on this case

  • Charles Matthews
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Morven
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away:

  • Blnguyen
  • Flcelloguy
  • FloNight
  • Mackensen
  • Neutrality
  • Paul August
  • Raul654

Piotrus comment on the proposed decision (amnesty, parole, probation)

First, I am greatful that ArbCom members have started commenting on it earlier then we thought - it's a nice suprise, and will sure bring refreshing views to this issue.

Second, as the edit summary suggested, the current proposed solution is the 'big hammer' solution. It is my opinion, however, that this may cause too much 'collateral damage' and we may get better results with a 'subtle scalpel' solution (variants of which were proposed at workshop by all parties).

Amnesty. Setting aside the need to define 'good standing' (which needs to be clarified if this proposal is further discussed), I would like to draw your attention to some specifics of this case. I feel that most if not all involved editors, from all (there are more then two) sides, feel that they had been justified in their edits and behaviour, and it is the other side(s) that had wronged them. If they are not told clearly, by a neutral body such as ArbCom, that they have erred, they will not change their behaviour. Further, those editors who have been accused of wrongdoing by others likely feel that they deserve a 'certificate of good standing' from ArbCom (a statement refuting their opponents claims, akin to Fred's proposal involving me). Speaking for myself, I'd like ArbCom to comment on whether my past actions (in a reasonable timeframe) had been justified or not, and whether my evidence of others wrongdoing is justified or not. I am sure that others (and please note I am not the party that started this ArbCom) want the same answers about their character/actions and those of their opponents (see also comments here). Without such comments, how can I - or any other involved editor - know if we did right or wrong, and learn from any past mistakes? A general amnesty will leave all sides (who have likely put days into preparing their statements and evidence) just as they were, with belief in their righteousness, and in a matter of weeks, if not days, we will find ourselves in need of enforcing the second part of the 'big hammer' solution.

Probation and parole. First, I'd like to comment that singling out Eastern European history seems rather puzzling: I am sure there are many other controversial areas on Misplaced Pages (Holocaust history, colonialism, Japanese-Korean relations, Tibet, etc.) that are as heated and controversial as ours. Singling out a specific article for probation is feasible, singling out a general area with thousands of articles and thousands of editors unaware of this ArbCom may be creating a precedent we should likely avoid. Second, as I explained in my previous para, because parties will likely continue to act as they had we will soon find one or the other reported at ANI (and incidentally note that the very such act of reporting has been criticized by some in this ArbCom...). Then the ANI justice will kick in - an admin will review the case and make a decision. Admins, however, vastly differ in their experience and handling of such a cases, and as much as I respect my fellow co-admins I don't think trusting ANI to rule on a complex issue like this is the best idea. Sure, it's better then ignoring the problem (hence why this avenue was tried in the past, by myself included) - but it would be much better to have ArbCom issue some user conduct statements, probations, limitations, paroles and so on based on current, relativly comprehensive evidence, rather than to have random ANI decisions issued in the future based on some tiny fragment of the future evidence. By adopting the 'big hammer' solution ArbCom would in fact be 'sending this back to a lower court' (ANI); we have tried this in the past, and I believe nobody was happy with the result. Even worse, a random ANI judgement may turn out to be a block of some editors - and I don't think either party in this ArbCom has went as far as to ask for the other to be outright blocked, we may have our (sometimes big) differences but we (I hope) respect many for each other's contributions (and with one example I noted in my evidence, all involved editors have many great and uncontroversial edits to non-controversial content areas).

With respect, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the amnesty: it would, indeed, be possible (albeit rather time-consuming, as a number of the parties are quite high-volume editors) to examine each editor's conduct individually and make some sort of judgment on its relative appropriateness. Personally, I don't think this will really be a productive use of anyone's time unless the intent is to tailor particular remedies for each party, and I don't particularly want to do that here (more on this point later).
Eastern Europe is, of course, only one of several highly contentious areas in the project; but I think it's somewhat special because of the extreme length of the disputes (e.g. the Danzig issue), often involving the same participants year after year. Admittedly, the idea of applying a remedy to such a wide area is not one for which a great deal of precedent exists. (It's also worth noting that there's now a proposal for notification requirements that I had missed.)
More generally, I'm not convinced that trying yet another round of remedies tailored to specific articles or specific users will get us anywhere in the long run. We've already had a number of these, and the disputes seem to reappear a few weeks later, but on a different article or with slightly different participants. Quite honestly, though, I'm hoping that the second remedy will see minimal use except as a deterrent; as you said, I don't want to see any of the parties wind up blocked (or even prevented from contributing on the topic). While I suspect that some people will prove intractable, I hope that the majority of the regular editors will take the hint and start treating each other with a bit more patience and understanding. Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we ever had any "remedies tailored to specific users" (at least nothing related to the participants of this ArbCom, with a single exception I am aware of and that I noted in my evidence). As for articles, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote worked pretty well from my experience, however the current issue is not about any (relativly) simple content issue like that was but about possibly disruptive behaviour of several users. We already have perfectly good guidelines for general behaviour (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CIV, and all the stuff from proposed principles here and in workshop). General guidelines however have not helped in the past (or else we wouldn't be here). Only specific findings and possible remedies about particular users against whom evidence has been presented in this ArbCom (and yes, this includes my person) can in my view change something. And there is no need for any timeconsuming investigation of many editors, I believe both parties made it clear who they want the ruling to concern, both sides presented what they believe is comprehensive evidence against those editors, and this involves only several individuals - me, MK, Dr. Dan and Ghirla if I count correctly).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I second Piotrus' points. I also sincerely hope that ArbCom members understand fully the magnitude of what they are about to do, if the rulings currently proposed are adopted. "Eastern Europe liberally defined" includes all the countries highlighted on this map. One look should make clear just how much Misplaced Pages content would be affected if all articles somehow connected to this area are to be placed under general probation (this would include all articles connected to Germany and Russia, for example). Clearly there will be a large number of editors that will be affected, having never heard of this Arbcom and thus unable to express their views on this matter that will strongly impact them. Balcer 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
How would "Eastern European history, politics, and geography, liberally defined," as opposed to "Eastern Europe, liberally defined," sound? I think it would capture the the articles which have been central to this dispute, while not being necessarily being in effect on an Estonian musician or a fair near Berlin. Article probation, if extended over so many tens of thousands of articles, would likely be unenforcable, unneeded, and seemingly out-of-the-blue for editors who have never heard of Piotrus, M.K, Irpen, Lysy, et al, nor are regulars in the articles related to this corner of Europe. Do you think narrowing it would accomplish as much, Kirill? Do you, Piotrus and Balcer (and anyone else), think that would be a more manageable extent? Picaroon (Talk) 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Eastern Europe is half of Europe. Declaring it a Misplaced Pages problem area as a whole (even only its history, politics and geography) will be unfair to the vast majority of Wikipedians who contribute productively to related articles without any conflicts or problems. I again second Piotrus' in his proposal that ArbCom step up to the plate and issue rulings designed to alter the behavior of individual problematic users who cause the vast majority of the problems discussed here. Balcer 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for being frank, but it would sound just as bad :) Seriously: Germany is not in EE (technicality, but note practical absence of comments from that part of the world in this ArbCom), and for any 'big scope case' very few users are even aware of it: I know there are grieviances involving parties in this case related to areas of EE that had not attracted attention of editors from this area, because for many this is still a local issue: a Polish-Lithuanian dispute with recent Russian (and Ukrainian/Belarusian) flavourings - and I am not even sure if we can say the Lithuanian side is represented, as almost all of the comments from Lithuanian side come from a single editor (and further, Russian side is divided, see outside statements). It is my view that this case can do some good if viewed on the level of the few involved editors, but will be pointless if we concern ourselves with trying to find a solution for half a continent (when in fact its a problem for only a few editors...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, it was worth a try. So do you think that including the limitation I suggested would not be any better than all of Eastern Europe? (As to Germany, I was just basing my use of Berlin as an example because Eastern Germany, and therefore Berlin, is on the map Balcer linked.) Picaroon (Talk) 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirla

Firstly, we are basically denied arbitration of our respective grievances, just because the topics appear to be too contentious. This "solution" leaves us no alternative but to maintain status quo, that is, to check each possible noticeboard for fraudulent complaints on the part of one's opponent and to watch as Piotrus removes from the articles those sources which he finds unpleasant. This is rather frustrating, but other "solutions" may be even less palatable.

Secondly, some people still add evidence against Piotrus. We should give them some time to come up with their statements of fact and proposed remedies on the workshop page.

Thirdly, Piotrus and most other Polish editors have made it clear that they don't consider their country part of Eastern Europe. Does it mean that Kirill's proposal applies to Russia-related articles only? --Ghirla 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland is most certainly part of Eastern Europe for the purposes of this arbitration case. Picaroon (Talk) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know? --Ghirla 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the remedy Kirill proposed says "Eastern Europe, liberally defined." It would be unreasonable to construe that as not including Poland. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I follow your logic. --Ghirla 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Lysy

I second Ghirla and Piotrus on that the proposed "Amnesty and Probation" solution does not really seem satisfactory. It would in fact seem a euphemistic way of admitting that the ArbCom was not able to handle the case because of its scope which, as I understand it, could be vaguely defined as "conduct of various editors active in topics related to Eastern Europe". I'm not surprised that the number of edits combined with the nuances of the related content may seem immense. It does to me. On the other hand, since the case was accepted, it would be good to have at least some indication as to which of the questioned users conduct is found unacceptable. Otherwise, the involved editors will continue to believe that they are doing right, and the only outcome of this RfArb will be the extra bad blood it caused. --Lysy 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed ban for M.K: While many of M.K's edits are counter-productive, and he seems to be unable to handle conflict situations properly, he is also one of the currently most active editors of the Lithuania-related articles. I believe that banning him from editing non-contentious articles in this area would be harmful both to his morale and for Lithuania-related content. I hope that the proposed warning and request to seek mentorship (both suggested in the workshop) would be sufficient as a remedy. Personally, while I complained about his conduct and aggressive attitude, I would not like to see M.K banned. --Lysy 08:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, on both points. Revert and civility parole would surely be enough to solve any issues. There is only one user whose continuing actions would merit such a solution (IMHO), and that's Dr. Dan. I hope to see ArbCom comment on whether that user's behaviour is acceptable or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MK's punishment for citing Kazimieras Garšva

Kazimieras Garšva is cited in a paper published by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development that addresses ethnic minority/language issues ( page 66, "Lietuvos Rytai. /Str.rinkinys/ Sud. K.Garsva ir L.Grumadiene"). Please skim through this document, and decide whether Garšva would be cited there if his points of view were considered so extreme as to warrant this proposed action.

A Google search on "K. Garsva -wikipedia" yields other citations, including the book "Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History". Novickas 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever - to my knowledge - questioned KG's capacity as a linguist, although I am not aware he has been cited as such on Misplaced Pages ever. However he is a controversial and unreliable source of informations regarding Polish-Lithuanian relations and history, and should not be used as a source for for them. To give you an example: works of Stanisław Grabski in the realm of economics may still be cited, but nobody, I hope, would seriously consider using his work to support any political ideas, particulary as relating to ethnic minorities in Poland, even though he published works on that topic, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually P.P., it was you who named his works as quasi academic in mainspace. M.K. 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is extremely controversial, and his non-linguistic works are considered extreme by some, but as far as I can tell, there have been no punishments issued for citing him. Novickas 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Come on, Novickas, the problem is not whom you cite, but how it is done and in what context. You would not claim in an article about Jews that "Jews are subhuman" and quote Nazi propagandists to support it, would you. On the other hand one could cite the same propagandists in order to present their, clearly attributed views and that would be perfectly valid, right ? The same holds for Garsva or any other nationalists, be it Polish, Lithuanian etc. Garsva is not a historian. This has been already explained many times and I don't think this is the right place to begin it anew. --Lysy 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems exposed by this Arbcom is the practice of using controversial, fringe or otherwise unacceptable sources to back highly disputable claims, then screaming that "sources are being removed" when others object to using them (up to launching an Arbcom against those "guilty" of this removal, which is essentially what User:M.K. did). The proposed ruling would clearly indicate that such practices are not acceptable. We are not obliged to cite every last extremist scholar, no matter how minor, especially since citing some particularly controversial people is hugely counterproductive and makes effective multinational collaboration in writing about contentious subjects almost impossible. Balcer 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As the talking about reliable sources has begun, could please someone evaluate scientific validity and reliability of hese links? They are from Vilnija and Kazimieras Garšva pages:
, , ,

, , , , ,

I might be wrong, but most o them simply do not work, and one is (the one from tygodnk) written in quite and insulting tone against renowned Lithuanian historians. And these are used as an evidence against Garšva, and furthermore against M.K. You might check them yourself, and say your opinion. Let me note, that most of them are collected by Piotrus.
Have a good day.--Lokyz 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can show instances where Garšva is quoted using the kind of language that Lysy mentions above, then please, let us all see them. Also, if controversial = counterproductive and should be removed and/or sanctioned, as per Balcer, many WP projects would not have come to their current state. Novickas 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder has proposed that MK be blocked from WP in part for citing the book "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje". Here are some facts about that book:

  • The 1999 edition is held by the Library of Congress and by Stanford University. The 1995 edition is held by Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc.
  • It is used as a reference in a Eurozine article: see . Take a look at Eurozine's editorial and advisory boards , and the institutions represented there.
  • Garsva is interviewed about Armija Krajova in the respectable journal "Mokslo Lietuva" (Lithuanian Education), ISSN 1648-710X . This page displays the journal's editorial board .
  • It is mentioned in publications issued by the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) and ; the first mentions it as a resource for genocide research, the latter includes it in the Seimas' suggested reading list.

Here is an item pertaining to Garšva's standing as a historian. He was invited to participate in a 1999 seminar discussing Polish-Lithuanian history issues, including Armija Krajova, relating to the period 1939-1945. This seminar was sponsored by the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Center , Vilnius University, and a number of Polish institutions as well. The seminar is clearly a good faith attempt to discuss the disagreements, and his invitation is significant. The website is written in Polish, but EN readers can understand and confirm the subject and the sponsorship. See Novickas 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him being invited to deliver a talk there. Why ? It seems that he was in the audience and only participated in the open discussion. --Lysy 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an item pertaining to Garšva's standing in the public realm. He is a member of a Lithuanian government-sponsored commission on LTs abroad: (English) . Novickas 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He was one of over 50 discussion participants, he was not presenting anything. Attending a seminar or a conference is not difficult, one just has to sign up and pay a small participation fee, it's whether one is presenting or not that makes one's attending a conference something to brag about. As this discussion of the conference shows, he was there not as a historian, but as a politician - Vilnija representative - and when he spoke during the open discussion, the newspapers refers to his speech as "full of hate". It's nice, however, that it appears that most of the others, Lithuanian and Polish participants of the conference, were able to keep high and civil level of discussion. But thanks for finding yet another reference questioning neutrality and reliability of KG and Vilnija.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
A politician? Which party did he represent? Besides, I am not surprised that newspaper, which is considered to be Bolshevist and promotes lie, is describing opponents in those words as “full of hate” etc. M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this book then to be considered so extreme and unreliable as to justify a block for citing it in a history article? Novickas 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Arbiters managed to notice this as Balcer falsely accused Novickas of lie.WP:CIVILITY should be consulted. M.K. 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Notice also that I reverted myself 5 minutes after realizing my mistake. I hope that Arbiters will again notice the tactics M.K. uses against editors he dislikes. Balcer 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you made a mistake you should say sorry, especially then you accused contributor of lie. Nocickas great contributor and deserves apology rather the "never mind".M.K. 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Balcer 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably the place for this is here. M.K. 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. I was hoping that the best approach to comments that were up for about 5 minutes would be to pass over them in silence to avoid causing any discomfort to Novickas, but now that you have dragged them prominently into the open, I apologized to clear the air. We all make mistakes, let's not dwell on this one any further. Balcer 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not dwell on this one any further. But try to be more attentive next time. M.K. 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Eurozine citation. It is indeed one of 11 references there, used by a seemingly reliable scholar, Alvydas Nikzentaitis(). However, what's extremly interesting is the context the book is cited. My knowledge of Lithuanian () and German () is non-existant, so I had to use machine translation. With the caveats that resulting translation is very poor, my understanding is that Nikzentaitis discusses how Armia Krajowa was being discredited in an attempt to rewrite history for political reasons (an argument very similar to that of another respected Lithuanian historian, Arūnas Bubnys, cited here), and Nikzentaitis uses the book in question as an example. Here are some translated parts I based my understanding on, if a native Lithuanian speaker could translate this and the following para entirely, we would have of course a much better picture: "With the treatment of the litauisch Polish relations during World War 2 took now the idea of the independence fight completely Litauens the first place, whereby it was the goal to discredit the activities of the Armija Krajowa." "When Litauen 1994 expressed the desire, NATO to step - and later also the European Union - the task resulted to justify the historical connections to the western democracies ideologically." "one tried to play the litauischen relations down with Hitler Germany and to represent the Armija Krajowa in the Vilniusgebiet at the same time as Kollaborateurin of the Germans" "course of the new interpretation of the litauisch Polish conflict in the cultural memory becomes this topic also object of the memory politics". I am certainly looking forward to a better translation of those paragraphs, and perhaps even the entire article; I have asked a friend who speaks German to read the article quickly and he agrees with me it is crticial of that book, not supportive (he promised me a translation soon). PS. As for inclusion in various libraries, so is Mein Kampf (), or Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle () - but that doesn't make them reliable. PS3. Nor is being interviewed by a journal, even mainstream, make one reliable, Irving had and still gives quite a few interviews... PS4. As for the contribution of Rimantas Zizas to the book: we are still waiting for positive reviews of the book, it is plausibile it has different chapters written by different authors some of which are more reliable then others - but so far all we have are critical reviews, and certainly there is no doubt that KG inputon those matters is not reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: the translation of the relevant para (from German) is available here, thanks to User:Masti. As can be seen, Alvydas Nikzentaitis is certainly not supporting KG point of view, instead he is showing how some historical works in Lithuania have been hijacked by the demands of then-current politics to support certain POV (discrediting AK). Hardly an endorsement of KG views - but a valuable reference indeed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Edward Prus is a professor of history, also present in the Library of Congress, yet I would never think of citing him in an article about e.g. Ukrainian Insurgent Army, as I know he has a Polish nationalistic bias. Similarly, I would welcome if authors with Lithuanian nationalistic bias were not pushed forward to support nationalistic claims. Citing such authors in neutral context, without noting their bias is an evidence of bad faith and POV pushing. --Lysy 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good example with Edward Prus, I created a stub. He is certainly not somebody we should be citing much, and he has obviously a strong pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian bias. I am looking forward to seeing some editors admit that Kazimieras Garšva, for example, even has some bias...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alvydas Nikžentaitis (not Alvydas Nikzentaitis) is good scholar. In Novickas presented source, Nikžentaitis talks about remembrance culture as scholarly tool, he compares Lithuanian and Polish remembrance views, describing how events were regarded during time. Going back to specific book which is cited in this source, it should be stressed that was Nikžentaitis cites the second volume of this book (1999), while I in wiki used the first volume of it. I do not have, nor I read second volume of it, so my expertise regarding specific second volume is limited, however I read review somewhere around 2005-2006 about the second volume, and if I remember correctly the second volume was contributed by Polish and probably by German scholars. If I remember correctly there were presented and conflicting views regarding AK. As it looks Nikžentaitis used findings of this book to this paper as well. This impression strengthens and Nikžentaitis concluding remarks, when speaking about Polish view “Completely silent and about Armia Krajowa’s relationships with occupying German authority”. And yes P.P. Arūnas Bubnys respected Lithuanian historian, sadly his findings you in different occasions removed as “preposterous claim”, “controversial statements”. It is much telling pattern of editing – when findings suits to certain Polish POV findings became good, then not – it is become unreliable. And no, Piotrus, we don’t have any critical reviews, what you presented are only ultra nationalistic web pages (as this), who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars. Let me remind if you or anybody has more info about particularly used source (the first volume), the very best place list them is here . M.K. 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We presented far more sources critical of that book, Vilnija or KG (including western academic works and commentary by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), as any reader of that article can see. Anyway, let me ask you a single, simple question: what is your source for declaring Nasza Gazeta, the main publication of Association of Poles in Lithuania, the largest organization of Polish minority in Lithuania, and supported by Senate of Poland, an "ultra nationalistic web page who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars"?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
My findings presented here. Read them from top to bottom.M.K. 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Where you have failed to present a single positive review of this book, while I have presented several negative. But this is off topic here, I am asking you to provide references to back up your claim for declaring the Nasza Gazeta source an "ultra nationalistic web page who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars". All my arguments and adjectives are clearly backed by references. Yours are not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Section break
If you look where more carefully you would find some answers to your current queries. If you look even more carefully you will find and urge to translate including and this peace "findings". You also should familiarize yourself how book reviews looks like. Regarding your query of ultra nationalistic, ok lets see that Presidents adviser, Signatory of Act of Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania, member of various Lithuanian-Polish councils and yeah a Pole, Česlav Okinčicas, states - he stated about Nasza Gazeta that this "newspaper" unites cheapest local Bolshevist populism, saturated with lie and hypocrisy. As you insisting very much from now on I will call Nasza Gazeta as newspaper, which unites local Bolshevist populism, saturated with lie and hypocrisy, or shorter version - local Bolshevist newspaper. You maybe not noticed, but I am also trying to bring some light on your controversial block regarding your content opponent, could you replay (here) did you noticed, as requested, admin notice board or not? Thanks, M.K. 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And where, when and in what context would "Česlav Okinčicas" (whose name doesn't net a single Google hit) state this? Politicians are often critical of newspapers, but their criticism is rarely taken seriously. As for your other question, I see no reason to comment on it further, as Balcer has pointed out all the fallacies in your arguments on that subject quite well.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Be more self-dependent and try using different variants of name in dynamic internet and you will find more hints. I just wonder how contributor who writhing articles about LT Poles can not recognize this prominent to Poles person. And that saddens most that there are an efforts to continuously protect this Bolshevist newspaper. But lets back to the problem with your opponents block, sadly nobody is answered to raised concerns - did you ask and other sysops to look at this controversial block or not. This is important information and could shift situation, please respond on appropriate venue in workshop.M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about "Nasza Gazeta" but it's worth to note that Czesław Okińczyc was the owner of "Gazeta Wileńska" newspaper, a direct competitor of "Nasza Gazeta", so again, M.K, please be more careful selecting whom you cite and in what context. --Lysy 07:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
He is owner and of radio station as well, so if he will state critical opinion for instance on M1 we also should consider that he is doing this due to his business? Strange. One of the Okinčic goal was to present that there are and different Poles who supported Lithuania’s independence and not only loyal Communist regime supporters, and he was both critical and to Lenkų rinkimų akcija. His remarks are concurred not only by looking to this type of claims (which for some reason are not translated for a month now), but as well as historical perspective, regarding Polish good relationships with Communist regime, and even with newest examples of polish newspapers conduct in Lithuania. But this should go to appropriate venue. M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, as the owner of "Gazeta Wileńska" he's been also criticized for aggressive actions against another Polish newspaper "Kurier Wileński", so his comments on "Nasza Gazeta" are not surprising. This said, I do not know if his opinion on "Nasza Gazeta" was justified or not. BTW, since you know he is Polish, why do you use a Lithuanian translation of his name when you are writing in English ? --Lysy 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

MK as a scapegoat

Ban from a year from Eastern European topics? That's fucking ridicilous. Besides the fact that nobody involved in this arbcom deserves a ban, it's just plain stupid to ban someone from contributing to his favorite topic and sole reason being on Misplaced Pages. MK has very good contributions to Lithuania-related topics (like castles or FA Act of Independence of Lithuania)... and to abandon all that just for some minor skirmishes were his views clashes with Polish nationalism... And MK's contributions are not even the problem. This arbcom was started because of Piotrus and his behaviour.... P.S. I won't have internet access for about a week. Renata 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed the edits of MK very closely, but he appears to be the least disruptive party to the arbitration. There is nothing in his behaviour that merits a one-year ban, especially given the stressful background of the never-ending Polish-Lithuanian conflict peppered with a heavy dose of baiting on the part of his more experienced opponents. He makes useful mainspace contributions, too. Either there is a "general amnesty", or we single out a person that brought Piotr's behaviour to light and punish him for that. Now it appears as an oblique approval and encouragement of Piotr's frequently aggressive and bullying behaviour by David Gerard and his circle. Please reconsider. --Ghirla 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: singling out M.K. only for findings and remedy is not an optimal solution (even if it was him who started this ArbCom); I do agree here with Kirill that "that singling out any particular" is not worthwile: but instead of dropping that line of enquiry, per my previous comments, I instead eagerly await ArbCom fidings on my person, as well as on other editors, (considering ongoing problems). Specifics, not generalities, are needed to solve our problem.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think there are any major "ongoing problems", I only addressed Dr.Dan in his talk page. We are talking to each other as usual in a friendly manner that I believe both Dr.Dan and myself accept. Maybe I should have been rather using email for this communications. --Lysy 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, may I suggest that you tone down your remarks on Dan's talk page because, it looks like your remarks are used by Piotrus to panelized your friend Dr. Dan. Thanks, M.K. 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Dan, suggesting to continue our discussion on email, still he has chosen to continue in his talk page, which I respect. Are you suggesting that we should censor our discussion there because of the ongoing RfArb ? Specifically which remarks of mine would you like to see toned down ? --Lysy 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What, censor? Arbitration process was started to solve lasting problems and to find ways to avoid them in the future and I am convinced that your provocative actions like these are not helpful at all, as already noticed by three autonomous contributors. M.K. 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I consider his remark that your diff mentioned quite unfriendly towards myself, and representing a pattern that has been visible for over a year now. A pattern that I don't think anything other that an ArbCom ruling could end.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy issues raised by the proposed remedies

  • Banning/blocking editors based on their use of controversial sources (per MK's citation of Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija problems). To be consistent with this proposal, WP would need to apply sanctions to users who cite Ramsey Clark, since he acted as Saddam's defense attorney; users who cite Johnny Cochran, who defended OJ, or Clarence Darrow, since he defended Leopold and Lowe, and so forth. This does not go to the reliability of any particular source - just the proposed judgement here that citing controversial sources, including those who have defended convicted or indicted people, warrants a ban or block.
  • The use of experts to determine the reliablity of sources. How will this be implemented? Are there precedents in any other WP project areas? The more consensus and oversight, the better, seems to be the general philosophy here on WP; but since Eastern European issues are complex and unknown to many English-speaking contributors, fatigue sets in quickly. It's also a problem that many references are in Polish, Russian, Belarussian, Lithuanian, etc.
  • A counter-proposal: actively recruit more editors to these projects. Use some rhetoric to the effect that altho the situation is not as dire as that of the Balkans in the 1990s, we can all understand complex issues if we make the effort, and that it's worth our time and energy. Novickas 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the point. The problem is not in citing controversial sources but in the way they are applied. This said I can only repeat that in my opinion M.K does not deserve a ban, and I agree with Renata that nobody involved in this arbcom case does. --Lysy 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Req for clarification

I would like to ask Fred Bauder and James F. to clarify several points, primarily the criteria which make the following edits appear so drastically different to them:

  • this is qualified as a disruptive edit as well as "harassment", while the following false accusation of vandalism and threat by a sysop to punish opponent in a content dispute is considered OK.
  • this condemnation of ethic slurs is listed as disruptive, but the following accusation of the holocaust revisionism is considered perfectly acceptable.
  • this little remark made in compliance with WP:LIVING; WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR is branded as disruption, whereas Piotr's systematic campaign for removal of those references which don't buttress the Polish POV (see the evidence regarding Piotrus presented by Yury Tarasievich, Ghirlandajo, and myself) entails no criticism whatsoever.
  • My usage of presumably unreliable sources is condemned, but using Polish offensive and nationalistic web pages in mainspace ref No.3, ref No.6 (already mentioned by another contributor) seem to be OK.

I would be grateful to the Arbitrators if they specified what is so strikingly different between my edits and those of Piotrus, that Polish view edits are either sanctioned or amnestied, while Lithuanian view edits are singled out as disruptive and warranting a year-long ban. Thank you a lot for your attention, M.K. 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by lack of response to my request on the workshop talk page, the answer is obvious: because Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard. Or because the Polish POV is inherently correct, while the Lithuanian POV is false. Since no other arguments have been presented, we have to go with this theory. It is a far cry from my idea of arbitrating. Within several days User:Molobo, one of the greatest liabilities of Misplaced Pages, will be unleashed on the poor Lithuanians, so one feels pity for their plight. --Ghirla 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Molobo has been gone for a year, and there is no indication he is ever coming back. Could you please leave this favourite bogeyman of yours be, finally? Balcer 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have irrefutable evidence that he was editing all the time using a variety of IPs. --Ghirla 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Then those IPs should be blocked and his main account block extended.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will reflect on your suggestion. --Ghirla 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, could you satisfy my curiosity and tell me what is this "free pass from David Gerard" that I supposedly have?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd better ask him to explain his mysterious behaviour in this affair. Bishonen's and Geogre's requests did not entail any response. --Ghirla 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
But I am asking you, not him. What David does or doesn't do is his own business, what you accuse me of having (some "free pass" from him) is something I'd like to know more from the person this accusation arose (i.e. you).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop twisting my words. Having a free pass is not a crime, and I've never accused you of that. M.K.'s request and my reply were addressed to the Arbitrators. --Ghirla 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Twisting your words? I am simply asking you to explain the phrase "Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard". It's quite clear from that phrase that you accuse me of having that free pass; since I have no idea what this free pass would be I am asking you to elaborate on that term.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As usual, you readily see accusations where there are none. It's not my problem, is it? --Ghirla 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, do you really need to be having this conversation? Unless you can answer in the affirmative, please drop it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)