Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Eastern European disputes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piotrus (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 11 September 2008 (→{Write your assertion here}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:47, 11 September 2008 by Piotrus (talk | contribs) (→{Write your assertion here})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Piotrus abused his admin-status battling over Republic of Central Lithuania

On March 12/3 (depending on time-zone), Piotrus was blocked for a violation of the 3 revert rule . Piotrus had been edit-warring on Republic of Central Lithuania, along with User:Halibutt, "against" two or three Lithuanian users. Piotrus added edit-summaries such as "this was all discussed before and this is the preferred version", despite the fact 3 editors were reverting it. He was the only one to breach the technicality of the rule, and was blocked for doing so.

On the #admins irc channel Piotrus used his admin status to misrepresent his "opponents" and by doing so got his block lifted. User:FT2 summarized what took place in the public channel:

Roughly speaking, Piotrus states he has been blocked and that the block was placed by someone criticized for blocks at arbcom and suspected on an RFCU of IP puppetry on the article in question. He states that being blocked for reverting vandals is not good and claims that as an "experienced admin" he should be warned and does not deserve blocking. He describes the incident as possible sock IP(s) making disruptive edits and states the two users are "pov trolls" who have been parties at Arbcom, and that he knows they are sockpuppets and he is mostly sure he knows who of.

FT2 wrote a long summary of the case, from which this is drawn, and saves me regurgitating it:

Visiting IRC to ask for an unblock is fine, as would emailing unblock-l be. But his descriptions of why are grossly inaccurate, his statement that he should have different treatment from the norm when in fact he has breached a more demanding standard as an admin is slightly shocking, and his description of his opponents is questionable, and in fact has now been looked at by two checkusers who feel it is not by any means evident. (It should be noted that I am AGFing a bit here by assuming Piotrus genuinely did have this belief.) He also described a new version as "the preferred version" when in fact it was only his preferred version. In fact a more factual analysis of his claims are that these were not "vandalism" by any definition in WP:VANDAL

This is available at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive134#Analysis. Piotrus, incidentally, also misused rollback during this edit-war, claiming later that this anonymous editor's preferred version was "vandalism", a claim also made by Piotrus' revert-ally User:Halibutt , a charge both part of and separate from the other charges mentioned here.

Piotrus' Holocaust in Lithuania caused bad faith

I may not have the endless supply of good-faith that is so frequently the appearance of admins new to situations, but this article was created by Piotrus almost immediately after returning from his block. Although a valid article topic, Piotrus knows that Holocaust-perpetration is one of the most sensitive historical topics in Lithuanian society. That it contained much selective material irritating to Lithuanian users and inspiring of bad-faith was as predictable as a Zimbabwean election, the results being evidenced by "tweaks" such as this (for the scores of others, just navigate the adjacent diffs). And not surprisingly, many tweaks contained hot-headed edit-summaries, and so Piotrus got seemingly what he wanted. User:Lokyz lost restraint often enough to give Piotrus enough diffs, which he was gathering in his secret page, to launch what appears in hindsight to be his clearly planned revenge arb-enforcement thread, the one that resulted in Lokyz' block. Three users, User:Irpen, (and two admins) User:Elonka and User:Angusmclellan expressed the view that Piotrus' diff-list was misleading (effectively dishonest, assuming Piotrus read as he was gathering) and that Piotrus was more interested in obtaining sanction against Lokyz than anything more constructive.(see comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive19#Lokyz).

In addition to slandering the admin (see above) User:TigerShark (and compare his attempts to exploit, assuming he didn't instigate, the slander-only account User:Koretek for his statement), he also apparently sent TigerShark a nasty email lecturing and threatening him, all because he enforced WP:3RR.

Piotrus uses meatpuppetry for edit-wars

Whenever I've had a disagreement with Piotrus (not as often as perhaps would be convenient in these circumstances), I have noticed that his typical editing behaviour is to revert, scurry to leave messages on the talk pages of users he hopes will be friendly, await a sympathetic comment or two, and use that as an excuse to ignore all the significant issues raised while disingenously invoking policies he must know to be irrelevant and generally being confrontational and disingenuous.(e.g. this and the recent dispute in full (and his contribs in and around his posts there). He appears, in essence, to be a tendentious user with lots of experience as well as the sysop powers he acquired back in the day when standards were ... erm ... different.

Back in the day, Piotrus (primarily, but hardly solely) used - and oversaw - the Polish wikipedian's noticeboard as a recruiting ground for edit-warring tag-teams. This can be verified merely by checking the first half-dozen or so archives of Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board. See for instance ] where presiding above the board is a template called "Articles needing attention", in fact a list of on-going edit-wars involving Polish and non-Polish users (mostly German and Russian). In fairness, this was mostly updated by User:Molobo, but Piotrus nevertheless frequently used the board to direct hoped-for meatpuppets to assist in his disputes, mainly those with the prolific Russian editor Ghirlandajo. This in its most extreme and blatant forms ended a little more than gradually when User:Elonka turned her attention to it and gradually shamed Piotrus out of it doing it so blatantly (see, for instance, here).

One would naturally expect that, unless Piotrus somehow developed some moral objection to this kind of thing, it would have continued offline. Email is always there, and Piotrus regularly chats to fellow Polish-speaking editors on IM (see the following requests , and recently during the Boleslaw I dispute, . From what I can gather, usually when Piotrus has run out of reverts in an edit war, the fourth reverters are most often Tymek, Molobo and Darwinek. However, just the other day it was User:Alden Jones, who magically appeared after a 3 week + absense just after Piotrus' third successive revert was reversed. Piotrus subsequently came up with a story that Alden was a loving fan who reverts on his own accord through devotion to him, despite Piotrus' alleged protests. However, against this inventive story are the following:

It is more likely, esp given the timing, that Alden was on IM than that he was following Piotrus' contributions at that so convenient point in time
Alden confessed on his talk page that he went there on the request of another user, the only candidates being Piotrus or his guardian angel (of the five editors, he and Alden were the only one reverting to his version) presumably at Piotrus' instigation, that someone else asked him ... obviously, ehm, Piotrus' guardian angel]
Piotrus' condemnation of Alden's revert, despite a long history of reverting for Piotrus and a claim made to Renata that they were good friends, was made in public only after, and on the same day as, Alden had made that confession.

Besides, this is only the most recent instance of his use, Piotrus revert-warring over Trakai Voivodeship in early June:

and ...

Alden Jones reverts to Piotrus, "as Piotrus", 21:41, June 7, 2008

Same thing, this time late July, on Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland:

then, the hero worshipper comes to the rescue

Alden Jones, reverting to Piotrus, 21:33, July 30, 2008

For another instance, in July, see Revision history of Truce of Vilna. You can check Alden Jones' contribs for more; it will also be seen that he does nothing more than help Piotrus, usually at convenient points most easily explained by being requested on IM. Anyways ... I got a word-count limit here, and so I'll end it and leave (for now) other stuff for others. I'd welcome arb requests to supply more evidence or to elaborate on specific points. But to conclude, Piotrus, while his abuse of his \admin powers is limited these days, abuses his admin status, chronically violates the spirit of WP:BATTLE, and has demonstrated such a lack of good-conduct and personal integrity that his fitness to retain such status must be questioned by all reasonable wikipedians.

Evidence presented by Piotrus

Replies to meatpuppetry allegation

Meatpuppetry: In addition to my reply in opening statement addressing Alden, who is somewhat of a ~~basket~~special case (see here), I would also like to add that I am not stupid :) Long after the argument "Piotrus uses GG for evil purposes" was first raised I've continued to ask new Polish editors, on en Misplaced Pages, if they use Gadu-Gadu. I've done so publicly instead of emailing them because I've nothing to hide. I will not be cowed into hiding my good faithed actions (if I truly meant to run a cabal, I'd do it much more discreetly). As I wrote, I talk about Misplaced Pages and other issues with various editors (not only Poles), some of whom I now count among friends. Sometimes we talk about recent articles and events on Misplaced Pages just as most active editors do. Never, however, we do so with the intent of "let's start an edit war on some article, bait editor X into 3RR and make the life of a particular group of miserable", as was suggested.

Sometimes I look at edits by my friends, edit or comment on their new articles (for recent examples, see my edits at Polish Radio Lwów, an article I found after looking at Tymek recent contribs, or see this DYK notification, a result of a DYK nomination I made after I saw a promising new article created by Halibutt, which I found by looking at his recent contribs). I've also created and monitor the Portal:Poland/New article announcements and presumably I am not alone. I am sure some of them do the same thing: look at what their friends edit and help out (and vast majority of such edits are not reverts, Alden being the unfortunate exception). That Alden found something to revert (on three occasions - consider that all that fuss is really about three reverts...) is not surprising, since (being in the Top 50 most active Wikipedians), simple numbers explain that I am relatively often involved in some controversial disputes. So three times he looked at my contribs and he found instances where I was recently reverted and joined in... you hardly need a conspiracy to explain that (and how often did he log in and not seen something to revert?). In any case, he is not a very efficient meatpuppet (A, he "helped" me only three times, and B, a good meatpuppet would not be so evident - again, if I wanted to have a meatpuppet, I'd have enlisted somebody, ekhm, less naive :). I doubt there is any cabal: as I've explained here, the kid probably misunderstood some good faith explanation why he should not "help" me that way... There is no bad intent anywhere, rather - there's a normal activity and cooperation, found between any members of a reasonably active WikiProject (and Polish noticeboards doubles as WikiProjectPoland). That WikiProject is no cabal, we were not shamed into changing our name, we did it because it was a logical move and we wanted more editors to join us, not only Polish nationals. Once most noticeboards had a name suggesting they are only for a given nationalities, this has changed and I was one of the people who suggested this early on. Not all noticeboards have done so, but I've no intent to believe that (for example) Misplaced Pages:Australian Wikipedians' notice board is an Australian cabal :) This was also discussed long time ago at in this mediation.

Finally: since IMs logs are private and often don't exist, the accusation that one uses IMs "for evil purposes" can never be proven (as Biophys pointed out below); on the other hand, I believe we have ample evidence here of "bad faith" and "slander" accusing Polish editors of "evil cabalism" (and me of being the arch puppeteer). This continuing slander can be easily proven and should be penalized (it is damaging to our community, as, surprisingly enough, some people don't like to be accused of being part of a cabal; I know at least one Polish editor who told me "in future I want to be an admin, and if I hang around Polish noticeboard, the usual crowd will veto my RfA because of that". A smiliar attitude can be seen in this statement by Poeticbent. To put an end to this, I would like ArbCom to consider stating whether there is a Polish cabal, whether accusations of such constitute personal attacks, and whether such accusations going on for years and several ArbCom merit some form of civility parole.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Special case: Boodlesthecat

As much as I dislike mud slinging, Boody's disruptive behavior has only increased since the start of this proceedings. I find his most recent comment way over the top in confrontational battleground creation, and thus - since he already voluntarily involved himself here - I am forced to lay out a case against him. He is not a part of any tag team, he is a singular editor who had some brushes with me recently, and who apparently found out about this ArbCom and decided to air his grievances. Alas, if he wants to bring ArbCom's attention to himself... I guess we should oblidge him.

I find Prom3th3an's (mediator's between Boody and several other editors) statement telling. Boody commonly assumes bad faith and posts variou accusations, for example: "Piotrus came into the article and bombed it with 16 fact tags, effectively defacing it. Piotrus has a habit of following me around and challeging my edits, based not on the quality of the edits but apparently on some form of animosity." (anybody can judge for themselves whether this series of edits, in an article I created some time ago, is following Boody and bombing his articles out of animosity...). His attitude culminated as noted here, when he send me several offensive emails ("Your editing tactics are abhorrent and disgraceful for a so-called teacher", "you are such a dick"). He is not shy of edit warring (see his blocklog). He has harassed greg (I have seen few so venomous posts on wiki in my 4+ year career) with accusations of antisemitism (more on that below), and recently started harassing Tymek (see here and scroll down for more "warnings", most blatant one calling a 3RR report a violation of good faith...). He made little attempt to compromise so far in the month-long mediation (linked above), showed no remorse or apology for his personal attacks or revert warring, and criticized all of the blocks he got as a work of a Polish cabal (just read here). This indicates to me that his confrontational attitude will only get worse before it gets better.

Since he arrived in the articles on Polish-Jewish history, several edit wars occurred and previously stable articles were protected. While I've tried to reach out to him, he posts personal attacks on my talk and elsewhere. If Boody could be given a topic ban from the area of Polish-Jewish history, much peace would be restored to this fragment of EE issue, although some form of civility parole should be also adopted, as his attitude is very confrontational and responsible for battleground creation (before Boody, for example, we were somehow able to raise History of the Jews in Poland to a FA status, without any major incivil disputes; after his arrival it became one of the protected articles, with edit warring and bad faith accusations of antisemitism on talk).

Finally, regarding greg and boody disputes: I disapprove of greg's rather occasional but strong worded criticisms, and support a request to him to refactor his posts for more civility and for him to monitor his performance. On the other hand, I see his attitude much less problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays. There is an important issue of whether greg was baited (as I believe he was) into his more emotional statements by Boody's confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction (analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where I believe those editors first met, should provide relevant evidence to address that). In fact, I find Boody's repeated slandering accusations of antisemitism, directed at greg, to be very serious: calling somebody an antisemite should not be done lightly (it's probably one of the worst mud balls out there), and in this case it seems to me to be building a straw man (since I don't believe greg is an antisemite) and a guilt by association (since Boody has implied that anybody who defends greg is an antisemite). In any case, both greg and Boody should be cautioned to be more civil, and Boody in particular should be cautioned to avoid labeling others as anti-semites. Please see also related comments on Boody's accusations by Prom3th3an (linked above) and Vecrumba here.

I would like to however disagree with Greg regarding user Malik Shabazz: other than the strange incidient in which Malik gave Boody a barnstar in the direct aftermath of Boody getting a block for 3RR and sending me the "dick" emails, I found Malik to be a very reasonable editor, and his input in Polish-Jewish history, including his constructive moderating of Polish POV, without offending the Polish editors or assuming bad faith on their part, is an example of what Boody should do. I therefore strongly defend Malik's good name as a constructive editor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deacon/Calgacus

As I wrote in my opening statement, I am rather disappointed by his confrontational attitude. He did not try to discuss anything with me on my talkpage or via mediaton before launching this ArbCom (the entire "previous attempts of dispute resolution" section listed ancient (year+) issues not relevant to his opening statement). I've addressed his controversial behavior in the content dispute that sparked this ArbCom in the second para of my statement and I'd like to add it to evidence (instead of copying it here). While accusing me of WP:OWN - when in fact I've attempted to merge our versions and kept almost all of his changes (see the second para of my statement linked above for diffs) - it was Deacon who simply reverted (, , , , , , ) to his version (aided by a mysterious sock), erasing even my cosmetic copyediting (see my complain here, point 9 at the very bottom). For few weeks it looked to me like his goal was not to allow me to edit the article (one I brought up to a MILHIST A-class) at all. I believe that the entire recent talk there (from here down) is a good example of how "battlegrounds" develop: I assume good faith, maintain civility and try to reach a consensus, asking for outside opinions, making progress in merging our versions due to input of other civil and good faithed editor (ex. Angus), but personal attacks, refusal to compromise and constant reverts by Deacon make progress much more difficult and much more stressful than it has to be. It was only recently (Sept 7) that Deacon seems to have accepted the merger of our versions (thank you, Angus, for the unofficial mediation).

I am seriously disappointed with Deacon's conduct as an admin: several times he has joined Irpen's "criticize Piotrus and Polish editors" bandwagon (not surprising, considering his attitude as Calgacus). His defense of user Lokyz on AE, going as far as (in his opening statement to this ArbCom) to suggest that my complains against a user who accuses me of being on somebody's payroll are harassment of the Lithuanian editors, show a serious lapse of judgment in terms of who is the victim here (see also the first para of my statement to ArbCom for more evidence and arguments). I would like ArbCom to look at whether Deacon is fit to be an administrator, particularly to consider whether his judgment is good enough to allow him to contribute to AE (in his capacity as an admin, which he employs there with blocks and unblocks).

I also believe that statements by Lysy (here), Marting (here), Vecrumba (here) and Temer (here), shine more light on the Deacon-Piotrus issue and thus I am mentioning them and linking as evidence in this section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Irpen

Irpen has been found uncivil and biased against me in the past arbcom. We very, very rarely edit similar content anymore (due to his inactivity; for the pattern of past interactions, see evidence below by Biophys, and in a wider picture, past statement by Vrecumba), although Irpen still occasionally targets my content contributions with incivil comments (ex. here in April he popped out to accuse me of "hate for Soviet Union"). The main problem (albeit also lessened due to his recent inactivity) is that Irpen still habitually stalks me, questions my edits and slanders my name with various accusations (ex. in addition to his statement in this ArbCom, punctuating his recent inactivity, here (AE, March) "Piotrus maintains a black book on multiple contibutors off-line" ... "Piotrus, unhappy with the lack of quick action he was seeking shopped for a friendly closure at #admins today"). After last ArbCom, I politely asked him to stop it: He did not reply. Please note that I don't go around Misplaced Pages, creating bad faith battlegrounds in articles he edits, I don't forum shop to get him blocked or slander his good name, claiming he has violated x policies, is unfit to be here, or such. He, however, still does it; he has been doing it for years. I would this sniping to finally stop. His bad-faith actions are an unpleasant reward for my contributions to this project, and I am not the only victim: his attitude and actions have already chased valuable editors from this project: see my analysis of Balcer leaving, for example, and see an even larger scope analysis noted by Vecrumba here.

I would like the ArbCom to ask Irpen not to participate in discussing of my person - in other words, to issue a wiki restraining order. Further, given his history - like chasing Balcer off wiki after similar harassment - I believe there may be a need to formulate some ruling preventing Irpen from personally attacking, harassing and slandering other editors, since his confrontational attitutude does not seem limited to my person. Discuss content, not editors... he needs to be made to finally "get it".

Ghirla

While I am disappointed with Ghirla's sudden delurking and posting a criticism of me, mimicking the slandering spirit of Irpen's behavior above, I have had almost no problems with Ghirla since our last ArbCom. I hope it stays that way. That said, it should be noted that Ghirla still ocassionally delurks with battleground comments like this one. This should be discouraged in the manner similar to the one I've described above, less he is made to believe such behavior is acceptable.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Moreschi

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Evidence presented by Sciurinæ

Molobo and Koretek

Only a day after Deacon of Pndapetzim initiated the request for arbitration, a brand-new account by the name of Koretek (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created, which claimed to be a "not established user" and only tried to dismiss Deacon's request for arbitration on spurious evidence as an "attack by polonophobic". One of the shallow points was the emphasis on the fact that Deacon had himself renamed and was formerly known as Calgacus. I had seen something like that before - Molobo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) asked Deacon in March this year whether that was him and Deacon responded unambiguously affirmatively. After that, however, Molobo still wanted to point out to Piotrus and others that Deacon was no other than Calgacus: in a content dispute with Deacon as part of his comment against Deacon's point of view.

Molobo has reason to defend Piotrus, who in turns takes pains to defend Molobo against indef-blocks ( ). In addition, Molobo didn't appear to like Deacon particularly ( ). And moreover, Molobo had a history of attacking people as just being against Poles ( ). All of Koretek's supposed evidence consists of shameful (mis)interpretations that go along the lines of assuming that if you argue against one or a few Polish users or one historian, you must be doing this only because you hate Poles in general. You'll also find the same fallacy in this comment. Molobo and Koretek also have the same opinions - about a Polish name for the monarch: , about the correctness of criticism against the historian: , about the "polonophobic" element in Misplaced Pages () and the "antipolish" sentiment in general ( ), about a "Polish cabal": ("a very negative prejudice", "contrary to AGF", "attacking Polish editors as whole" ).

Molobo was also involved on all the relevant talk pages where the links point to and/or in the relevant disputes. In fact, he already immediately reported Deacon for the vulgar slip. The last accusation is no less ridiculous, the accusation of renaming himself in a cloak-and-dagger style to survive an Rfa. In reality, Deacon had himself renamed (linking his old talk page to the new user) many months after the unpleasant events at Talk:Jogaila. Again many more months later, two users nominated him at Rfa. He immediately mentioned that his former username was Calgacus and even that he had had unpleasant experiences at Talk:Jogaila (he mentioned the Jogaila affair even twice, like it was important) - and became an admin. The way Koretek portrayed it was a complete reversal of the truth, and Piotrus was only all too happy to buy into this, incorporating this shameless diff as the first in his essay.

I once noticed Molobo had been using a mass of sockpuppets in the last few months of his one-year block. The problem was that, then, he hadn't been editing with the main account since November 2006 () and as the IP was new and from the neighbouring city, old IP evidence was no use, going without IP evidence would possibly just be attacked by blank denial (eg), but I was probably foolish to simply leave the matter at that because by the time he had finally betrayed that his new IP was in line with the sock chain, a few months had already passed and therefore nothing could be done about that. A few days later Molobo brushed it under the carpet ( ) - and gone it was. Please consider using CU on Koretek in connection with Molobo. Sciurinæ (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Evidence presented by User:greg park avenue

Support User:Piotrus against the above mentioned adversary(ies). The evidence lies clear on the hand if I may use a German idiom, right here. I don't bother with our Lithuanian friends - they were pals or allies of us polacks since centuries - we always get along and will find common ground, mind just Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to try to impersonate negative stereotype of some particular minorities - a role they don't fit in. That must end once and for all, at least here on Misplaced Pages. I am for one state Israel/Palestine, see my user page, not very popular idea yet - there is no common ground there - both sides try to undermine each other using all possible ways available including inciting hate against each other. The ones most active in English Misplaced Pages edit warriors use this tool to antagonize Polish, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, Jews etc against each other. They the provocateurs in my experience descend from the former priviledged special forces class known in Poland as SB (2 million), in USSR as KGB (??? zillion), stripped from the prominence after the fall of the Soviet Union and holding the grudge for that, still they have access to significant funds in form of fat social security checks and unlimited time to spend behind their own PC bitching about almost anything and anybody while their younger fellow citizens must struggle to survive, forget about owning a PC. Polish fora say Onet.pl are full of them. Hundreds of bullshit comments delivered every minute even in the middle of the night. Didn't look at that chickenshit lately, don't have to, next time I access English Misplaced Pages, I'm afraid it'll be the same or very close to that until someone does something about it. My best advice is to follow Piotrus comment - strictly enforce WP:CIVIL or give up this project. greg park avenue (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

More evidence regarding User Boodlesthecat disruptive and uncivil activity - this section was added after the user in question sent hate mail to Piotrus which included words you are such a dick see User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite/archive18#How_WP:CIV_works. These diffs are just samples of his comments posted on Talk of Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz following his obsessive reverts: , , . Most of my posts were called anti-semitic rants and ALL MY EDITS of this article which were many see were reverted by this user or his mirror accounts User:Malik Shabazz or User:Malcolm Schosha etc. see . Not even one of my edits survived. For Malik's disruptive activity see - this barnstar was granted after the hate mail mentioned above was sent to Piotrus while Boody was temporarily banned (48 hrs only). greg park avenue (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppetry User:Boodlesthecat = User:Malik Shabazz

When someone maintains more than one account, it happens all the time he or she forgets to log out from one account and log in to another account when switching the identity, and then he sends a post written by one person but signed by another. The classical example you can find here:

I have no problem adding additional reliable sources that put forth other estimates, I was clearly objecting to outright removal of the figures given by Friedrich. I doubt if we will find a "most popular 'average' estimate", and probably will have to cite a few reliable sources and their estimates. User:Boodlesthecat 18:05, 12 August 2008

That's fine. Are we ready to unprotect the article? User:Piotrus 18:57, 12 August 2008

It's okay with me. My objection was the replacement of the range with the single estimate. Malik Shabazz 02:51, 13 August 2008

It's not a decent sockpuppet. Both accounts are disruptive, rude and abusive. Boodles accuses of antisemitism almost all editors who are against him: And threatening to block me for complaining about vicious, anti-semitic attacks against me? . How attacks against him might be anti-semitic, if there is no shred of evidence he is of Jewish descent, neither on his user page, nor in his attitude. Jewish editors react usually like that: , not like Boodles who obviously is an impostor. Most his edits in mainspace are reverts - removing decent material, restoring junk. It's a major disruption to Misplaced Pages in selective areas, and it should end, earlier the better. I hope the other honest editors would revise their opinion about Piotrus until they don't want to be put into the same bag together with the Boodles/M Shabazz team (though I think is only a tip of iceberg), and ask themselves what side they want to be - Misplaced Pages (Piotrus) side or the troll side? greg park avenue (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Evidence presented by User:Biophys

Part 1. Tag-team accusations are difficult to prove

I do believe that tag-teams exist, but this is difficult to prove, as reflected in that discussion. For example, Deacon of Pndapetzim and Irpen are making similar reverts in the same article . Deacon of Pndapetzim never edited this article before and he did not justify his edit at the article talk page. But does it prove the tag-teaming? Alden Jones and Piotrus also made similar changes in articles. Does it prove the tag-teaming? The both Irpen and Deacon of Pndapetzim filed cases against Piotrus. Does it prove anything? No. This only proves that Deacon of Pndapetzim wanted to help Irpen and that Alden Jones wanted to help Piotrus. Nothing more. Or perhaps this simply proves nothing.

Part 2. A case when tag-teaming is more obvious

But let's consider a more obvious case, when two users openly agreed to help each other, and then conducted a synchronized edit-warring over tags/templates, rather than over content issues. Here, Irpen openly asks User:Relata refero to help him out with Holodomor denial in the "tag-battle":

Round 1, insertion of "multiple issues/OR" template - 15 identical reverts by Irpen

Relata does exactly the same, 15 identical reverts:

, and more.

Round 2, deletion of "Holodomor" template - 7 identical reverts by Irpen

Relata does the same, 5 identical reverts:

There are ~20 identical reverts here by two users over tags or a template, after they made a preliminary agreement. Is that tag-teaming? Compare this with only three reverts in the case of alleged Alden Jones -Piotrus collaboration. Moreover, Piotrus, did not ask for help from Alden Jones.Biophys (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part 3. Irpen follows edits by Piotrus, which is not helpful

Piotrus and Irpen were often painted as two equally “nationalistic” users. This is not so. All cases I know about followed the following scenario: (1) Piotrus makes a significant contribution or creates a new article; (2) Irpen comes to re-edit the article and to challenge Piotrus with various issues that are partly legitimate, but in fact lead to a huge disruption of productive work by Piotrus and others. Some of Irpen's comments and minor corrections are usually good, but the disruption cased by a prolonged discussion and edit warring usually outweights the benefits if any. I can provide only a few examples, since my interaction with the both users was very limited.

Example 1. Defense of Brest Fortress. This defense was an icon of the Soviet war history, something everyone in the Soviet Union was proud of. But it was “Polish nationalist” Piotrus who created and greatly expanded this article about Russian heroes starting from the old version of Brest fortress. Now, it is the turn of Irpen. After making several minor changes in the article, he began an exhausting discussion with Piotrus. One of main contention points is the fate of main celebrity, Russian hero Piotr Gavrilov who was later imprisoned to Gulag.

In the beginning of this discussion Irpen admits that Gavrilov was sent to Gulag. However later Irpen changes his position in favor of an old Soviet propaganda version (that Gavriolov was never imprisoned) . Unfortunately, Piotrus does not know Russian and can only use Western sources. He asks me for translation. After being confronted with Russian sources about the imprisonment of Gavrilov , Irpen still disputed the sources and achieved the elimination of Gavrilov’s imprisonment from the “Fortress” article.

Note that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (who brought this case) was also engaged in this discussion making “funny” comments like that. I have no idea what “porno” he is talking about. Finally, it was “Polish nationalist” Piotrus who created another article about Russian hero Piotr Gavrilov.

Example 2. Przyszowice massacre. This article is about an important but a local event. Therefore, it was described mostly in the Polish press. The sources obviously satisfy WP:Verifiability. An extremely long, exhaustive, and completely unfounded discussion has been initiated by a banned user Vlad fedorov and by Irpen . Even asking for 3rd opinions did not help much. An extensive edit warring between Vlad fedorov and several other users followed. Such a waste of time!

Part 4. Deletions of data from scholarly sources by Irpen

Although I had few interactions with Irpen, that experience was very frustrating. "Main" article of Irpen is Holodomor (based on the number of his edits). This article is about the Ukrainian famine, and I think it is really terrible. This article simply has no narrative, "factual" section. It does not explain what had happen, but discusses such contentious questions as “who was guilty?” or “was it genocide or not?” Even worse, this article is based on a lot of Russian and Ukrainian sources by authors no one knows about. Looking at that, I tried to bring a book specifically about these events written by the best Western scholar on the subject, Robert Conquest (he wrote ~20 books on Russian history). But the source was immediately deleted by Irpen on the totally false pretense of the book being outdated (please look at edit summaries in the diffs): . I spent some time at the article talk page, but finally gave up and decided never edit this article again. I am not as persistent as Piotrus.

Part 5. Reply to FloNight

FloNight said about this case: "Accept to look at all involved editors and investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies". Obviously, the best organized strategy to win a significant number of content disputes is to "disable" all active and knowledgeable users who hold an opposite position on the issues. The "disabling" can include blocks, editing restrictions, or driving the undesirable user away, so he would finally leave WP. Clearly, all users who initiated this and previous Piotrus cases (including Deacon) and those who strongly criticized Piotrus had significant content disputes with Piotrus. More specifically, I can count at least four strategies:

Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming (my Part 1. above), accusations of antisemitism, etc.
Extensive edit warring by teams (Part 2.) (see this excellent essay by Deacon)
Chasing someone through a number of articles (Part 3.).
Outright deletion of data from scholarly books (Part.4).Biophys (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Stor stark7

this has been made into policy by being linked to from here. Piotrus actions should be viewed in light of that.

Serious POV pushing

My friction with Piotrus originates with his oft-time support for Molobo. Molobo follows me even into the Pacific. and Alliance shopping there there. (My reply by the way)

Bloody Sunday (1939)

It started with this little Piotrus & Molobo real-time charade on the talk page.. What it in reality revolved around was the review by Professor Richard Blanke of two Polish books (JSTOR link) that Piotrus seemingly wanted to get rid of, for example by claiming it did not exist. The problem seems to be that the book reviewer identifies that the the 5th column theory was a Polish Communist regime official thesis, and that the reviewer dismisses it as Polish communist and nationalist propaganda. (He is very critical of the reviewed Polish book)

After Piotrus many edits to the Bloody Sunday article the review remains there as source for a number of sentences, some erroneously as far as I can tell, but strangely no mention is made of the reviewers critique as propaganda of the quasi official Polish position promoted by the communist dictatorship and still followed by many Polish historians. Only close to the very end of the article, and using another source, is a very timid mention of "bias of communist era Polish historiography".

To quote from the source, on the works of the Western Institute, a prolific Polish issuer on Germany related works:

"anti-German slant of most of its projects have reflected an unpopular, Soviet-imposed regime's belief that to perpetuate the idea of eternal German-Polish enmity was key to its own efforts to justify that regime's existence in Polish eyes." "According to this quasi-official thesis, Nazi Germany instructed the German population of Bydgoszcz and surrounding areas to congregate in the city and mount a "diversionary" attack on Polish forces. The problem with this work is that other historians, "third-party" as well as German, present a pretty good case for seeing this event quite differently."

A causal glance at the article might give the impression that it now is neutral, unless one realizes that what the article presents as an equal weight argument between German scholars and Polish scholars is in fact an argument between Democratic German and Democratic 3rd party scholars, against Polish scholars who for 50 years followed the Party line, and as the reviewer pointed out some Poles such as Jastrzebski still regurgitate the party line even after the advent of freedom of expression.

Recruiting help to Bromberg

Operation Himmler (Abuse of sources)

Piotrus used the book review as a source in another article too. , where he restated the communist thesis (see whats hidden at the end of the very long edit). Note that no mention whatsoever is made of the used sources critique of this quasi-official Polish Communist regimes thesis nor that German and other neutral historians dispute it, and in fact the way he wrote it makes it look like the review instead confirms the whole sentence when in fact it only support the "inflated to 58,000" part.

That's abuse of sources, and very heavy POV pushing.

Accusations of Nazism and of blackening Polands reputation

Nazi accusations No.1 "neutral version restored, Nazi whitewashing reverted..."

Considering this rule I'm curious to why Piotrus has received no warning since he directly accused me of being a Nazi. All I had done was after an anons blanking restore to the version that Piotrus had previously agreed upon in March after I had been forced to ask for 3rd opinion due to his behavior.

Use of - or approval of - sock puppets.

This edit was left unchallenged, and this is reminiscent of the 2 actions of this sock puppet account, first here and also here. In the second case at Bloody Sunday accusing my edits of "propaganda". Rather than reverting this obvious vandalism edit this "user" was welcomed by Piotrus and the revert used as basis for further edits by Piotrus.

Nazi accusations No.2

After my encounter with Piotrus at Bloody Sunday, and his help to Molobo at other articles I tried to get some help at the Admins forum. This only resulted in Piotrus launching a Nazi accusation against me as defense: "in my experience 99% of edits from this periodically editing account involve whitewashing (or plainly removing) references to Nazi crimes during WWII". My response. .

Indirect Neo Nazi accusation

Accusing an IP of being "likely a sock of some neo-Nazi" and then requesting check user for that IP against me and Scurinae. --Stor stark7 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping and Accusation of black washing Poles...

This accusation, apparently directed at me. And some associated forum shopping. . Odd in light of this notice to Molobo at the end of his 1 year block, a notice never enforced by the way.

To sum up, Piotrus crosses the line, he often hides it well under a blanket of other edits, but at least he should not be allowed to do it while wearing the Armour of respectability that adminship for better or worse provides, especially not when accusing people of being Nazis when they reinstate previously agreed-upon text....--Stor stark7 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Boodlesthecat

"Special case" Boodlesthecat's response to Piotrus

First, let me thank the Academy for this "special case" award. Now, let's explore point by point.

Piotrus finds mediator Prom3th3an's statement "telling," although he's not telling what he found telling. Others also found Prom3th3an's statement of interest, enough to issue Prom3th3an this unambiguous warning
My complaint about Piotrus' article defacement by fact tag bombing (sixteen tages!) speaks for itself. This is not the first time Piotrus has defaced an article like this. It wasn't acceptable in the past, and its not acceptable now
Although this sort of editing tactic might be an improvement from the edit-war-file-a-3RR tactic that Piotrus and his allies used to prefer, which seems to have ceased now that this arb is scrutinizing some of these tactics. Although Tymek seems to have not gotten the email about not using that tactic any more.
My WP:CIVIL warnings to Tymek are self explanatory. I will take further action if Tymek continues to make false accusations like those I have deatiled on his talk page in the warnings.
Piotrus claims I have "harassed greg with accusations of antisemitism." Actually, concern about Greg's Jew baiting is becoming a wider community concern. Framing this as me against Greg is transparently false. Note also, for those unaware, Greg's apparent threat of violence against an admin here.
Piotrus claims "Boody has implied that anybody who defends greg is an antisemite." A) Please show a diff where I made that "implication," or kindly remove that defamatory claim, and B) what I actually have, and continue to imply is that Piotrus explicitly defends Greg--to the point of abusing his admin power and threatening to block me for removing a serious BLP violation by Greg (upheld HERE).
Piotrus amazingly claims "before Boody, for example, we were somehow able to raise History of the Jews in Poland to a FA status, without any major incivil disputes." I will, as the Bible instructs us, assume good faith and assume Piotrus simply made a big boo boo here with that accusation, rather than proffering a bald faced lie. Check the record, Piotrus. The article failed feature article review on April 25, 2008 (mainly because it had been wrecked by edit warring). Note also that I did not make a single edit to the article until June 18, 2008, (yes, that would be 2 months later) where I made a minor edit that was reverted 3 minutes later (giving me a forewarning of what was to come, although my edit is now upheld, as are about 99.9% of the edits I've made to that article). Piotrus also rather immodestly even though it was clearly a collaborative effort by a number of editors at the time).
Piotrus claims that he tried to "reach out" to me. Actually, his main "reaching out" is illustrative of another tactic of his--trying to play his perceived enemies against each other. Piotrus has tried to solicit my help in his border war with the Lithuanians, although I had to beg off.
A splendid example of playing perceived enemies off against each other is his contrasting of editor Malik Shabazz' "constructive" style (and I agree with him there) with my supposed disruptions. Let me remind Piotrus of some of Malik's own comments on the modus operandi of Piotrus and his team that Malik posted not long ago here:
"It takes two to tango, Piotrus. You are just as rigid in your position as Boodlesthecat is, so please don't act as though he's the problem. You and several other editors seem determined to white-wash Polish antisemitism, or to blame it on the Jews, and Boodlesthecat brings quality sources that refute your assertions. You're not an innocent victim here."

I have always respected Malik's judgement, and I am glad that Piotrus does too! Hopefully he will take Malik's words to heart.

Oh, and yes, I sent an unkind an inexcusable email to Piotrus for which I've apologized on a few occasions rudely accusing him of dikdom (and despite Piortus' comical mention of the "dick" emails, there was only one email anointing thusly and rudely). Others have been kind enough to note, without excusing it, some of my possible reasons for such rudeness.
Open challenge to Piotrus or anyone else. Show me any improper edits I have made to any of the disputed articles. In attempting to address the "white-wash" that Malik notes above, it has been the case that the vast majority (quite near 100%) of my edits have withstood the attacks of Piotrus and his teammates because they are valid, and have made a modest contribution to improving this project. The challenge is open. Boodlesthecat 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person