Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/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:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Eastern European mailing list

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 17 October 2009 (clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:47, 17 October 2009 by MyMoloboaccount (talk | contribs) (clarify)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)


Archives

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


Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Important — please note

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Misplaced Pages Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


User Molobo unblocked for the purposes of participating in this case

User:Molobo, one of the list members, was blocked for supposed sock-puppeting (in an investigation involving "secret evidence" that may or may not be related to the present case). I propose that he is temporarily unblocked for the purpose of participating in this case, making his statement and so on. Of course, he'd be banned from editing articles not related to this case, although I think he should also be allowed to make an edit here .radek (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You should post this in the workshop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll copy this to workshop for you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed principles

I've posted the proposed principles early to help guide the collection of evidence and discussion. I do not expect that any findings of fact or remedies will be posted for a few weeks still, since more evidence (and examination of that evidence) is likely to be forthcoming.

Those principles, however, should give a good idea of what the Committee will be looking at in the weeks to come; and some of my colleagues may well propose a few more until then. — Coren  19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Question 1. I have a question about Off-wiki communication. This all sounds logical, but I had absolutely no idea that anything you say off-wiki can be interpreted as "coordination". Do we have any instructions about this? I saw only the rule about canvassing ("sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion") off-wiki, but I personally never send such messages through this email list. And my vote under no circumstances was influenced by any announcements. I was usually opposed to any suggestions by Piotrus during last month, for example.Biophys (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Question 2. Also, I never acted as someone's meatpuppet. Even such suggestion sounds offensive. We are all well-established editors here. I admit that Polish editors (for example) have more "uniform" oppinions than me and Piotrus, as one can see in many votes. They often strongly agree with each other, regardless to way of their communication and including Polish editors who never participated in this list. "Meatpuppets"? No, they simply share a similar POV.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that those are the principles most relevant to the case; they are not findings of fact. — Coren  22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is understood. I should not be talking about anyone's personal guilt. But a lot of things seem to be rather general. We all agree that on-wiki collaboration is a good thing. But what's wrong with off-wiki collaboration? OK, I will suggest a couple of principles below.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Canvassing principle

Does it really apply when the users could reasonably be expected to participate in the disputes in question on their own anyway, due to the scope of their interests, their watchlists, public watchlists and so on? My impression was that WP:CANVASS prohibits partisan recruiting from outside, because otherwise the outcome is not really affected. The list might be a forum "mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience", but it was just as well a forum of users who had already been involved and would monitor the topic area on their own. It was probably at times hard to believe that e.g. I or Mosedschurte (talk · contribs)or Peltimikko (talk · contribs) or a number of other editors have never coordinated with this list, yet we haven't indeed (well, at least I haven't), which shows that no assumption of off-wiki coordination is necessary to explain many of the patterns. Actually, as User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/North-East Europe AE threads demonstrates, despite the existence of the list, at least at AE most of the Polish participants showed little involvement in the Baltic cases, and vice-versa. Colchicum (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

making list of "opponents" ... goes counter

Whilst I am also opposed to the exclusionary rule, I am afraid this piece is going to stretch the jurisdiction of ArbCom a bit too far, which is not only impractical, but also morally flawed. What if one kept black books in the mind rather than on paper? Surely I do, and let's not be hypocritical, many others do. Would that go "counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia" too? In my opinion, private off-wiki activity by itself has nothing to do with on-wiki atmosphere. Judge real on-wiki damage, it is not that there is a shortage of it, and not private and closeted activity outside. Sure, the latter can be used as evidence of on-wiki disruption, but not judged as disruptive by itself. If a general notion of this kind is agreed in principle, I would like to see such a principle listed here, because some of the principles create the opposite impression. Colchicum (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Judge real on-wiki damage. Exactly. And I want to stress the word damage. The last time I checked, WP:IAR is still a policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Colchicum are you saying you disagree with the statement "making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punished perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia"? I can't fathom why anyone would object to that. No one should be making a list of "enemies" be it on Misplaced Pages, on a mailing list, or in your own mind (actually this is a pretty good rule not just in Misplaced Pages but in real life, as this guy eventually learned). Anyone who has an actual list (whether they are conscious of it or not) needs a serious wiki-break. And obviously the jurisdiction of the ArbCom doesn't extend into a private mailing list or an editor's mind, but that doesn't mean we can't state basic principles. For example assume good faith is a core behavioral guideline, but obviously no one can get in your head or my head and make us assume good faith, it's just an approach the community strongly encourages editors to adopt for reasons that are incredibly obvious to most of us. When there is evidence that someone is not assuming good faith they tend to get called on it. No one can force you or me to not make a list of our enemies, but the proposed principle simply points out that doing that is WP:BAD, and suggests that if evidence exists that you or I made such a list somewhere we would probably get called on it. Again, the idea that that is even debatable is somewhat shocking to me, and in general the argument that "private off-wiki activity by itself has nothing to do with on-wiki atmosphere" is rather absurd even in theory and, this case might well end up concluding, demonstrably false in reality.
What does WP:IAR have to do with anything here Piotrus? I find 9 times out of 10 when that policy is invoked it's for an unjustified reason, and I can't imagine how IAR relates to a principle saying that enemies lists are bad (sometimes you need them to help the project???), but maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
My point, Bigtimepeace, is that the only thing ArbCom (as well as Misplaced Pages admins and so on) are entitled to prevent is on-wiki disruption. It can take off-wiki activities as evidence, but it should have no authority to rule over them. "making list of "opponents" ... goes counter" is just an alarming example of the latter. Colchicum (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom Committee already ruled that one can collect evidence, off-wiki, for dispute resolution (25.4) and it is of no concern to ArbCom. I will however say that calling such an evidence list or any similar tool "enemies list" is bad, bad framing; I am pretty sure I did not coin, advocate or support such a name (although I don't see how such framing, if done privately, is of concern to anybody - while I think CIV/NPA/AGF and so on are a good policy outside Misplaced Pages as well, as long as somebody doesn't break them on Misplaced Pages, this should be of no concern to editors). Re:IAR: I would like to see the evidence that our alleged actions damaged that project. Which articles (or other wiki pages) have we damaged and how? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see how IAR comes in to your point at all, but I do not know whether or not the actions of some groups members damaged the project. There is some suggestive material that has been presented, but I think the key thing is the extent to which it coordinates with the list e-mails (and what exactly those e-mails say). I don't have access to those e-mails and am not remotely interested in getting access to them, so I'm just waiting to see what the Arbs say down the road about them and their relation to Misplaced Pages edits. Even if it turns out that most or all members of your group engaged in little or no harmful activities, I would hope this case would at least strongly ratify the principles Coren has laid out so far. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Exclusionary rule

I believe the point about ArbCom having no exclusionary rule would be made better in the form of a principle to be approved, rather than to be opposed, because a rejected principle won't be in the final decision. For that reason, a principle like "The Arbitration Committee may use all genuine and pertinent evidence to support its decisions, even if that evidence may have been obtained through unethical or illegal means" may be clearer. That's just a formality; personally I do believe that ArbCom should have some sort of exclusionary rule at least for evidence procured for the purpose of arbitration by means of genuinely criminal acts (rubber-hose cryptanalysis, for example), although that is hopefully a highly theoretical situation.  Sandstein  09:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when has whistleblowing been a crimimal act? There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. --Russavia 09:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether a criminal act has or has not been committed in this specific case, because I don't know what exactly has happened with that e-mail list. I was speaking about the desirability of an exclusionary rule in general.  Sandstein  09:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that something should be mentioned also about the fact that everyone can publicly paraphrase such evidence on wikipedia, as this is clearly practice in current process , where subjects of e-mails and paraphrasing their contents is allowed. Personally I think that it de facto encourages spread of such evidence, but obviously if this is not a problem for ArbCom, then why not to write it down as principle too.--Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that Arbcom wouldn't endorse a principle that relies on them determining whether an act is criminal (or 'genuinely criminal') or not. They're really not competent to do that, even ignoring the wide range of jurisdictions potentially involved. A principle saying that they'll consider admissibility on a case by case basis might work - but then it wouldn't have much substance. 89.181.76.164 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Newyorkbrad intends to add a principle along those lines; possibly something along the lines of "the good of the encyclopedia being the primary concern" and "inly insofar as it is directly relevant" (those are the direction I'd head towards). — Coren  04:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Request concerning the proposed decision

Hi, this is just to make the drafting arbitrator(s) aware of a request I have made on the Workshop page concerning the proposed decision.  Sandstein  06:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An additional principle

I think this principle should be added for clarity:

Abcom does not respect privacy of email communications if the content of private emails is relevant to wikipedia business. All emails by this project participants can be intercepted by third hostile parties and submitted as evidence to Arbcom. This concerns not only wikipedia email, but any personal communications by any person who ever made at least one edit on this site

Seriously, I did not know that such principle applies. Even Piotrus did not know, although he knows and understands WP policies much better than me. Yes, I suspected that our emails could be intercepted by FSB and sent to Arbcom, but I thought that can not be a reason for opening any official case, simply because I would never read your personal email. Yes, I was aware of the CAMERA case. But that was an organized group of paid editors hired by an outside lobbing organization. Yes, I agree with all decisions about CAMERA. Same would apply to a team of CIA editors hired to improve the image of CIA in WP. Same would apply to a group of paid editors hired to improve image of Vladimir Putin. But we are ordinary editors who were not recruited by any outside organizations. We even have very different POVs and different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. But we simply wanted to discuss our personal business, yes, including also editing here.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally strongly against such principle, because it would discourage a lot of people of participation in this project. Yes, this should be placed as a warning by huge letters to every new user: "By editing in wikipedia you allow Arbcom to examine all your private email correspondence, in the event it was stolen and submitted to Arbcom". Then, I would think twice about contributing here. Biophys (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
A small digression: WP:COI is a policy with many problems. Personally I would have no problem with a team of CIA or Russian presidential office editors getting paid of editing Wiki as long as they can respect NPOV and such. Anyway, I find it telling that we have, in all the evidence presented, never been accused of violating NPOV/RS/V or such. Even after a week to dig through our private emails, our most vocal opponents have not been able to produce a single example where we damage the mission of this project (encyclopedic content creation). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That may be because we have only just begun Piotrus. And yes, the mission of this project is encyclopaedic content creation in a collegial environment. And you and your group have not contributed to the creation or maintaining of a collegial environment, but have rather turned it into a massive battleground. And there is plenty of evidence of that already. As to the creation of such a template, no way. --Russavia 16:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We, unlike you, have kept the battleground (uncivil comments and bad faith - as uncommon as it was in the first place) outside this project and in a private forum. This is a crucial difference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I also would not object having "a team of CIA or Russian presidential office editors getting paid of editing Wiki as long as they can respect NPOV and such." But I can tell that all CIA-related pages are very well developed, expecially with respect to criticizing the Agency. This is great. However any articles related to Russian government are completely different. Some of them are empty, some filled with garbage, others look like promotion of a personality cult. What NPOV? This is joke. Any criticism is immediately removed. I said to Muscovite99 that he should not even try to insert anything of critical nature to Putin. He did not listen. Where he is? Blocked indefinitely in the both wikipedias. He was great editor, with excellent English skills; he made 25,000+ edits in Russian WP. I was stalked from Day 1 by Vlad and others when I tried editing human rights in Russia, but I finally gave up. And here we are again, subjects of an Arbitration, waiting to receive our sanctions.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, can you link to discussion that led to Muscovite99 banning on en Wiki? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Links for Piotrus: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive525#User:Muscovite99_evading_block, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive92#Muscovite99_reported_by_Offliner_.28Result:_2_weeks.29, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive91#Muscovite99_reported_by_Russavia_.28Result:_1_week.29. Hope this helps. --Russavia 17:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See, usually I'd just shrug at somebody's stupidity in not learning to respect 3RR and/or using socks to evade block, and move on. But considering some recent arguments here, don't you think we should consider that Muscovite was baited and blocked by some evil cabal, and thus that he should be unblocked to participate int his case? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we could bring Muscovite99 into the case. If he has any credible evidence that there was a systematic campaign of harrassment and stalking, by which he was forced by the imaginary cabal to create sockpuppets and the like. Herein lies the difference between the perceived, yet non-existent USSR/Russia cabal, and the real and evidenced anti-Russia/USSR cabal. There is no evidence for one and it is isn't credible, whilst the other one is proven and is credible. --Russavia 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators

I'm surprised there's no principle relating to the high standards expected of administrators (see past cases e.g. C68-FM-SV or A_Man_In_Black). Obviously the findings of fact when they come might amount to saying that there has been no serious breach of such standards (just the same as for any of the other principles) but given that at least one administrator has been temporarily de-sysopped for this case, I think it's apparent that the case raises that as a possible issue. 89.181.76.164 (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this 110%. There should be such a principle in the proposed decision. --Russavia 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
My complete agreement. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

Why is there no Purpose of Misplaced Pages principle proposed? I would expect it to be the first principle for a case like this. After all, if the mailing list has influenced the formation of consensus, disrupted wikipedia processes, and attacked / harrassed / baited editors (all of which are alleged in various parts of the evidence), surely the ultimate motive was to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The logic of begining the principles with consensus escapes me, in that achieving consensus is desirable as a means towards high-quality unbiased content; consensus is not an end in itself. EdChem (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Alternatively, if as we claim, the list was designed to promote neutral content creation, was used to discuss reliability of sources, gather information on articles to created/expand, this is applicable as well. And anybody reading our private, sikrit correspondence from just before we were hacked (early September) should be able to see, for example, the massive amount of discussion that led to the creation of the 6-th most popular DYK ever, Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk. That was a truly evil, cabalish thing we accomplished there... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, unless you have evidence of hacking, I have requested that you stop making that assertion. And no, I'm sorry but "we must have because none of us would have done this" is not evidence. — Coren  23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On consensus and participation

It's a bit difficult to achieve consensus when one side is determined to inject ultra-nationalist POV into articles. When a topic concerns a large country and a tiny country, there will always be a natural imbalance in participation, looking at the demographic. For example, if country X has 10 times the population of country Y, thus there are probably more ultra-nationalists in country X than the entire population of country Y, and there are 10 times more country X nationals editing Misplaced Pages than country Y nationals, what can be done then these country X nationalists are determined to push the viewpoint that country Y is a fascist apartheid state, for example? --Martintg (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When a topic concerns a large country and a tiny country, there will always be a natural imbalance in participation–But according to your "enemies list" (20090326-0538- Interesting list.eml) you have 17 enemies and 14 friends -- in addition to the 17 list members (according to ArbCom.) So that makes 14 more editors on your side. Where exactly is the imbalance, Martintg? Offliner (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in reading personal info or such (my voyeurism has its limits), but where can I see, specifically, this list? Any links?Faustian (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
No-one is allowed to link to the list offwiki as that is expressly forbidden. --Russavia 22:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clairifcation. Perhaps someone can e-mail the info to me? The reason I ask is that I have dealt with these folks; some of my interactions have been very positive and I have a lot of respect for the editors using this mailing list, while interactions with others on the mailing list have been very negative. I'm curious if I've been mentioned.Faustian (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone posts a "list of enemies" on WikiReview, does that mean all readers of that site endorse that list? Of course not. --Martintg (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not my list. As I said above, I don't endorse one person's unsolicited compilation of a combination of their personal assumptions and observed past conflict. --Martintg (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there really nothing that can be done about our private correspondence being disseminated by that site? Shit has hit the fan and other Wikipedians possess copies of a certain archive - well, we can all live with that, but I can't stand the idea that our personal information is being made accessible for all kinds of folks on the planet. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too happy with the archive being available on that site either, given that it includes a lot of my personal details, along with business details, etc. But the upside is that others can see how low some of your group really are. Oh, and the other up-side. It's all free advertising for my biz. Any publicity is good publicity. I should introduce a special offer; any Australian Wikipedian who places an order and enters the code BUSTED in the checkout, will receive a free gift from me to you. PMSL. But seriously, there is nothing you can do. The Aussie government couldn't get them to take down a list of banned websites, I doubt they care too much about a bunch of emails relating to WP. --Russavia 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Additionally Miacek, even attempting to have them remove it, only risks creating a Streisand effect, whereby the distribution would become even more widespread, and gain greater notability. It would then run the risk of being picked up by media and reported on, which would give people reliable sources to use on WP. Remember the more that one tries to censor information in the internet age, the more widely distributed that information will become. One just has to grin and bear it. --Russavia 10:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unconstitutional

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: No.

The proposed measure violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. The Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in California, which is a State of the United States.

Further, this proceeding smacks of McCarthyism and guilt by association.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It must be judged by the quality of its articles, not by the private associations of its authors. Nihil novi (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who watches Law and Order religiously, in fact am watching it now on Foxtel, I can tell you that the First Amendment only restricts the government from restricting freedom of speech, press or assembly, except in special cases (such as incitement to violence, etc). It does not cover private entities in any way, shape or form. As WMF is not a government institution, it is not bound by the First Amendment. --Russavia 02:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I suggest you re-read the First Amendment to the United States Constitution page and note that it restricts what Congress may do - that is, it is a limitation on the power of the Legislative Branch of the US Federal Government. ArbCom is not a part of Congress. So, no ArbCom action can be unconstitutional. Now, re-read the proposed decision page and recognise that no "measure" has yet been proposed. I would say your objection / argument is on pretty shaky ground. As for the comparison to McCarthyism, it hugely diminishes the damage done to lives and reputations by those "hearings" to even suggest that a wikipedia site ban (the harshest sanction ArbCom can impose) is remotely similar. EdChem (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I would also concur. The WMF not letting someone join a group in editing is no more unconstitutional than a conservative newspaper turning down an article from a liberal or a fraternal lodge refusing to let certain groups rent a building for a party. MBisanz 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, folks. This guy has just learned WP:IAR, which is the only NPOV source for him on the subject. Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another proposed principle - harrassment

As it is pretty clear from my evidence, and also other people's evidence, that this web brigade has engaged in harrassment and stalking of myself and other people both on and off wiki, a proposed principle dealing with this is absolutely required. As a victim of this long-term harrassment, my last twelve months have been a living hell for the most part, with little to no support from the community at large, as this group was able to continue their harrassment by teaming and gaming in discussions where the harrassment was being discussed. So I feel that this is absolutely required as a PD. --Russavia 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can think of a reasonable definition for "harassment" that isn't open to gaming, we'll certainly consider it. — Coren  03:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed principal - vote secretly in ''findings of fact''

Arbcom can in certain situations vote secretly in ''findings of fact'' decisions. Dy yol (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And the rationale behind that would be...? If anything, this entire case, due to its being based on evidence involving real identities of many editors, and all the real and alleged OUTing problems, should be handled in a more private manner. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Because in the Arbcom closed mailing list, members can "coordinate" better :D Dy yol (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That may have been said in jest, but you realize that avoiding this is exactly why voting is done in public, right? — Coren  03:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry.Avoiding what?Dy yol (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

On-wiki disruption (proposed principle)

Users can be sanctioned only for their on-wiki activities. Opinions privately expressed off-wiki are not sanctionable per se.

Members of the list made many statements which would be inappropriate in the project space. However, they did this privately and off-wiki. Such opinions are not sanctionable per se. They can be used as a proof of "bad faith" only when they evidently resulted in disruptive activities on-wiki.

I believe that most of the events would took place regardless to email discussions. This includes heated on-wiki debates after splitting article Occupation of Baltic States, appeal of Thatcher sanctions by Radekz and edit warring that was not coordinated by email. Maybe some of the email discussions even helped to reduce tensions. I often argued against any actions by members of the group which could be interpreted as disruption (see emails).

However, in many cases certain opinions or announcements in emails indeed resulted in the increased participation by members of the groups in different forums, including article talk pages, ANI and RfC. I believe this did not make any harm in most cases, especially when people came to debate the issues rather than vote.

I believe that sanctions could be used only in the following situations: (a) user A asks to vote "yes" on an RfC/AfD and user B comes and votes "yes" without even talking; (b) user A asks to revert article X to his version, and user B indeed reverts it to this version. However, even this is problematic if user B frequently visits AfDs on EE subjects and therefore would vote anyway, or if user B had article X on his watch list and previously edited it, so he would pay attention anyway.

An important point: groups of like-minded users do not need email to coordinate their actions. They do it by following each other's edit histories, and it does not make a lot of difference how exactly they coordinate their actions. Biophys (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are engaged in wishful thinking. Using a mailing list to subvert consensus and organize attacks against perceived enemies is a bannable offense. Jehochman 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The moment any such attack occurs, not before. If I propose in a private email to hack into Jimbo Wales' computer and change something on wiki, certain people to whom I did not send such an email could think this is for real and not a joke. Only when something becomes real on-wiki, it is sanctionable. Dc76\ 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I also would like to see at least one example where the wikipedia consensus has been actually subverted by using this mailing list. There was no such cases to my knowledge. Of course I may be wrong, because I did not even read a lot of emails. As about "personal attacks", this is something when one user make unsubstantiated accusations about another user without supporting diffs. This is sanctionable of course, regardless to email discussions.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed (in reply to Jehochman above). One of the more dispiriting aspects of this affair to date is the extent to which some of those involved seem to be arguing from an essentially legalistic standpoint. My understanding is that, whilst we should expect ArbCom to participate with a professional understanding of what due process should involve, this is not a court of law. Rather it is a procedure that attempts to discover whether or not the community's policies and ethical standards are being upheld. There is no question of some kind of a "not proven" verdict based on technicalities. I encourage those who feel unjustly accused to concentrate on clearing their names rather than on diversionary tactics. Ben MacDui 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been hoping that those accused of improprieties would come forward with evidence to show that the email archive was faked. I just looked over the evidence page and found nothing of the sort. Apparently the concerns of many editors about the activities coordinated by this mailing list are well founded. Jehochman 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I heard it is 10 MB of text. I use Gmail, and frankly speaking, I am not even able to verify xxxxxx-xxxx type references, because Gmail arranges messages by conversations, so I need to be told on which date was the last email in that conversation. My understanding, however, is that Durova is doing such a comparative analysis. P.S. By the way, I was very pleasantly surprised by your integrity when you refused to look over the archive mailed to you, and forwarded it to ArbCom. Dc76\ 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Note to myself: If I ever decide to participate in an inappropriate for wiki closed email group I should make subtle changes in quoted text whenever I reply to someone's messages. In fact I might be tempted to organize my own leak of allegedly my email with apparent signs of tempering to blame it later on my opposition's attempt to discredit me. (Igny (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC))
My initial proposal (and some other statements) has nothing to do with any "legalistic complaints". This is about developing a couple of simple and fair rules which would make it very clear for any user that creation of such email lists is forbidden. If I had an idea that email discussions off-wiki may end up like that, I would never be a part of this. We need some policy changes here, and that is more important than banning me and a few others. As about note by Igny, I started suspecting that some messages might indeed be forged after a conversation yesterday with Viriditas. If Arbcom decides that any of my specific comments are incriminating, I would like to receive these specific threads by email and verify. This is all.Biophys (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Again with the forgery meme? As of yet, there is no indication that any messages have been forged, nor have any list members come forward to point at a specific message and say "this was forged". I will be the first person to step forward and defend any member of this mailing list who claims that a specific e-mail has been forged. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that Arbcom is considering sanctioning opinions expressed on the mailing list. There are more than enough problematic actions. This will probably become clear when Arbcom begins workshopping the evidence and proposed findings of fact. Thatcher 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cla68's opinion (for what it's worth)

There is probably no greater threat to Misplaced Pages's credibility and viability than groups of editors secretly banding together to skew article content a certain way or to bully or suppress other editors. Past revelations as well as the suspected use of "members only" lists to coordinate on-wiki actions with the intent of gaming Misplaced Pages's policies and system have caused deserved outrage among Misplaced Pages participants, and have driven away many editors who otherwise would have been valuable contributors to this project.

Unfortunately, based on evidence presented, such as Viriditas' and Thatcher's, it appears that the Eastern Europe email archive is authentic. Just as unfortunate is the reactions by the members of the list when caught. They have persistently denied wrongdoing in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. If the members of this mailing group, once the emails came out, had immediately admitted fault, apologized, and promised never to repeat the behavior, then I think lesser sanctions such as topic bans, a desysop, and/or six month-to-one year bans for the members of that list could have been on the table. Because of the unrepentent prestidigitation and refusal to take responsibility for their actions, however, I believe that a lifetime ban from en.Misplaced Pages for the members of that group is, unfortunately, the appropriate response in this case. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the original claim was that over half of the 3000+ emails were said to be about "getting Russavia". Given that most of the members joined the list after I had accidentally forwarded WMC's email to the list, how exactly are all list members culpable for my discussion that you link snippets of above? --Martintg (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
But how does the over-half-the-emails claim help you? If I accuse you of doing 1,500 times and you say "ha, no, I only did it 273 times at the most!" then ah... you did a bunch of time and can expect people to react accordingly. I'm obviously missing something here but I can't imagine what. (Beyond that, I'm not sure at all that all list members are being held culpable for you sharing an email). 89.180.30.42 (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Martin, the issue about private communication (emails and chats) forwarded to the list is not particularly important, except to the extent it suggests that members who have expressed outrage (and even suggested that people should be blocked or even criminally prosecuted for merely reading the archive) at the leak or theft of the archive are less concerned when they are they ones doing the sharing. Any repercussions over your forwarding of WMC's email should probably be a private matter between you and him. And, of course, any mischaracterizations or exaggerations of the nature of the list by the first person to read it are largely irrelevant now that many people have had a chance to read it for themselves. The important issue is that these communications are the tangible record of an attempt to undermine Misplaced Pages on multiple levels. Thatcher 11:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no moral equivalence between accidently forwarding one email and purposely forwarding thousands of emails. And the exaggerations of the nature of the list by the first person to read it is relevant in context of this argument "First they claim it was an outright forgery, now they claim aspects of it was salted, etc" I've only kept those emails of interest to me, so I'm in no position to verify whether particular emails not in my possession were salted or not. To be honest a lot of the emails went straight into the trash unread. Sure the list existed, but did it make any material difference in slanting content or undermining process within Misplaced Pages, despite what some list members might of allegedly wished? I don't think so. In regard to AfD's I can't think of any I wouldn't have voted in anyway or differently without the existence of the list. The same with articles edited, I would have edited the same ones in the same way with or without a list. Or protecting members from sanction, Giano seems to have a traveling crew that attempts to protect him as the latest Wikidramu on ANI demonstrated. It didn't stop me getting my first 3RR block 24 hours after I had undone my 4th revert, nor did it result PasswordUsername getting sanctioned even with 4 reverts, so this list is pretty ineffective tool to undermine Misplaced Pages, it is not as if admins involved in AE are ignorant of who's who in EE space. But it did result in better articles, like the recent record breaking DYK with 30,000+ views.
I know you are still sore over that AE case, but it was a mess from the get go, with Sandstein closing the initial two cases, Jehochman closed the third, then he reopened them all, Shell started an investigation, then you stepped in imposing sanctions all around, upsetting Shell in the process and the whole thing turned into a mess and you then ended up vacating the result. As you recall I fully supported a 1RR restrictions all around, there needs to be balance in an area as strongly polarised as EE, and eliminating one group will do more to undermined the quality of articles in Misplaced Pages than anything else, unless ofcourse you think having no one around to oppose the insertion of rubbish like this or this will be beneficial to the encyclopedia. --Martintg (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh you mean the article with 30,000 views which totally ignores things on the talk page which were raised by myself? You mean the article which on the talk page Tymek suggests only using Western sources for information? You mean the article where on the talk page editors rush in to try to discredit a certain historian, although it is not that historian who presented the information. You mean the article that totally omits any mention of claims of a credible Russian historian who is connected with the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences? In particular his claim that proponents of the "joint parade" often hold it up as evidence of a Nazi-Soviet alliance (which was the DYK hook, which wasn't attributed to its author), where as in fact he argues that the parade is a myth, in that the "parade" was in fact the ceremonial withdrawal of Nazi troops from Brest, which was overseen by Soviet commanders. Oh that article? So great, 30,000 people have now read the web brigade's interpretation of history, rather than the interpretation of reliable sources -- well done.
As to the rest of what you write, your web brigade has undermined WP in order to get rid of opponents who are here to contribute, in order for articles to follow your own POV. That is a major issue here Martin. As is your stalking, harrassment, etc (oh and no, I will not be withdrawing those allegations). You refuse to even acknowledge this. That will be your downfall. --Russavia 13:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Your points where addressed on Talk:German-Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk. Considering half of the article on Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov is about controversial statements he made, I wouldn't call him very "credible". Trying to include views of such "historians" as the only views acceptable is the reason your edits are reverted. Anyway, you could have invited other editors to this discussion, via RfC or RSN or such. You didn't, the consensus (or editors working on the article) was against you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Your group was apparently concerned with Russian or KGB "Web brigades" altering content and affecting public opinion. Sadly, in fighting the brigades, you became that which you feared. Thatcher 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's probably the fifth or sixth reference I've seen to this famous "record breaking DYK." That's terrific that y'alls wrote a popular article together, but believe it or not it does not give your group license to game consensus, AE, 3RR, etc. and plot to take down other editors with whom you disagree about content. I'm sure you think mentioning good content contributions could act as a counterbalance to all the negative evidence being presented, but when you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that you did anything wrong, comments that emphasize what marvelous editors you are come off as rather churlish and actually harm your cause. Maybe it's time instead to start thinking about, you know, taking some responsibility for your actions? Obviously all of the chaff you are tossing out (30,000 view DYK! 1,500 Russavia e-mails - that's not accurate!) is not wowing anyone into believing that the list was fully benign in both intent and practice. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
We are not saying we are perfect; we made mistakes. I have already admitted that in several places and apologized, and so did some of my colleagues. But we are being portrayed as an evil cabal with no redeeming qualities bent on destroying this project, and with such framing I (and my colleagues) cannot agree. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"...an evil cabal with no redeeming qualities bent on destroying this project." You'll have to show me a diff where someone said anything even remotely like that (someone other than one of your content opponents, though I doubt even they said that). Constructing straw men to knock down is no better as a strategy right now than bigging-up one DYK.
Piotrus your style of response to evidence presented against you is perhaps best exemplified in your comment in this talk page thread. Thatcher gets a bit strident with rhetoric so you say "I guess NPA/CIV/AGF don't apply here," then take a jab at Thatcher for reading the archive, and then reference your FAs and DYKs. But you say nothing about the extremely serious accusations Thatcher makes (and I'm quite certain that editor is not lying about the messages they saw in the archive). What about the suggestion that you "proposed to create socks for reverting" on the list? Is that a lie by Thatcher, or is it your contention that the message to which he refers is a fake? If it was me and I had not said something like that (which I wouldn't, given that I have at least a modicum of respect for Misplaced Pages policy) I'd be defending myself pretty vigorously now, but you say nothing. Or just after your comment in the above mentioned talk thread Viriditas makes reference to another archive e-mail message, which Russavia describes as "Piotrus suggesting to the group that they contact the ASIO to give them a tip that I am a Russian security services mole..." Did you seriously suggest that?!?! I don't care whether there was follow through or not, the mere suggestion of that kind of thing, coming from an administrator no less, is unfuckingbelievable.
If this evidence is being misrepresented then you better start correcting it, but I doubt there's any misrepresentation going on. Your admin days are clearly over, and the question now is how many of you get blocked or banned and for how long. List members who participated in problematic activities (and I'm guessing not all did—I hope those who didn't don't get punished for the malfeasance of others) might do yourselves a favor—and the community/ArbCom as well by saving us all some time—and own up to those accusations which you know to be true. This case is already enormous, so why not help the Arbs and the community cut to the chase rather than wasting more community resources than you already have? Unless some dramatic and highly unlikely revelation is forthcoming very shortly, it's rather clear to me, despite your obvious good contributions, that you and a number of other editors royally, royally screwed up on this mailing list and on en.wikipedia. Now you have a clear choice between acting like grownups and taking responsibility for your errors, which might help you in the end, or blithely denying culpability and fighting it out on Arb talk pages until the cases closes, which will likely only dig your hole even deeper. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting Piotrus. You say that you have accepted responsibility and have apologised? I must be blind, can you tell me where these apologies and acceptances of responsibility are? So what the point of harrassing and stalking me for 12 months Piotrus? Oh wait, that was one of your web brigades redeeming qualities? Getting rid of an editor who just wished to edit in peace. Now I get it. --Russavia 18:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This apparently contains one such acknowledgment. Apparently this claim is no longer operative. Thatcher 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<--At this point probably the best tactic of the list members is to wait for Arbcom to post the evidence and proposed findings of fact that they think are important, and then respond, either with a defense, an explanation, or an apology, as the case may be. As unreasonable as it seems to me for the members of the list to issue blanket declarations of innocence, non-specific denunciations of the evidence, and heroic recounting of their past content triumphs, it is equally unreasonable to demand that they be publicly shamed and driven to fall on their swords. We should all wait and see for Arbcom to give some indication of where they are going. Thatcher 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As was aptly remarked by the character of Richard the Lionheart in this film, "When the fall is all there is, it matters" . Obviously the course of action you describe is fully within the rights of members of the list, but I'm not sure it's the best one. Based on some of the evidence already provided, some list members could agree right now to findings of fact that find them culpable for certain disruptive behaviors. That would save a lot of time and needless discussion and would be a mature action on the part of those editors who made mistakes. ArbCom would not need to spend as much time establishing disruption by editors who already seem to have committed it, and could instead focus on remedies and determining which editors had little or no part in these activities in order to save their reputations from being scarred further by this whole affair. This is obviously just a suggestion on my part, but I think it's a good one. I won't say more about it here and do agree that in the absence of admissions from list members there's nothing more to do other than wait for ArbCom to post evidence. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably because a short while ago "we" did not exist and were a figment of "others" imaginations and evil intentions and machinations. Just decide who "we" are, and then accept "we" broke the rules big time - very big time. Giano (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bigtime and Giano. I would suggest that each of the listmembers replace their current sections on the evidence page with a short statement along the lines of, "I did write and send those emails in the archive that have my name on them. I was wrong to violate Misplaced Pages policy in collusion with others. I'm sorry for doing so and promise never to do it again." Then be quiet and wait for the Committee to decide what to do about it. That's it. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

very arbitrary break

Cla68: would your opinion be any different, if on-wiki activities of the group were coordinated through on-wiki channels? I hear a lot of statements like yours that skewing content if favor of any group is a no-no, but isn't it what "consensus" is about? Isn't it about teaming together, claiming "consensus" and driving out opposition? Suppose, for example, that Piotrus posted his calls to arms (in most neutral academic language) not on the mailing list but on WP:POLAND, for the same effect ... would you then object or not? Why? NVO (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Notifying other editors about RfCs and such in public spaces in Misplaced Pages, such as on Wikiproject talk pages, article talk pages, the VillagePump, the Signpost article suggestion page, etc is fine, because theoretically anyone could see the notices and elect to participate. The evidence in this case, however, indicates that this group used a private, secret mailing list to notify each other about these discussions in order to purposely skew the discussions to the advantage of their own POV. Also, evidence shows that the listmembers used the emails to expressly engage in conduct which would not have been allowed on-wiki under any circumstance, such as coordinating reverts, strategizing about how to get away with POV-pushing and baiting or bullying other editors, and using 1RR restrictions to "their" advantage. So, first of all, it would have been impossible for this group to have used strictly on-wiki channels to do this stuff, because much of it was already against policy. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
NPOV should be the bottom line. It's pretty easy for a guy to go down to the local ethnic club and teach the others to edit wiki, and soon we have 5-6 SPAs from an immigrant racial group in the same city. These kinds of busts will only catch a few unlcuky people or those who don't have the spontaneous understanding of the situation to engage in "my enemy's enemy is my friend" or other standard tactical motifs, and while sensational and not looking good, are not going to make much difference to the reliability of the articles unless people think that this group are the "POV baddies" who are hindering NPOV-abiding editors (and that the email list reasoning is a conduit). Else, while it might look like some serious action, but it won't really have any meaningful consequences that couldn't be worked out by looking up the edits themselves (apart from a bad attitude straight from teh horse's mouth kind of thing), notwithstanding the general Misplaced Pages penchant for gimmicks and dramatic gestures. Also, it might encourage people to try to infiltrate each other's groups, which might benefit the mole's objectives, as the publicity/gimmick mindset on Misplaced Pages will get more eyes, but it might also lead to more riots and unecessary scandalisation. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy

n.) Editors who engage in a conspiracy to subvert Misplaced Pages editorial or behavioral standards may be held responsible for the actions taken by their co-conspirators.

n+1.) Editors who engage in a conspiracy to subvert Misplaced Pages editorial or behavioral standards, through affirmative steps such as providing encouragement, information, or advice, may be held responsible for the on wiki actions taken by their co-conspirators.

Comments by arbitrators
Comments by parties
Comments by others
I believe this follows naturally from the prohibition against meat puppetry. When there is a conspiracy, the members are acting as meat puppets for each other. Jehochman 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hm, dubious, IMO. I'd like to see some discrimination between list participants who did not take on-wiki action and those who did. I have not analyzed all the messages nor all the participants, but it is possible that some people did not use it for prohibited purposes, even though they may have witnessed such from others. Thatcher 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand what both Jehochman and Thatcher say. In the real world such a notion on conspiracy participants is relevant...one need only look at different laws in different countries where people who were aware of a crime and did nothing to stop it or report it, can be held responsible (although often to a lesser degree) than those who carried out the particular crime. But this isn't the real world, and we would need to adapt it to suit WP needs and standards. But is that possible to do without it being open to gaming? I don't know. --Russavia 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
For more musical chairs see Guilt by association right over your head. --Poeticbent talk 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with this pretty strongly. First of all it is far too vague in its wording, particularly since the phrase "engage in a conspiracy to subvert Misplaced Pages editorial or behavioral standards" is very much open to interpretation. I'm personally opposed to anyone even creating and/or joining a closed Misplaced Pages mailing list (except those like Arbs or functionaries who have community backing to do so), but does simply being a member of a list that coordinates negative activities make one culpable? I would say not, and one or two list members have already said they read little or even none of the e-mails to the list, which makes it hard to hold them responsible for any wrongdoing. I agree with Thatcher here that it's important—and this is why, I imagine, it will be quite awhile before this case closes—for the ArbCom to discriminate between list members who actively promoted and/or participated in disruptive on-wiki activity and those who did not. If anything I think any individuals in the latter group should be formally absolved by the committee, preferably with a caution to not participate in these kind of lists in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think those who participate in these types of email groups but don't actually conduct mendacious actions in Misplaced Pages do share some culpability, but not as much as those that do. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It is really a matter of whether you think it is significantly worse to steadfastly pursue some wrong-headed course that you truly believe in across some line or to be clueful enough to seriously doubt that the course your friends pursue should cross some line but too cowardly to stand up to them for what you believe to be right. I don't think there is a significant difference. They are different kinds of a faults to be sure but not necessarily different in an absolute sense. The main reason I lean towards being more forgiving of the latter is that it is easier to instill courage into people than clue. But I wouldn't say "less culpability" and there are long odds against either case really owning up to their own shortcomings. Which is the first step towards real reform.--BirgitteSB 04:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Often the one who does the planning and encouragement will not take on wiki actions. I agree that those who passively subscribe and don't participate in the list much are less culpable. However, I disagree that the "mastermind" gets a free pass because they didn't hit the button at Misplaced Pages. One of the critical elements of conspiracy is a requirement that the conspirator actually do something in furtherance of the misdeed. In this case, providing encouragement or instructions would qualify, I think. There is no requirement to make an edit at Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think words conspiracy and subversion are very weak. How about enemy of the people? Biophys (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This raises lots of questions, like what qualifies as "conspiracy", or "encouragement" etc. I also don't really understand how being member of "conspiracy" is related to meatpuppetry unless editor clearly organizes and coordinates meatpuppetry commited by other editors.--Staberinde (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Staberinde, please see the evidence page. The organization and coordination is very clear. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to active clerks

To all concerned parties: Clerk Daniel is on real-life vacation and hence has withdrawn from clerking this case. Clerk KnightLago is his replacement, assisted by trainee clerk Manning. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by list members continues

I'm afraid Battle of Konotop is incurable. Plenty of volunteers beyond the ring of usual suspects. NVO (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
At this point the article should be properly protected (which was just done), and parties need to discuss things on talk (with a possible mediation?) till they agree not to revert war again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
As for my supposed edit warring at Aleksei Losev, you better read through my arguments at the respective talk page. I had a similar encounter at Igor Shafarevich, and I do feel I am right here. That case obviously has no 'mailing list' involvement, it is more of a question if we are here at all to build up an encyclopedia or in order to post tabloid press rubbish. So if you Offliner want to accuse me of disruptive editing, please do so on the basis of your stolen mailing list evidence, not totally unrelated conflicts I've been party to here on wikipedia. Thank you. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thank Offliner and PasswordUsername for getting to the essence of the argument here, that:

  • any edit by anyone building reputable content;
  • any agreement by those individuals on such content (regardless that it comes from reputable sources) is disruptive collusion;
  • any uninvolved party agreeing with said representation of content is also an editorial enemy to be attacked with the same vigor;
  • and, in particular, any editor who has agreed with any other editor in the past against Offliner et al. is a target for automatic conviction of disruption, vandalism, and other bad faith editorial activity.

I additional thank Offliner for his use of the "Soviet Procurator" model in the section title: "Disruption by list members continues", that is, present all communication in terms which indicate a crime is already confirmed to have been committed and the defendant already convicted. PL calls. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all about framing - with a healthy dose of domestic abuse :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Key principle that I feel is lacking

While there is a principle on Gaming the System, it is geared towards editing issues. I feel the principle of Stonewalling (covered under WP:GAME) geared more towards its use in Dispute Resolution really needs to be covered in this case. The success of this tactic in preventing the resolution of disputes on Misplaced Pages has always bothered me. I think it would be useful if Arbcom specifically condemned it.--BirgitteSB 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What specific dispute are you claiming was prevented from being resolved through this "tactic of stonewalling"? --Martintg (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The allegations of Russavia socking is one example. Or at least the AN/I thread on that subject. I suppose it could have been resolved somewhere else that I haven't followed. Did that ever get resolved that you know of or were the allegations just left hanging?--BirgitteSB 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It was raised, discussed and discarded by the community, and to my knowledge never brought back. There was no harassment or stonewalling (?) involved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
From what Russavia's evidence it was first raised in Nov 2008 and was still being brought back up at the end of April 2009. I never suggested this was harassment BTW. Harassment is a description I would only use very carefully. But the AN/I report falls under stonewalling in my book.--BirgitteSB 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This episode of Russavia's alleged account sharing is typical of the way some people disingenously present evidence. In the very first line he claims "I have good, and sound, reason to believe that I have been subjected to long-term systematic campaigns of harrassment which involved at first User:Biophys, User:Digwuren and User:Martintg, and later more actively joined by User:Piotrus," First he mentions some unrelated alleged BLP violations in some articles back in November 2008 (how is that relevant?) in which I wasn't involved in at that time, Russavia then finally mentions the initial account sharing accusation of November 2008 (which occurred before the list was created) which I certainly wasn't aware of. Then he brings up the ANI thread Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account, where my only contribution to that thread was to ask a general question "Out of curiosity, would checkuser be able to detect multiple users using the one computer via a remote client?". Hardly a "campaign of harassment". In my experience one needs to unpick a lot of what Russavia says, he tends to jumble up events and mix in unrelated issues (the more heinous the better, alleged BLP violations fits the bill nicely) and present it in a wall of words. --Martintg (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were asking for an example of you using this tactic. If I had I would have responded that I have no idea if you have used this tactic as I haven't focused on your contributions. I don't see why you feel the need to disparage Russavia so extensively here. I have not been quoting Russavia's conclusions anywhere, only the dates I personally gathered from diffs that I personally read which were linked in his evidence. The sorts of comments you make are unnecessary even if they were accurate.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BirgitteSB: why did you single out just one dispute strategy? In retrospect, "stonewall them" isn't as bad as "stone them" or "tar and feather" or "pocket checkuser", is it? NVO (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all the existing principles already cover other things. I am not sure what you mean by "stone them" or "tar and feather". I don't really have an opinion on whether some tactic is worse or better than another. Certainly this Stonewalling is more successful than the "pocket checkuser" tactic. As reprehensible I as think gaming RFA and Checkuser elections with an undisclosed accounts is; it is hard to do and even harder to maintain for very long. I don't think focusing on the "pocket checkuser" tactic is going to make a big difference here. That said, it does reflect badly on Piotrus to have suggested such a thing in the first place. That the others responded by finding excuses as to why they personally were not interested in trying the tactic reflects a little better on them. The incident is a valid argument against Piotrus having adminship restored, but I am not sure where else you would go with it beyond that especially as a general principle.--BirgitteSB 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in this arena of Baltic and Eastern European history and current events, "stone-walling" is a code-word used to attack any opposition by more than one editor to one's POV (e.g., Dojarca's complaint) regardless that said opposition is based on fair and accurate representation of reputable sources in the face of one's own WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beware of making condemnations in the belief you are addressing an issue. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Birgitte: back to the issue. The perpetrators, no matter how despisable, represent a viewpoint that is dominant in the English-speaking world. Why would enforcers of a dominant viewpoint, having a clear majority, succumb to opposition in "dispute resolution", rather than stonewall it? They already have majority (which in clumsy wikispeak equals "consensus"), why step back? NVO (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would the perpetrators of stonewalling always have a clear majority? I suppose you are saying Piotrus et al have a majority here. Well I am not against stonewalling because it is being used by Piotrus et al. I am against stonewalling because it leads to systematic failure of dispute resolution and collaboration. I suppose others should be against for those reasons as well. Because you should all want a working dispute resolution process for those times when you don't have the majority. Because you should all want collaboration to succeed so that Misplaced Pages succeeds. I don't know what to say to anyone that might want Misplaced Pages to fail. Luckily I don't think anyone here subscribes to that goal. I think that everyone here wants Misplaced Pages to succeed, but I am afraid most people here can't see the larger ramifications of the tactics that bring them some short-term successes against their opponents. BTW I don't despise anyone and am not intending to use a "codeword"--BirgitteSB 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess one person's "stonewalling" is another person's "consensus". If one had a particular viewpoint and they can't bring others around to that view, then I suppose they may accuse others of "stonewalling", but to me that is just making a bad faith assumption. It is easy to construct idealistic arguments based on vague generalities, but let's focus on specific cases. Look at the two AfDs for Communist genocide, one held before this case, the other held after this case was opened. In the first AfD many list members participated, in the second AfD there wasn't the same level of participation. Yet in both cases resulted in "no consensus". This is empirical evidence that list participants had no material impact on the formation or non-formation of concensus. It is evidence that Misplaced Pages processes are working, AfD's are being closed based upon the merits of the arguments, not the number of voters present. --Martintg (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really going to address the discussion you're having here but I just wanted to dispute your example -- your claim that the second AfD shows that the listmembers did not disrupt the vote the first time around is incorrect; if you count votes in the second AfD it is 21-21... there is less participation from listmembers to be sure but there are at least 3 listmembers who went ahead and voted and argued on the list despite the really obvious poor form involved. So it is in fact quite possible that disruption from listmembers may have been decisive in preventing a "delete" vote a second time as well. I cite this only to dispute your characterization here. csloat (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
What disruption? Politely disagreeing with you and presenting arguments to counter yours? Very disruptive attitude indeed. The disruption I see is that many "listmembers" are now intimidated and afraid to take part in any related disputes. I am somewhat interested in the issue of "communist genocide", and would have liked to comment in the discussion and AfD - but because of the recent dramu I decided to stay away from it. I wonder how one can argue that the discussion is now better and more objective when an entire group of editors is scared away from it. If it was disrupted before by undue interest from a group (which has not been proven other than by arguing that "you discussed the article off wiki, you have no right to discuss it on wiki..."), it is as disrupted now due to forced lack of interest from that group. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop, Piotrus. You have already strained the limits of my credulity as I have mentioned earlier; it does not help that you continue to misrepresent things. Obviously "politely disagreeing" is not disruption. However, organizing group action on an outside list in order to defeat an AfD is. And then during an arbcom case in which that very activity is under scrutiny, returning to the same basic AfD to do it again is really in poor form. That you wisely chose to stay out of the second AfD does not mean your compatriots did, so claiming an entire group of editors is scared away from it is ludicrous. In any case, if you continue pretending that you believe there is nothing untoward about any of what took place on the mailing list, I fear you will have a more difficult time finding editors who will take you seriously. csloat (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The only thing straining the limits of credulity is the claim that 3 list members disrupted the 2nd AfD. Subtract the 3 and 18-21 is still no clear consensus. Besides, since when are AfDs a vote? Pinning your AfD failure on the mail list participant bogeyman may be convenient, but maybe your arguments for deletion just weren't convincing enough for the closing admin. Have you considered that possibility? --Martintg (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, of course. That's not the issue and I wish you guys would quit pretending that it was. The issue is the disruption, not how successful it was. We don't know what would have happened without the disruption; all we know is that there was disruption and that at least a majority had voted the other way absent the disruption. If you don't see the distinction here, or if you don't think there is anything disruptive about organizing group action via a secret email list, that may be the problem that has you here in the first place. csloat (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, csloat, your analysis is based on the a priori assumption of offense instead of the actual of defense. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears members of the cabal are simply incorrigible when it comes to blatantly misinterpreting what anyone else writes in order to "win" their "battles." I'm not accusing anyone of offense here; if you read the discussion in context it is quite clear - in fact I even added a qualifier originally to this effect - that I was simply responding to a misrepresentation of evidence by one of your colleagues. And again, the underlying problem seems to be that you guys simply don't think there is anything disruptive about organizing group action via a secret email list and pretending that it is the spontaneous action of individuals. I do hope arbcom takes into account the fact that you have not stopped treating wikipedia as a battleground, even here on the arbcom case itself. csloat (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to bring up the substance of any edit. Anything else is a partisan contention on your part. Of course the list was a spontaneous reaction to WP circumstances. I do hope Arbcom considers who were/are the actual initiators of attack pages and purveyors of opinions as substantiated facts in creating so-called "encyclopedic" content. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It just appears to me that you are digging yourselves deeper every time you respond like this. You expect people to believe the list was a "spontaneous reaction" to things when it is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence - and I admit I have only barely scratched the surface - that the list was a forum for orchestrating actions on Misplaced Pages, anything but a "spontaneous reaction." csloat (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
A 6-month ban from discussions which involves deleting or moving content (AfD, Cfd, TfD, etc) is but one of the sanctions that I sincerely hope the Committee will consider placing on list members. Given the amount of gaming that has occurred in creating falses consensuses, it is more than warranted I believe. --Russavia 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean by stonewalling. Let's look at how an a dispute is supposed to be resolved. There are two opinions about a matter. Whether something is a reliable source. So the parties in dispute go to the RS noticeboard for an outside opinions. At the noticeboard people point out what sorts of claims the source will be considered reliable for if any. Now stonewalling is when a party refuses to accept the outsiders view and responds with: How can you say that paper is reliable when they are so obviously POV, look at this other outrageous pieces they published, how can trust what they say here if they print that? Outsiders say: well they have a significant level of editorial integrity, they ran a correction about that piece you found outrageous and also that other piece was an editorial while this article is regular reporting. The party says: I just don't understand how you guys could suggest such a POV rag is reliable and could be used in Misplaced Pages, of course they issued a correction on the outrageous piece, they were forced too, everything they print is inaccurate. Outsiders say: look it fits the criteria for a reliable and it is suitable for Misplaced Pages. The party says: It is not suitable for Misplaced Pages it is completely biased and inaccurate! See how the party ignores the validity of points raised by outsiders about how the source fits specific criteria for judging sources and continues insisting that the source is unreliable because he dislikes the content of the source. That is stonewalling the dispute can never be resolved. Of course the party may be overridden and the source used in the article over his objections, but this isn't the same thing as resolved.
To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken (and it might be me!) on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error. That doesn't need to be a fancy apology. It is enough to say "I still cannot personally trust this source nor think I was wrong to question it but I understand that it fits Misplaced Pages's policy for reliability." This is different from both parties believing the reason for the dispute is that the other party is evil POV-pusher who will say anything to push his POV and that if outside consensus falls against him it is merely because the outsiders were hoodwinked by the evil POV-pusher and don't understand what is really going on.--BirgitteSB 01:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, I've often had to deal with "stonewalling" editors. I don't think I was ever the one stonewalling (and editing the article against majority consensus). I don't see anything to contradict me in the evidence, neither. Why are we even discussing this? The discussions here are getting way too theoretical to be useful, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not automatically follow that a source's POV (real or imaginged) is enough to measure its reliability. Two of the most reliable and respected newspapers in the United states are the Village Voice and The Wall Street Journal; their editorial boards are well known to have strong POVs toward opposite sides of the political spectrum. Durova 02:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. I was merely more focused on the behavior I was trying to demonstrate than the strength of the arguments used in the example.--BirgitteSB 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Birgitte, I have to thank you for the first observation which allows us to cut to the core of the issue: "To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken ... on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error."

When reputable accounts of history based on verifiable facts and representation of same meets versions of history which are less than reputable and protected by a presidential commission denouncing revisionism as lies when said revisionism is factual, there will be no admitting by anyone of being mistaken. And uninformed neutral parties, well meaning, will be cut down in the cross-fire, especially if they get duped by the side which does not bring reputable accounts of history to the table.

   When Christopher Columbus sailed to America, he kept two distance logs, his true log and another log for consumption by the crew so as to not discourage them and protect from possible mutiny. As it turned out, his fake log was actually more accurate than his true log. And so it is here, regarding hood-winking—note, however, only one side has reputable facts. Allow me to acquaint you with this simple example:

  • the Russian Duma passed a resolution to remind Latvia it joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law
  • for this reason, all the blunderbussing about "you can't occupy what belongs to you" and all similar crap aside, Latvia (and the other Baltic states) could not have been "occupied"

I've been asking for the reputable facts backing this contention for years. And what do we have (instead)? Medvedev's commission criminalizing stating the Soviet Union occupied Latvia.
   This has already been resolved by noting the Soviet viewpoint (and when it matches Official Russia). The issue is the recent push to institute that viewpoint as reputable and objective, for example, per Russavia's threats of filling the The Soviet Story article with "historian" Dyukov's rants. (I see also that Russavia has recently protested in their evidence that evil editors have attempted to defile Dyukov's reputation.) I hope to get to Russavia's "evidence" presently. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Brigette, without any desire to get involved in this, I think you were not exactly correct in saying that "To resolve a dispute both parties have to recognize the reason for the dispute is that one of them is mistaken (and it might be me!) on the issue and when there is outside consensus the mistaken party needs to concede the error." In a great many disputes in the RW, and in a great many that come to arb com, both sides may be mistaken, sometimes even to an equal degree. Sometimes both of them need to concede their errors. I don't think you really disagree with this? DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
DGG I agree with you 100%--BirgitteSB 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
In the abstract and as a principle, I wholeheartedly agree. Attempts to portray the Soviet legacy as other than it was (Official Russian nee Soviet fiction versus verified facts that all non-Soviet, non-Official Russian supporting sources agree on) and the attempt to vilify those with the verified facts (e.g., anti-Estonian attack pages created as articles and in user space) are a different case. In this case, the abstract and concrete are not related whatsoever, although mistaken for being such by outside observers. This is not about some "content dispute" of "conflicting POVs" regarding the same set of verified facts leading to a "dispute." Repeat 100 times:
  1. Not a content dispute.
  2. Not a content dispute.
  3. Not a content dispute.
  4. Not a content dispute.
  5. Not a content dispute.
  6. . . .
I myself have added the Soviet versions of history, in the appropriate context, to articles to insure all "points of view" are represented. A "point of view," however, does not imply a basis in fact. Hope this helps. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding more POV doesn't make an article NPOV.198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You rather miss my point. For example, that the Baltic states were "occupied" is not a POV, it is a fact which only Official Russia disputes based on no credible evidence as when the Russian Duma declares Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. Your response assumes that everything is a POV and nothing tracks back to verifiable fact. That is not the case here, and has never been. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At least in NYT archive for 1940, events in Baltic states are often described not as "occupation" but as "sovietization" or "absorption".DonaldDuck (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
We are discussing legal according to international law (per Duma et al.) or not. Your example is more of the position best characterized as (per Petri Krohn in particular): if an encyclopedia says Latvia "became part of the Soviet Union" then it couldn't have been "occupied." Answer me, how legally? What is the basis for Official Russia obviously being so sure it was legal that we are looking at Russia criminalizing the statement that Latvia was "occupied" by the Soviet Union? (Haven't been keeping close track whether it's become law or not yet.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No point missed Vecrumba, you stated "I myself have added the Soviet versions of history, in the appropriate context, to articles to insure all "points of view" are represented.". and I am responding by saying that having multiple points of view represented in an article does not make it NPOV. If my response assumes everything involved is a POV, its because you clearly labeled it as such.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple request

This is something I've brought up before - nobody here is "anti-Russian" - and Cool Hand Luke acted appropriately before in acknowledging that fact and apologized when I pointed out earlier that this kind of characterization is insulting.

Yet, the same pattern appears to be included in the wording on the Proposed Decisions page. In particular it occurs in #6) "against a perceived "Russian cabal"" (does the phrase "Russian cabal" even appear in the supposed archive?). Same thing with #7 "participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Misplaced Pages".

No, participants didn't believe anything like that. There is a multitude of Russian editors on English Wiki, many of whom have "pro-Russian" views, yet they still manage to discuss issues and articles in a civil manner and they do not hold extremist views like those typical of our content opponents. You are basically insulting the hell out of the many hard working Russian editors on En:Wiki that have nothing to do with PU/Offliner/Russavia/Company and so on (some of whom aren't even Russians, just big fans of Uncle Joe Stalin). And members of the list have been perfectly capable of working with the non-extremist Russian editors, agreeing with them, deferring to their subject expertise and treating them with the respect. This is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding in these Proposed Decisions, which I've already pointed out once, and you really need to fix it.

Like I said, nobody here is "anti-Russian" so please don't insult people like that. Somehow I get the sense that the ArbCom has been busy with so many ethnic issues in the past that it just can't get past the fact that this one is NOT an ethnic issue at all, however much some people try to play it that way.radek (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I take issue to your characterisation of myself, Offliner, PasswordUsername and others as holding extremist views. Also, the words "Russian cabal", "Russian cartel", and insinuations of this, appear in the archive on multiple occasions. --Russavia 11:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else take issue that Radeksz has accused me of being a fan of Uncle Joe Stalin? Would it be OK if I resorted to calling Radeksz an Adolf Hitler fan? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, well, obviously we're gonna disagree on how you view yourself and how others view you. But never mind that. The point is that nobody on the list is "anti-Russian". I can't speak for others but I know that I myself never called you guys "Russian cabal" or "Russian cartel"- always was careful to say "Soviet cabal" or "USSR Forever Cabal". Again, nobody here is anti-Russian.
P.U. - the obvious difference is that I can provide actual diffs in support of my contention (like here , removing an entire well sourced section simply because it makes Stalin look bad) while I'm 100% sure you can't come up with a single freakin' diff for your slander and lies. See - "truth" and "verifiability" - it makes all the difference.radek (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The edit summary I made noted my reason for removing this from the article, and my edit summary, that same one in your diff, in which I explicitly called out "Stalin's paranoia" (the Koreans were resettled for strategic purposes) was hardly flattering to Stalin, was it? Now you're calling me a slanderer and liar (as you've done multiple, multiple times by now, during this investigation, and including the pages in this investigation, but not just here). I'm sure ArbCom did't notice anything bad-natured there. Thanks. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what has happened in the past, accussing others of slander and lies in the way Radek did here is unacceptable. Pantherskin (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Please see here for another instance where P.U./A-N falsely claims that I'm a "friend" of some "Holocaust revisionist" Anon IP without any basis or evidence what so ever. I'm sorry but "slander" is actually a pretty mild word for what's going on here.radek (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of collaborating with the Holocaust revisionist IP. I noted that he has a stark pattern of editing where Jacurek does, which is also where you sometimes edit. This was a question about whether I could go to CheckUser with the evidence, which anyone can see from your own link. That's very different from you repeatedly calling me a liar, then a "fan of Uncle Joe Stalin," then a liar again. Good luck on evading sanctions even as you've done this throughout this ArbCom–I'm sure you'll be a highly productive, consensus-seeking editor when you return to editing with your friends. (For the record, I misconstrued the IP's comments at the Jedwabne talk page and have apologized after he registered and clarified . I do not think this Jacurek, but the similar patterns for some time led to me to assume so and inquire about it.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. Again folks, just follow the provided diff.radek (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
WHAT SIMILAR PATTERNS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT Anti-Nationalist?? YOU called me a Holocaust revisionist and others slanders without any reasons, just to make me look bad. HOW DARE YOU?--Jacurek (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I called you a likely sockpuppeteer due to the similarity of your editing and the IP's edits (ie, the same articles and similar times in which you edited them, and with some–much lesser–overlap with Radeksz's pattern), and I misinterpreted his comments on the Holocaust inappropriately, and issued an apology. It was not a "slander"–it was a request for clarification, as I've never filed an SPI request and sought the advice of an uninvolved admin familiar with the EE battlegrounds and editing conflicts, ie Jehochman. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya right.... just read the link above with your own comments again. And also..I never saw an apology, you apologized to the anon IP, not me. AND SO YOU KNOW, some of my far family members perished in the Holocaust (YES!) and I felt deeply offended by your slender. Now, peace with you and God bless you.--Jacurek (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of Holocaust denial, I wondered regarding the likelihood of you of being the person who made those comments, upon noticing some very odd similarities, of being this person's sockpuppeteer. (And I apologized to the person whose remarks I misconstrued, but extend these to yourself if you deem it appropriate.) Are any apologies going out for your coordination? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You know what...? How hard it is to simply apologize, something like I'm sorry if I offended you... instead of Are any apologies going out for your coordination? What this supposed to mean?Just forget it....Good luck to you and I wish you well.--Jacurek (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of Holocaust denial - right, you accused an IP that you *thought* was Jacurek of Holocaust revisionism. Or wait, no, more precisely - you accused Jacurek of using an anon IP to engage in Holocaust revisionism. But you never accused Jacurek of Holocaust revisionism. So no need for an apology to Jacurek, just the former IP. Right. This is just crazy.radek (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I misconstrued the IP's comments at the Jedwabne talk page and have apologized - so... how about an apology for Jacurek (nm me)? Obviously one is in order.radek (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Getting back on topic, Radek makes the valid point that this list was never "anti-Russian". In fact the majority of the team commonly referred to as simply the "Cartel" or "Cabal" on the list (152 times, while the terms "Russian cabal" or "Russian cartel" appear exactly 7 times), PasswordUsername/Anti-nationalist, Russavia and Offliner aren't even Russian, while some of the fiercest critics of this team are. Heck, my partner of 13 years is ethnic Russian and she would puke at the thought of the antics of PasswordUsername/Anti-nationalist, Russavia and co. If the ArbCom wants to get at the root cause of the issues besetting EE topics, lets have some precision and clarity here. --Martintg (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Community encouraged

Does it apply to Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) (topic-banned by Shell Kinney for 6 months), DonaldDuck (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Thatcher, allowed to participate in this ArbCom), HanzoHattori (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Keilana), Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Tariqabjotu), Jo0doe (talk · contribs) (blocked by Moreschi for one year), Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) (banned by ArbCom for one year), M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Moreschi), Miyokan (talk · contribs) (community-permabanned), Molobo (talk · contribs) (blocked for one year, allowed to participate in this ArbCom), Muscovite99 (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked), Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) (community-banned for one year), RJ CG (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked), Roobit (talk · contribs) (indefinitely blocked by Moreschi), Russavia (talk · contribs) (topic-banned by Sandstein for 6 months)? Wouldn't you like to weight the consequences beforehand? Colchicum (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that each of those should be reevaluated. It is entirely possible that a renewed inspection into the circumstances concludes that the sanctions were proper and have consensus; the point is that they should be reconsidered with an eye towards assuming good faith where possible. — Coren  14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that if such re-evaluation discussions are to be held, the list members should be excluded from participating in them, otherwise we'll only be seeing a rehashing of the same battles. Would you consider adding something to that effect? (I wouldn't worry that this would bias the discussion too much in the favour of the other side; the people who enacted those sanctions – admins like Moreschi or Sandstein – are quite capable of defending upholding of those sanctions if they should judge it appropriate.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the justification for any of this is, except to prohibit some uncomfortable but relevant questions. Also don't see how FP thinks this would not favor one side - certain editors have certainly proved themselves experts at stirring up enough meaningless drama so that frustrated admins throw up their hands and relent. How many different times and in how many different forums exactly (4? 5? 6?) did Russavia ask to have his block lifted?radek (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked to have my block lifted in only one forum. The same forum at which you appeared, and which resulted in yourself being deemed to being disruptive and banned from discussing myself outside of this case for the duration of this case. As to the justification, it is within the email archive itself as to why such a proposal is warranted. --Russavia 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be like some sort of time limit how old blocks should be considered for re-evaluation? I mean re-evaluation of infamous sockpuppeter Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) who was indef. blocked in beginning of 2007 (for example that was before Digwuren even joined wikipedia) just because of this mailing list case, really seems absolutely pointless.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've personally encouraged to focus on the past year or so, but I did not want to make a bright line timeout. I suppose it is reasonable to focus more closely on recent incidents, but I leave the relevance of different examinations to the community as a whole. I should point out that serial socking is unlikely to be overturned even over a cursory examination no matter who was involved in the original discussion! — Coren  17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand behind all the blocks made above: MVEi, Roobit, Jo0doe, etc. These were made independant of any efforts to manipulate the outcomes of such discussions, and the people blocked were particuarly nasty characters (MVEi and Roobit, in particular, I remember, had a history of vile ethnic slurs). Despite the despicable events of this RFAR let us not remember that there are very nasty and real Russian nationalists out there (doubtless some of whom coordinate their activities) who do troll and disrupt and to unban the lot would be to undo a lot of good work in a very short space of time. Moreschi (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy - ban from process discussions

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination makes note that there was improper coordination by the group. And there has been enough evidence presented which demonstrates that most list members actively took part in what can only be described as subversion of the gaining of consensus on Misplaced Pages. As such, I feel that a "ban" of sorts relating to list members from participating in process discussions on Eastern Europe topics is in order. This would include WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RM. Length of ban could be 3 months, or whatever the committee feels justified, but it is my belief this is totally warranted for most list members. In the perusing the archive myself (and yet not still done in full), User:Poeticbent and User:Alexia Death should be exempted from this remedy as I don't believe I found any evidence of those editor engaging in such behaviour. --Russavia 11:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you, Russavia, about Poeticbent - the timing is hard to establish, but he - along with several other members of the mailing list - !voted in a rename here . (Piotrus' request for action on the mailing list (20090907-0129) is timestamped Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:29 PM, and PB !voted at Wikitime 12:06, 6 September 2009). But yes, I'm grateful that closers no longer consider these by the numbers only. Novickas (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh no! Somebody voted in a way that Novickas doesn't agree with! On a topic they've shown lots of interest in the past! Seriously - this is a ridiculous attempt to get one's way in content disputes, AfDs and RMs, when one has lost the argument on the relevant talk pages.radek (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I perused my own evidence as well as found Poeticbent too, so have struck inline with my own findings and yours. --Russavia 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
In all of these cases decisions are made by uninvolved closing admins who try to evaluate consensus, which is NOT majority voting. So what is the problem? I know you're itching to get some uncomfortable articles deleted (throwing the hard work and time of many editors into the waste basket) but this is really cynical - you're basically asking that people are prevented simply from giving their opinions on these matters.radek (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Radek, you need to stop assuming bad faith with me, because as of now, I will no longer stand for it. You may want to note that I am currently topic banned for some 6 months, so I am not able to discuss any articles which deal with Russia or Russians. But it is common knowledge, and it has been recognised also, that the mailing list attempted to subvert the gaining of consensus within policy by using the mailing list as the tool with which to do it. With such actions has to come some responsibility, and by excluding list members from such things for a period of time is a good way to show you that what you guys did is not OK and that there can and will be consequences. --Russavia 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Russavia, I can't assume something that I know not to be true and neither does Misplaced Pages policy require me to do so. And the things you say are "common knowledge" and "recognised" (sic) are NOT in fact "common knowledge" or recognized except by yourself and your group of friends. As I say above - this is simply a cynical attempt to get one's way in content disputes, AfDs, RMs and other discussions. Apparently, since some people were incapable of making convincing arguments on the relevant talk pages those who disagreed with them (and who were capable of making reasoned arguments) must be silenced.radek (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is a serious question. You write "Well, Russavia, I can't assume something that I know not to be true and neither does Misplaced Pages policy require me to do so." Does this mean that you do not assume good faith now, and you will not in future assume good faith? A very clear, concise answer to this question is needed. --Russavia 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Russavia, I will take that as a serious question and answer it with good faith and not take it as some kind of baiting. Basically, both myself and other members of the list have made attempts in the past to "extend the olive branch" to you - which you rejected each time. I think that as of now I've used up all the olive branches from my tree. Additionally you've made some crazy accusations and statements, like comparing us to "gang rapists". I hope that clarifies the current situation.
As to the future - I can't say. The olive tree may grow more olive branches. But this in fact depends on you and your behavior. As I've said before I actually TRY to assume good faith - and I have no problem AGFing and respecting editors I very strongly disagree with like Igny or Paul Siebert for example. But at a certain point, TRYING to do something that is obviously not working (which is I believe the usual definition of "stupidity") just makes one feel foolish.
So, bottom line; up to you whether or not we can work on improving on the current situation.radek (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record - my offer to you, Russavia, still stands. I am willing to work with you on content creation, assume good faith towards you, and if you do the same, I will support removing the topic ban that was placed on you. I believe we can all edit harmoniously to build a better encyclopedia. Can you assume good faith towards us and work together towards that goal? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong support for this. In general, I think Coren's proposal is fine. He did a good job in identifying the ring leaders (Piotrus and Digwuren) as well as one of the most disruptive editors (Martintg). But will this proposal stop other list members from gaming the system, stealth canvassing and swamping noticeboard and AfD discussions? I don't think so. At least there is no indication that they would. These users have been warned over and over again, but still (as the list affair proves) they have always continued the disruption despite the warnings. Therefore, I strongly support a ban from community discussions for all of these editors. Sanctions should be preventative, and this one certainly would prevent disruption. In addition, losing the right to participate in community discussion would not be a major loss for these editors (or to the community), as they can still edit articles and create new content, which is the primary task in Misplaced Pages. Offliner (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate: this is nothing but a blatant attempt to accomplish indirectly - delete multitude of "uncomfortable articles" or move them to weaselly titles - what Russavia, Offliner etc. were unable to do with actual reasoned argument on the relevant talk pages and AfDs. It is a proposal to censor and silence.

In fact, the proper course of action is just the opposite - it is to more widely advertise such discussions so that a wide range of editors can participate which would prevent the potential of hijacking of various "votes" and "discussions" by any one group. The proposal to censor would be a step backwards, not forward.radek (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, "warned over and over again" is of course, just false. And this is just a blatant attempt to silence a group of editors with opposing views. As we can see from proposed findings, an arbitrator has not found evidence of "swamping noticeboard and AfD discussions", probably because there weren't any. --Sander Säde 09:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy - Digwuren's 3 month ban

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Digwuren_banned suggests that User:Digwuren should be banned from WP for 3 months. In October 2007, Digwuren was banned for one year as a result of Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Digwuren_banned. His setting up of this mailing list for what many believe was for nefarious reasons, and his continued battleground behaviour on WP after returning from stated one year ban, would demonstrate that WP:DIGWUREN and his one year ban taught him nothing, and hence the 3 month ban will not be a strong deterent. I request that an alternative remedy of a 12 month ban be added to allow arbitrators to vote for a stronger remedy that takes into account the history, particularly given Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#At_wit.27s_end. Is a 3 month ban after a 12 month ban really taking all of this into account? --Russavia 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And since Digwuren has left Misplaced Pages, the reasoning for any kind of ban would be..? --Sander Säde 12:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And why should Digwuren's alleged "retirement" be allowed to have any effect on this case? Digwuren has already stated that retiring before an ArbCom case is good "tactic" which has been shown to work. In addition, Digwuren has already stated on the mailing list, that he intends to return with another account and a clean block log. Offliner (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And if he does that, then the block would be useful exactly how..? Although creating socks while blocked (like Vlad fedorov) seems to be unpunishable now. And naturally, using the impeccable mental powers of mailing list member, Digwuren already knew about the ArbCom case in June and decided to leave. --Sander Säde 06:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren is one of the most warned and sanctioned editors in Eastern European topics and probably one of the most warned editors in whole of WP. He has already been blocked for a year by ArbCom. After the ArbCom ban expired, Digwuren has been blocked for harassment, disruptive editing, and in addition has been placed on 1RR for edit warring. How many last changes is this editor going to get? I've seen absolutely no indication that this editor is going to change his behaviour (getting blocked by ArbCom appears to only have prompted him to create the mailing list). In the light of all this, the 3 month ban is lenient indeed. Offliner (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why two links to his block log? And where is the block for harassment, I seem to have a hard time locating it. Also, there doesn't seem to be that 1RR that you claim, unless you mean the same that you got and which was removed after lobbying - from both of you. --Sander Säde 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Harassment, Disruptive editing, 1RR. If you want to act as the lawyer of the "retired" Digwuren, you'll have to do better than that. Offliner (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1RR was imposed and lifted from both of you, as you conveniently forgot to mention again. Your other two links still don't have anything about harassment. If you want to act as a prosecutor, judge and executioner for Digwuren, you'll have to do better than that. --Sander Säde 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the three proposed topic bans

Considering how User:Russavia has eventually gotten away with a 6 month topic ban for his disruptive behaviour, battleground mentality and even past herassment I find a year long topic ban rather strict. It would be fairer to match it with Russavia's topic ban of 6 months. If Russavia has been given another chance to prove himself that he's able to contribute positively to Eastern European topics after 6 months, I'd say you should give these other three users the same chance. Grey Fox (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I think even Russavia's topic ban could be revisited and shortened, if he can demonstrate that he is willing to work with others in good faith again. In either case, I think that instead of the sweeping "half of the continent" bans, several specific article bans or much more focused topic bans would be more constructive; most controversial editing occurred around the subject of "modern Russian politics", and I have already indicated I can adopt a voluntary restriction and avoid editing/commenting on that subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of other Foundation projects to store grievances

At last year's arbcom, there was some discussion of grievance lists maintained by Piotrus on PL WP. Altho the final decision was that 'Piotrus's activity on the Polish Misplaced Pages lies outside the Committee's remit'. , one arb opposed, and two abstained. He kept a similar list of grievances and diffs on Wikibooks between April and August of this year (its contents were deleted yesterday after this discussion .) Could the committee re-address this issue? Novickas (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it lies outside the scope of this case, but principle 5 ("Not a battleground") is materially relevant and should help guide further decisions. — Coren  15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you say it's outside the scope of this case - maybe you are referring to proof that the diffs posted there were actually used in later En-wiki disputes. That I don't know - harder to know now they're deleted. Most seemed to be against Deacon, who reduced his activity. Flo did mention at that previous case that 'For us to sanction for problems in another Foundation wiki, there would need to be evidence that serious harassment was happening.' Novickas (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As last arbcom demonstrated, preparing DR drafts is within rights of editors. What I wonder is - how much time did you spend to track down my draft, why did you do that, and how do your actions benefit the project? I also wonder if there is a wiki term to describe what you did (looking through thousands of my edits to different wiki projects in order to... do what?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Irpen's protests against the use of foundation space to compile this stuff were directly addressed in the last arbcom decision - that's why I felt it was appropriate to bring it up again. Your entries in Wikibooks are, right now, the fifth result of a Google search on Piotrus Deacon Misplaced Pages - and one of the subpages mentioned it was taken from Wikibooks. So it didn't require searching thousands of edits; it was one Google search followed by three or four subsequent clicks. You could consider asking the site to remove them. Novickas (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I will try to. Those wiki forks are really annoying. I have asked a wikibooks admin to delete the revisions, hopefully this will be reflected by the mirror when it updates again. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On the proposed decision

So, it is proposed the conspirators pardoned and victims of their baiting and mobbing campains retain permanently banned. It is also postulated good faith even for such editors as Radeksz against whom there is massive evidence of bad faith. This proposed decision is surely not a coincidence or ignorance, it can indicate only intentional taking sides by Misplaced Pages's ArbCom on political questions. This means complete catastrophe for Misplaced Pages's neutrality for years to come and Cart-Blanche for any sorts of nationalist attackers to disrupt Misplaced Pages further.

If this to pass me and many other good editors would have no choice other than abandon any participation in the project.--Dojarca (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Amnesty"?

About "Amnesty": What is this supposed to mean? "Granted amnesty for past behavior stemming from their participation" – does that mean all that behaviour is supposed to be written off and forgotten? Does it mean that, when considering possible sanctions against these editors in the light of any future (on-wiki) infractions, admins will in the future be expected to ignore this past history of theirs? That, I think, would be highly inappropriate. I don't mind these editors getting away without bans and the like for now, but I can't ignore that some of them have still been engaged in problematic editing over the last weeks – e.g., Jacurek had to be warned off about wiki-hounding of Matthead, and Dc76 appears to be engaged in some rather un-nice POV skirmishes with User:Anonimu (, see also Anonimu's talk page; I believe both sides are partly at fault there.) So, these editors are continuing editing in the spirit of their battleground mentality, and I can easily see further AE threads coming up.

If you judge they did nothing wrong, they don't need an amnesty. If you judge they did something wrong but it didn't rise to the level of requiring serious sanctions, for now, then an amnesty isn't what they need either; they just need minor sanctions (such as warnings and "admonishments"). The term "amnesty" seems to mean either nothing at all, or something rather counter-productive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What about a little bit of a good faith from your part Future Perfect at Sunrise? User Matthead was blocked several times] for a reason and your controversial unblock of his account] was very unjust in my opinion. I never wanted to go into details here over this and I still don't, but if you continue to attack me and portray me in a bad light I will have to I'm afraid.--Jacurek (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The point, FP, is that the infractions commited by other members are — in the whole — relatively minor and the remedy was crafted looking forward. I think that the interests of the project are best served with closing the matter (to prevent such minor infractions as may have been from being raised over repeatedly in the future) while not going so far as to give absolution (given that there were cases where the editorial process was tampered with).

I should expect that, given the admonishment, all of them will shy away from such off-wiki fora in the future. — Coren  15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is coordinated editing, edit warring, and secret mailing list canvassing in full knowledge of the rules of Misplaced Pages a minor infraction, not in the spirit of battleground mentality? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, given the fairly extreme battleground views taken by many on both sides of these debates, do you (ArbCom) really think that this amnesty will prevent it from being brought up over and over in every future dispute? Given the glee I see in some of the posts, this will be used as a hammer against specific people and groups with opposing views for quite a while. I think it's an admirable statement, but isn't it just wishful thinking? Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Coren: in wikispeak, admonishment equals commendation, doesn't it? NVO (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear you are asking this in good faith, but no it doesn't. It means "Don't have done that, and you had better not do it again." — Coren  17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite right, I don't have faith, good or bad, in the Committee. NVO (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I know you say it should make them shy-away from off-wiki fora in the future. But I am going to ask a stupid question here. Has anyone asked any of the group members if this list is still operational? And if so, what has the response been? --Russavia 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. Blame it on the ringleader, let the soldiers elect a new chief. Back to square one. But I doubt that any wholesome punishment will change the pic; in the absence of an editorial policy wikipedia will remain a battleground, new editors will quickly radicalize into fighters etc. Deja vu. What year it is, doctor? NVO (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the amnesty is to work this time, it needs to be followed up by an attempt to restore good faith between radicalized editors. See my proposals for that here, here and here. I hope that the committee considers adopting / building upon some of them. If there is no follow up to the amnesty aiming to reform the editors, the underlying problem will not be solved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The decision, as of today, relieves you and your ring of any of these formalities - you've won again, three months is nothing, go on as you wish. NVO (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
See, I am tired of the battlegrounds. I have no intention to see them resume, be it tomorrow, three months or next year. I don't want to see EE'10 arbcom. Hence I want to help in finding and implementing a solution that will ensure the cursed cycle of EE battlegrounds and cycles will end - this time for good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you choose, it's not a matter of your own will (and it was not before). I doubt that the framework of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS allows any long-term solution. NVO (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren, this is a good faith question. My question is just how many amnesties are we going to have? Editors have already had an amnesty as demonstrated at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Amnesty. Are you aware of this? Given that, this amnesty is entirely inappropriate, as it is allowing editors to get away with the same thing every other day. The time has come, that being now, that editors take responsibility for their actions, and for this Committee to ensure that this responsibility is taken, even if forcibly. This proposed amnesty does not sit right with me, and I doubt it will sit right with other editors either. To put it in a humourous light, it reminds me of The Simpsons episode The Parent Rap: "Harm is just about to punish Bart when Judge Snyder returns from his vacation. Lisa moves for a motion that "boys will be boys", and Judge Snyder grants the motion, dismissing the case. The family returns back to normal, and Marge makes the family promise not to break the law for a year (after which Homer immediately hits Hans Moleman with his car)." What this Arbcom needs to do is to be firm but fair (too all sides), otherwise it is continually going to end up back here. --Russavia 17:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, another completely irrelevant analogy to a TV show or a movie. At least this time you're not comparing anybody to rapists.radek (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've commented on this case previously, and just happened to be reading the proposed decision... I find the "Amensty" proposal to be pretty risky territory, particularly with respect to the potential for unintended consequences. It seems unnecessary and not entirely reasonable, given the potential downsides. I'll be interested to see what the other arbitrators think about this provision. Nathan 22:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty needs to be followed up with remedies that will ensure that those editors who are not "scared away" (for a while) are otherwise convinced to deradicalize and be productive editors. See ideas at #Constructive proposals and #Community service: Wikisource. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor factual error in FoF

Authenticity of archive contains a small error of fact: "period from 2009-02-01" should be corrected to "2009-01-02", i.e. 2 January, not 1 February. (The date format used on the archive index page is confusing, I know.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, and changed format to be less ambiguous. Danke. — Coren  15:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while we're on the topic here, I'd like to point out (I've only looked at some of the emails in the archive recently) that this is inaccurate: There are no technical inconsistencies, nor any indication that any part of it has been tampered with. - there is actually one very strong indication that the emails have been tampered with. Any email that had been posted by somebody with a Gmail account should've had headers like this:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by xxxxxxx with SMTP id xxxxxxx; Date Time Time Zone (PDT)
In-Reply-To:

However, from the emails I looked at, the "Received: by..." part has been removed - presumably so that it couldn't be determined from what account the archive was leaked (basically the hacker/leaker covering their tracks). This was obviously done intentionally and deliberately as, for example, all the spam filter stuff was left in.

So there's definitely been *some* tampering with the emails (covering up of tracks) - the question is was this the only tampering that was done or was there further monkey business.radek (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Listman software can apparently work this way, so there is not necessarily any truth to continued tampering claims. --Russavia 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting the mail list administrator leaked the emails? --Martintg (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Exactly what I wrote is exactly what I mean. --Russavia 18:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this alleged leaker used Listman to strip the "Received: by" line from all 3000+ emails in their inbox. So how does that invalidate what radek said? Presumably if this person is malicious enough to out you in the process of posting the archive, he would also be capable of injecting stuff to further incriminate list members, no? --Martintg (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read 20090606-0903- Security idea_ get rid of headers.eml (the title says it all.) Offliner (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that ... the emails apparently still have headers. Strange, huh?radek (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive proposals

I'd appreciate arbitrators and community feedback on my workshop proposals: mediation/mentorship good-faith committee, public discussion forum for EE topics, an offer to build trust (and good content) and voluntary restrictions.

I would like to point out that in the past month I have not been involved in any controversial dispute resolutions, but I have worked on uncontroversial content. I have finished following DYKs: Kordian, Colonies of Poland, Polish–Muscovite War (1577–1582), Dymitr of Goraj, Landflucht and Adolf Bniński. I am willing to place myself (voluntarily, even before this arbcom ends) on a series of restrictions to assure the community that mistakes of the past will not be repeated, but I would like to ask - what harm is there if I am allowed to continue with my uncontroversial content editing? The only diff cited by FoF regarding me is the one where I semi-protected an article - an action that would have been carried out by somebody else if the article was reported to RfProtecion... but if the community and the committee feels that this one diff is enough to justify desysoping me, I am prepared to resign my amin tools. However, I want to finish helping GAing Suwałki Agreement‎, I plan to improve Juliusz Słowacki - one of the three greatest Polish poets - from start to GA, I want to continue the clean up of Poland-related new articles feed (I am the only editor doing so...), filling the blanks in those missing articles, and my activities related to WP:SUP, WP:ACST and other uncontroversial projects. I'd hope that it would be possible to tailor the proposed decisions to balance restrictions to avoid disruption and allow constructive editing (please see my proposal here, and I am quite willing to work with the committee to refine them further). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Blunt instruments like ban hammers will not really benefit the project in this case, but I guess no sanction is not realistic either. In the case of editors who have proven to have made a positive contribution in the past, perhaps they could be sanctioned via a "community service parole" or a "project service parole". Certainly a project service parole would benefit a topic area that is chronically unrepresented, for example Culture of Estonia. I've been working extensively on the subtopic area of Estonian literature, creating and expanding many articles on literary figures and movements, and articles like Visual arts in Estonia, Sculpture of Estonia and related subtopics have yet to be created. By the same token, a community service parole could apply to those with admin tools. There are many areas in admin space that are sorely lacking in attention, for example I know that the move request board is chronically understaffed and could use some assistance, a service parole in that area would benefit the project more than outright loss of admin tools. The publication of the maillist in itself was punitive enough with the attendant loss of face and reputation without the need for additional ban hammers. Let's think outside the box and find solutions that benefit the project rather than continue down the same old path as before. --Martintg (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The community service is an interesting idea. Have you thought about how it could work in practice? Would the editor have to fulfill a certain quote of uncontroversial content creation, for example a DYK per week? I think that some editors on both sides desperately need to refocus on content creation, and spend less time arguing pointlessly. Such content creation should also take place in articles / areas where they are unlikely to enter into conflict, although this could be addressed with an active mediation and mentorship where neutral experienced editors could oversee parties as they try to collaborate on subjects that were in the past prone to conflict. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why you two dispute the remedies here. However I wonder if you agree that the findings of fact are accurate or if not which of the proposed facts you dispute.--BirgitteSB 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking just for myself, regarding "List secrecy" I acknowledge secret lists are problematic and as I stated in many places I vow not to use them again in any fashion that could be interpreted as disruptive. Regarding "Use of administrative tools in dispute", I've addressed the Battle of Konotop semi-protection in my evidence here (re:Piotrus has abused his admin powers subsection); I believe it was an uncontroversial request that would have been granted at RfProt - but in retrospect I should've asked the editor who submitted this request to resubmit it publicly at RfProt (and this will be my response to any future private requests like this I receive). Since the FoF states that "has used his administrative tools in disputes" I'd appreciate it if other diffs could be added that would indicate other occasions I used my admin tools in an inappropriate manner, to justify the use of plural in the FoF and to allow me to address and/or learn from those diffs. Regarding "Disruption" FoF, I'd appreciate it if diffs were added to it so that I could again address and/or learn from them; regarding comments in private correspondence, see my first sentence in this post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've already commented on these emails that form the basis of the FoF against me on the workshop page, perhaps you would like to discuss it there. For example, this is cited 20090818-0353 "Can someone revert PU on Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group)" yet when you look at the articles Neo-Nazism and Nochnoy Dozor (group) at that time, no disruption actually occurred at those articles. The same with the other emails cited, no on-wiki disruption resulted. Talking the talk is one thing, but actually walking the walk is something else altogether.. I thought there would be atleast some workshopping done to clarify some issues before the proposed decision is drafted. Now the proposed decision appears seemingly as a fait accompli without any significant discussion on the workshop page. --Martintg (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless you go here and see the stonewalling you guys did, which prevented a move to another title for several months. That's in reply to what you just posted. No disruption, Martintg? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"You guys" - not me, I've never participated in this. I see a discussion involving several editors that lasted a few days in June. Martin solicited input from WP:3O - hardly an action that would be taken by a group of editors who want to keep a discussion under a control. But where is the disruption? Estonian editors interested in article about Estonia and disagreeing with other editors is wrong because...? But for the record: if I had taken part in this discussion I'd have supported your request and move per WP:DISAMBIG - (group) is much more encyclopedic than (pressure group), unless there is more than one group to disambiguate between (which doesn't seem to be the case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Except that Password/Anti-Nationalist's move warring of Nochnoy_Dozor_(group) occurred a couple of months before the email cited as evidence of my disruption, and disruption of Estonia related articles are detectable via this tool, making the list redundant in any case. Let's have some semblance of cause and effect. --Martintg (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you realized yet, Martin, that they are using this case to get rid of their content opponents and are willing to blame absolutely any edit by list members on the existence of the list? Not to mention, covering up their own "Child abuse is common"-style disruptions - something so evil and biased that no list member has not even come close to that level. --Sander Säde 19:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
So, the discussion for a move to a more neutral name was not advertised on the e-mail list, as I noted in my evidence? And it wasn't compounded by the e-mail list's enthusiasm for getting me banned should I "move war" the article in spite of your false "consensus"? And it was not stalled for months on the flimsiest of pretexts? And my-oh-so-evil inclusion of the pedophilia in Estonia material was something taken from here , where you can see the cases per population ratio for yourself. So it was sourced material, and I included it because I was tired of your team's stalking, stonewalling, and outright harrasment on every article I edited, and needed to distract your attention somewhere else. I did not reinsert the material again, so you're bringing up one edit over and over and over again: one freakin' diff, my one case of really lashing out at the dumb and persistent harrasment (in a way that seemed like a smart idea at the time). Every single other edit I performed was far more sober, in spite of your constant harrasment. Not that this even was, or even could have logically been, the cause of your hate campaign against me: you were active long before I made that edit or even registered, and your harrasment extended to everybody you did not like. I was blocked for this when your friends showed up on ANI to protest at what an egregiously bad edit this was. Prior to this, I appealed to admins for help and got none. Not only is this a very stale subject, showing this as some "evidence" of my horrible views–so horrible that coordinated action not only against myself, but at least five other editors was warranted–isn't sufficient. And I can provide far worse violations of tendentious editing by members of your team on request. (The edit history of Monument of Lihula and edits like this deletionist beauty from Martintg speak far louder than my words ever could.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just simply amazing that P.U. (AN) is STILL defending the ==Molestation== "Children are molested there" edit that he is (in)famous for. I guess this was one of those "far more sober" edits - by his standard.radek (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
And since the article is not even mentioned in the list until June 14 when you started move-warring - long after the attempts by me and Martin to talk peacefully, as Martin pointed out, that doesn't naturally matter - there was a mental message to all list members to go and argue with you. And go look at your gleeful edit spree where you insert absolutely anything negative to Crime in Estonia, whether it was relevant to the article or not, sourced or not. Yet you have more then enough of self-justification - and dare to accuse others. --Sander Säde 20:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we all try to assume more good faith, guys? This section is supposed to be about constructive proposals, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support these voluntary restrictions - they are preferable to a crude ban. I believe that Piotrus' believes in WP, suggested those restrictions in good faith and will abide them. His contribution to non-controversial articles will be easy to follow and judge. Leaving Piotrus on such field will be both profitable and safe for WP. Visor (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While this offer has some merit I'd like to note that it's completely incompatible with the attacks on their opponents some mailing list members have made during the arbitration and still make (see threads below). Also, imho it would be not fair if the editors not guilty of off-wiki disruption who were punished in the course of this conflict end up with similar sanctions as the ones whose case is currently investigated. Alæxis¿question? 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope that none of my edits here can be interpreted as attacks. Please let me know if you think I made an improper comment anywhere here and I'll refactor it if possible. That said I agree that all parties should concentrate on constructive proposals, and stop attacking one another (see also my comment above). We need to repair our relationships, not make them worse. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus is proposing constructive and neutral solutions which will not harm anyone. He doesn't seem to be making any attacks at this moment. I really support Piotrus and keep in mind what he done for WP. Just make a little résumé of what he's done to WP. Quantity and quality of his edits, fighting with bias and pov, articles about WP outside it, etc. Look also at his barnstars and keep in mind that he is the most contributing Polish Wikipedian here, on enwiki. Isn't just enough? Fair, he done what he done, but I believe that by his contribution, we can give him a chance. Visor (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can tell you all is that if Piotrus is banned for a year, Misplaced Pages will loose THE BEST Polish editor it have ever had. His knowledge of Polish related topics and dedication to this project is extraordinary and hard to match. ..And I don't want to hear now all the B.S. of the usual opponents of Piotrus PLEASE, I have heard it all already, so keep you comments to yourself. All I know is that one editor like Piotrus is worth more to Misplaced Pages than all of us Polish editors combined. I think it will be a huge loss to Misplaced Pages if Piotrus never comes back if banned.--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Who are you to speak so humbly on behalf of hundreds Category:Wikipedians_in_Poland (not including alien list members like Vercrumba and Biophys, not including unaffiliated Polish Americans etc.)? Did they all give you a proxy or is there another list in place? grin. Do you really equate spitting hatred and spreading misinformation to being a Pole? Is it 1919, again? Arbcom says you can go on, so you don't need anyone else's consent for so-called "building trust". NVO (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And who are you to question my opinion?--Jacurek (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Piotrus is right that some initiative needs to be taken to help resolve at least some of the conflicts in Eastern European subjects and re-establish good faith between editors (honestly, speaking for myself, due to the persistent personal attacks and the outting that has taken place, I've lost most of mine in regard to some editors. However I've also gained a LOT of respect for others - like Igny). There are actually two general aims here: 1) diffuse potential areas of conflict before it erupts, 2) get editors talking to each other honestly (but with civility and mutual accusations). Hopefully, success in 2) will lead to less of a need for 1) - but let's try to do what we can and not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Diffusing conflicts would actually be better done with MORE editor involvement rather then less. With more editors there's less of a chance that a extreme view (or two polar extreme views) will take sway. Basically, articles and topics of potential conflict (including things like AfDs) should be advertised more widely - this would also make it "fair" in the sense that anyone interested could see it, and it would also eliminate the temptation to engage in off-wiki "letting people know" (NTTAWWT). To that end, I think that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard can serve as an appropriate tool.

For building good faith ... ugh, this is going to be the tougher one. A "mediation/mentorship good-faith committee", as Piotrus proposes would definitely be needed. The problem of course is that whoever joins the committee is going to have some really hard - and often thankless - work set out for them (a special award/barnstar would probably be the least the community could do to show its appreciation to such a person). It would be good to know at this stage what kind of interest in mediating these issues is out there. But one way or another, something like that has to happen, just so we're not back here a year from now with another ArbCom case (with same or different participants).radek (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek, and naturally I would be in favour of constructive proposals such as those put foward by Piotrus. See my Thoughts below. We really need to sort out these endemic problems - in the name of building a good encyclopedia - and we won't do that by handing out arbitrary punishments to selected individuals (except for those who have clearly shown they've no interest in contributing positively). --Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Being involved mostly in the Central-Eastern European articles editing, I'd hate to loose any valuable editor because of content disputes, and I'm all for a constructive solution if one is possible. I believe that self-imposed restrictions plus parole is the way to go, although it would be good to contemplate which restrictions should be considered and what purpose would they serve. Myself, I've limited my editing mostly because I was not interested in warring, wiki-lawyering etc. but in the content and maintaining a neutral pov, so I can well understand similar disappointment feelings of the others. Anyway, I think by all means you should strive for a constructive constructive solution that would not harm wikipedia in this, already very delicate, area. --Lysy 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are what - five? - edit diffs in evidence against Piotrus. He offers to put himself under long term voluntary restrictions. There are editors here from both sides who have been really disruptive, and they have not followed suit. Considering how Piotrus is trying to reach out to everyone and atone for any misdeeds, I think it would be a shame to ban the guy who wrote 80% of Poland-related Featured Articles (what - 20 total - probably more than all of the people criticizing him here put together...), and probably a good chunk of all Poland-related articles for even few days, not to mention months! And look - Piotrus has done nothing controversial in the past month, doesn't that mean anything? Tymek (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus has been an incredibly productive contributor to Misplaced Pages content and process. If he has shown a few lapses, which of us has not? The tone of discussion, and the quality of documentation, at Misplaced Pages have been improving, and should continue to. I think we should take Piotrus up on his proposals. Nihil novi (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He is not being accused of "a few lapses." We would not be here if this were over a few lapses. Please read the evidence page. csloat (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, he is being accused of all kinds of crazy things by people who have an axe to grind and who are blowing things way out of proportion (as well as making totally incivil comparisons to "gang rapists" and "pogromists" that, were this not the ArbCom discussion page, would have gotten them a hefty civility ban already). The actual concrete evidence that has been presented however shows at best minor infractions (like protecting a page that in fact should have been protected - but probably by an uninvolved admin).radek (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also instructive to consider the behavior of both "sides" during this case. Piotrus (and others) are at least trying to make constructive proposals, and are looking for a way - through discussion and offers of cooperation - to mover forward.

It appears though that Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername (as well as uninvolved 'auxilliaries' like Dojarca, csloat and Viriditas) are not doing anything of the sort but rather can only howl for blood, based on false accusations and extremely offensive personal attacks (like comparing, wrongly, to Holocaust revisionists, pogromists or gang rapists).

In other words, one side is trying to end the battleground atmosphere in EE topics, while the other side is just trying to stir up pointless drama and propagate the battleground atmosphere.radek (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So to summarize: Mailing list members are guilty of only minor infractions. They are trying to make constructive proposals. They are looking to move forward. The other side is only trying to stir up drama. They propagate the battleground atmosphere. They howl for blood. They make extremely offensive personal attacks. If things would only be that simple.
Here is my suggestion to the mailing list participants: Take responsibility for your actions (And no you haven't. Saying sorry for joining the mailing list makes you sound that you are sorry for being caught. Saying if the arb com feels that I did something wrong I will promise not to do it again is exactly the opposite of taking responsibility. And so on.). There is no need to apologize, but there is a need to acknowledge what you did wrong. Only this would make it believable that this secret mailing list will end, once and for all, and that your future contributions to the project will be constructive. If that would happen, I would be the first to support much more lenient editing restrictions. Pantherskin (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point, Piotrus. You take responsibility for minor infractions, well, not even that as you actually downplay them. You do not take responsibility for any of the major infractions you are guilty of. If that is all we can expect from you after all the evidence presented by involved and uninvolved editors... Although to your credit you are taking more responsibility than other members of the mailing list. Pantherskin (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm merely a lurker here at the wiki these days, I thought I'll drop by and add my two eurocents to this discussion (or two euros, considering the length of my post). As I already noted numerous times on numerous occasions, I was chased off Misplaced Pages some time ago by one of the EE clubs and now don't waste too much of my time on it. Anyway, in the recent months I cooled down a bit and don't believe in bans as a way to change anything.

But let me tell you a story first. Once upon a time we (I mean all of Wikipedians interested in EE and CE-related articles, but those of Polish extraction specifically, more on that later) had a huge problem with certain User:Zivinbudas. The guy was clearly way off-balance when it comes to views and he used all means possible to ensure that Lithuania-related articles represent his point of view - and his only. Sockpuppetry, constant reverts, ignoring sources, ignoring consensus, name-calling, you name it. In the end the guy became so infuriated that he started adorning his edits with comments similar to "Poles to gas chambers". Only then were we able to attract any admin's attention to what was happening. Why? I guess no admin was interested in EE&CE topics or knowledgeable enough to tell the truths from complete nonsense (note the plural). In the end Zivinbudas was banned for one year and never showed up again.

This was in 2004 or 2005. However, others followed his path. His example showed only one thing: as long as you stay in EE-history area, you're safe to do anything you can as there's no admin to watch those articles. You can delete sources from an article and then claim it is unsourced - it's all fine. As long as you don't call for sending anyone to gas chambers, that is. Once Zivinbudas has been banned I was quite happy. Not because I could insert anything into Lithuania-related historical articles (which BTW I could as there were apparently no other editors with that knowledge in Wikiland back then), but because I felt there would be some peace in articles on EE and CE history. But in the end the can of worms remained open and only got harder to close.

The other side of that coin is what I discovered during my (failed) RfA a long time ago. If your main area of interest is, say, maths or biology, you'll live a long and happy wiki-life. However, if you're interested in history, sooner or later you'll end up in some endless quarrel over this or that topic. This is especially true in the case of modern history (a can of worms), and CE and EE history in particular (a shipload of worms). It doesn't matter if you're a university professor, a greatest of all minds and a good-faith editor all the time. In the end someone will start to revert your articles just because, and in the end you will get provoked and finally respond with a word too much. This IMHO explains why we (I mean all historically-minded Wikipedians) couldn't get any help from the outside even in the most simple cases. I remember starting RfCs where noone outside of the interested parties showed up. Typical.

And now on to ban of Piotrus (I refer to him specifically, as he's the only person out of those listed in this ArbCom case I know and in fact even met personally - once, but still). I don't believe banning him would do this project any good. In the end the war is not between wikiPoles and wikiRussians, but between those of us who are content creators (creating featured articles, adding sources, negotiating the release of media into PD and so on) and content destroyers (quarrelling over everything, not providing any sources for their edits, accusing everyone around of fancy things and so on). Having said that, I believe Piotrus' has been on the bright side of the force for most of his time and Wiki would loose a valuable editor. Whether he is worthy of being an admin is another case I'm not judging here. As I said before, no person interested in history is "adminnable" in Misplaced Pages. //Halibutt 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This was our last chance

If such solid extraordinary evidence led to nothing, there is no hope at all. Suppose the archive was not dicovered. The cabal would continue their disruptive work without any obstacle, stonewalling dispute resolution and banishing other editors. But the very fortune gives us such a solid unprecedented evidence. But the arbitrators suggest to close eyes on this. What next? If the off-wiki coordination continue (this will be the case for sure), the particepants will keep it in even greater secret and take any measures to avoid detection. We cannot expect to get such exceptional evidence for a second time. This was the last chance for Misplaced Pages's neutrality. --Dojarca (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reds under beds and cabalists in the closet. Are we really that insecure that we cannot rely upon the judgement of admins closing debates or conducting dispute resolution on the merits of the arguments presented? How often are we told that "it is not a vote"? Any reasonable person involved in EE space knows who is who in the various factions, which existed long before the list was created. --Martintg (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Was not it you who rejected the meditation ?--Dojarca (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
When it involves an article that had been stable for over a year and which yourself hadn't edited for two years, and a admin Hiberneantears (who was totally unaware of the previous dispute resolution processes) acting as proxy on your behalf, decided to split and edit a perfectly stable article unilaterally and use his admin tools protect the result, it had moved beyond mediation. --Martintg (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It was stable because all your opponents were banished from it.--Dojarca (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you link the relevant topic ban? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The outcome of the previous mediation case has been violently rejected and the mediator attacked: . Any attempts to make the article more neutral were reverted on sight and any references removed.--Dojarca (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"violently rejected and the mediator attacked", are you kidding? The participants approached the case in good faith but the case was subsequently closed prematurely by the mediator, citing the mysterious advice of some unknown arbitrator. Hardly conductive to dispute resolution. But regardless, the article was extensively re-written after the case, introducing additional viewpoints per WP:YESPOV, but you wouldn't have known that because you were away, returning later like Rip van Winkle with your baggage of bad faith assumptions. --Martintg (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense Dorjarca. What prevented you from editing the article in the previous two years, your block log is clean. Instead you drew in Hiberneantears in this bad faithed manner, several days before you even returned to edit the article after your year long absence. This poisoned the atmosphere right from the beginning. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to edit article when all you edits quickly reverted.--Dojarca (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
How would you know, you hadn't edited the article for two years before making you bad faithed claims about events that occurred two years ago on Hiberneantears' talk page. --Martintg (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Because I do not like edit-warring.--Dojarca (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then participate in good faithed discussion on the article talk page rather than engineer bad faithed disruption via unsuspecting admin's talk pages. --Martintg (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What the purpose of discussing if it cannot lead to any change in the article? Both meditations were rejected. It is impossible to convince nationalists in anything without policy enforcement.--Dojarca (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Dojarca. Therefore, it is excellent that the current article is based on the opinions of the international historians/politicians and not just historiography of one country - which is there mentioned as well. --Sander Säde 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good faith

There is every indication that the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view on Misplaced Pages, going so far as to suspect involvement by the Russian government. - this is completely flawed argument. The group pushed anti-Russian propaganda anywhere they could, making no difference between Tsarist Russia, Soviet Union and modern Russia. They managed to insert anti-Russian statements into articles from Alexander Suvorov to Santa Claus. It is evident that such overwhelming POV-pushing cannot be made in good faith as well as removig the references. Could good-faith users reject a meditation? Or maybe they thought administrators Hiberniantears and John Carter were Russian government's agents?

This argument is completely the same as to say that people who organized an anti-Jewish pogrom should be pardoned because they believed that Jews really drink blood of Christialn babies.


Only Anti-Semitic government could pardon pogrom participants on such pretext.--Dojarca (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca, please keep on posting these kinds of comments. Really. I'm not sure if comparing people to pogromists is an improvement on comparing them to gang rapists - I guess it's a horizontal move. But seriously, you're illustrating certain things very nicely here.radek (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Good faith and facts seems to be sorely missing from this post. At least try to get your facts right: not a single of our members has ever edited Santa Claus: , and not a single post on a discussion page (including archives) mentions any anti-Russian comments. What's next, the accusation that we are promoting the flat Earth POV? PS. Dojarca, I am certainly willing to assume good faith toward you. What puzzles me is that I can recall only one instance of our interaction - and that was when I agreed with you here. So why not take up my offer and work with me to create uncontroversial encyclopedic content? I'll do my best to prove to you we can work together to improve this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
But edited Ded Moroz , at least Molobo and Piotrus. And edit-warred in it.--Dojarca (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
2005 diffs? I can't really speak up for what Molobo did in 2005, but my edits from 2006 involved one revert and merging a fork into the article, which has been rather stable since then (and not edited by me). If you'd like to work on improving this article, I am willing to help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, revert restoring unsourced claim that after communism Dziadek Mróz disappeared from Polish culture. Why then Polish schools celebrate Christmas with Dziadek Mróz in 2008? --Dojarca (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because the 2008 page didn't exist in 2006? You are welcome to add a note that DMróz still exists in Polish culture, if you can find a reliable source for it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But you're free to add that Dziadek Mróz does not exist in Polish culture without any source, yes? Because you have "consensus" for it, yes?--Dojarca (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good faith? A question to Coren

According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Good_faith, list members thought that editors, including me, Russavia, PasswordUsername and others are connected with or paid by the Russian government or security services. I do note that in your own support you say that this is misguided.

In a previous case in 2008, the ArbCom found that found that There is no convincing evidence that any of the security organs of the Russian state are involved in Misplaced Pages editing, directly or indirectly; nor that any editors involved in this matter are acting as agents of or receiving instruction from said organs. As Russavia notes in this case, an editor escaped enforcement, for what appears opposition from a couple of Arb members who noted a promise not to engage in such things again, and also escaped admonishment.

Still, there are plenty of instances on the mailing list of editors claiming that myself and other editors are members of Russian security forces, etc. And there is also evidence at this very case in which the editor accuses myself and other editors of not only being employed by yet another Russian government-related entity, but in which he also calls us neo-Nazis. This happened right here on these very evidence pages, and it was picked up on by Russavia with this evidence that he presented.

The question to you is, given editors have denied unfounded accusations against them on multiple occasions in the past, and given the fact that an RFAR from less than 12 months ago found no evidence of this, and given evidence that has been introduced of the continuation of accusations since then, and given evidence that was introduced in this very case, how can this very well be assumed as being "good faith"? Is this not an insult to those editors who have long been at the receiving end of these unfounded accusations? Offliner (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is simple: if you say that they are agents of Estonian government, it is break with the policy and offense, if they accuse you being agent of FSB/KGB/NKVD, it is good faith because FSB is so evil, why not to believe they have agents everywhere? :-) --Dojarca (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Offliner, on the subject of good faith, how about you take up my offer and work with me to create uncontroversial encyclopedic content? The two of us have never interacted much in the past, how about we try to establish a good editing relationship and give others an example of how we can help this project? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Not just KGB agents, but also "liars" and "big fans of" none other than "Uncle Joe Stalin" himself, as just posted by Radeksz in this very discussion. I'm glad that this kind of abuse flies under the radar is not considered by ArbCom as anything serious or damaging to Misplaced Pages's processes.
I'm just an American in his early 20s with Eastern European Jewish roots (not ethnic Russian) and a serious interest in the Eastern European topics and left-wing political philosophy, but apparently I'm a KGB agent and an operative of FSB as well, and it's apparently alright to violate all norms of WP:CIV and everything else in order to poison the environment for me and others (apparently, the Wikipediametric mailing list was not enough). And I'm sure that Radeksz will return to cooperative editing as soon as this affar is settled, after one or two be-nice-to-these-editors admonishments. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny. You complain about my edits - which I can support with diffs, yet make no mention of Russavia comparing people to gang rapists or Dojarca comparing them to pogromists.radek (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
He is currently edit-warring in coordination with Loosmark in German-Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk without any pause even for this case. He knows it will lead to no punishment. This has been added to my evidence, but it seems it falls under amnesty now. --Dojarca (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Folks, go to the article Dojarca's linking to. Look at the talk page. See for yourself.radek (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Or look at the history page: . One revert on Oct 6, two reverts on Oct 8, all with edit summaries, plus a lot of posts at talk. WP:BRD? Nah. Behold Radeksz, the wiki menace. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the peanut gallery on both sides above (take bickering elsewhere, I for one have had a bloody gutful it). If we can stay focussed on this one thing, that being the issues that Offliner has raised. His sentiments mirror my sentiments in their entireity. To see the section entitled "good faith" with details covering consistent and persistent accusations of a multitude of editors being KGB agents and a whole lot of kooky things has me absolutely stumped. So I too ask the same questions of Coren, and I ask him these additional questions:

  • Is the section so named because it is Coren's opinion that these editors have a good faith reason to believe this? If this is the case, why has zero evidence been presented in this case which would give a single one of these editors reason to believe there are spooks editing WP on behalf of the Russian government, and why is the committee going to vote on it as such?
  • Is the section so named because Coren is assuming good faith that these editors truly hold these opinions of KGB spys and agents running around WP, even if he himself believes it is misguided? And is this good faith that is being extended ignoring previous cases where this exact issue was previously addressed, and also ignoring accusations of myself and others being Neo-Nazis made on the evidence pages of this case?

A response from Coren, or other arbs, appreciated. Russavia 21:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, please tell me: where have I accused you, publicly, of being a KGB agent, neo-Nazi or anything similar? Please let me know and I'll be more than happy to refactor that comment and apologize to you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, the way I read that finding is it really just means: "they honestly believed this", and Coren's own comment below, "... however misguided" clearly indicates he isn't endorsing that belief. The phrase "good faith" is often misused or misunderstood in Misplaced Pages, of course. But if understood correctly it doesn't really indicate anything about whether that stance was objectively justified, it speaks only to the subjective state of mind of the people on the list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This FoF is flawed because it assumes that all list participants monolithically shared this same view, which is not the case. Some may have believed so, others didn't and even refuted the arguments of those who did. Why is it so difficult to verify things first, ArbCom could have privately emailed each and everyone of the list participants individually to poll them on their beliefs first before drafting a FoF in this regard? --Martintg (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks FPaS for your take on it too. However, the FoF as it stands now does appear to me to be giving these editors an excuse for their behaviour, particularly in regards to harrassment and teaming on their opponents or deemed enemies. I would recommend the following:
1) The section be renamed to "Involvement of Russian government in editing processes" or something similar.
2) Parts of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Involvement_by_security_organs be incorporated into the text, or a new FoF be created which reinforces that PD from the 2008 arbcase.
Is this a fair thing do you think? --Russavia 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, because it assumes this was a common belief shared by all, but I count only one who holds that view. --Martintg (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Offliner. Sorry man, but unlike you , I have never accused anyone personally and on-wiki of the said WP:COI problem. What I talked privately and off-wiki was my private business. Yes, I noted at the talk page of Colchicum some very strange claims by Russavia (e.g. Ezhiki making a phone call to Alex to "give him some incentive" ), but that was hardly a violation of any rules. As about Nashi in evidence, please read exactly what I said. There are no "neo-Nazi", and I did not blamed anyone of being a member of "Nashi". I simply do not know this. Yes, I am still watching this case, and my patience has certain limits.Biophys (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    Never accused? What about this edit?DonaldDuck (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What Martin said. I don't think I ever thought anybody was a FSB agent... well ... ok, maybe for like 2 seconds when the archive was leaked. I got the general impression from a few others that they didn't completely dismiss that possibility. That's about it.radek (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if what Martintg and Radek say is the case, and it appears to be the case from looking at the archive, the entire FoF should be voted down by the committee, or stricked/retracted/whatever. --Russavia 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Things that are impossible to prove or disprove should not be seriously entertained (here's another one: "Computer trespass"). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Coren: Relatively-minor-infractions rationale

In response to Coren: "the infractions commited by other members are — in the whole — relatively minor and the remedy was crafted looking forward."

It is true that the mailing list did not manage to control the content of EE articles to the extend they envisioned, and it is true that the mailing list did not succeed to implement all the sanctions they thought of for whom they regarded their opponents yet. But the mailing list archive proves beyond doubt that they were making progress.

That several wikipedia editors and administrators were subject to off-wiki coordinated hounding, revert warring, deception campaigns, block evasion, votestacking and tactical plotting is a major offense itself, regardless of whether these campaigns in full accomplished or missed their stated objectives. That should be reflected in both the fofs and in the proposed decisions.

The Occasional disruption fof needs to be ammended, likewise the proposed decisions, based on the proposed principles Canvassing, Not a battleground, Gaming the system, Meatpuppetry and Off-wiki communication. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Amnesties and admonishments are insufficient

In response to Coren: "I should expect that, given the admonishment, all of them will shy away from such off-wiki fora in the future."

  • There already was an amnesty in the Piotrus1 case, that was also a fof in Piotrus2.
  • The Piotrus2 case already contains the remedies "Editors reminded" and "Editors counseled" and the fof Externally coordinated editing. Given the high activity of the mailing list on the WP:AE board citing the Piotrus2 case , and the participation of some of the mailing list members in that case as parties, there is no need to formally admonish them. They are well aware that what they did is deprecated, and kept their coordination secret for a reason.
  • The mailing list has not discontinued just because the archive was leaked. Biophys is the only one who recently said he unsubscribed. Radeksz is maintaining a satirical EEML blog on his user page.
  • Piotrus and Poeticbent were sanctioned in the Piotrus2 case already: Piotrus was admonished in the Piotrus2 Arbcom, and two month later he set up the mailing list in addition to the IM network his group maintains. The IM coordination evidence was only circumstantial in the Piotrus2 case and thus not reflected in the remedies, now there is direct evidence from the mailing list archive. Poeticbent was supposed to be banned in the Piotrus2 case, that was changed into a mentorship that did not even happen, half a year later he is on the mailing list.
  • Biophys is the only one who apologized. Others fill these case pages with victim blaming instead, write essays on the benefits of edit wars like Radeksz, or have edit war trouble like Jacurek.

There is no reason to believe that the remainder of Piotrus' group ceased to coordinate themselves off-wiki via mailing list, IM or their parallel wiki, there is no reason to believe that this group has any intention to do so, and based on their behaviour in the past it is extremely unlikely that amnesties and admonishments will upset them. There is no other way to deal with such an off-wiki organized group (mailing list, IM, own wiki) than to disconnect them from their targets, article- and editor-wise. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And then you will have a free hand to edit Polish-German articles] you "own" ]without any "Pollacks" "messing it up", right?:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I never said "Pollack" to anyone, as your quotes suggest. Don't falsely present me as someone using ethnic slurs. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
No, of course you did not and I never said that you did. But you agree that the only reason you are even posting here is to eliminate your opponents and possibly get a free hand to write the German-Polish history the way you want or am I mistaken Skäpperöd??--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, I write a "satirical blog" and "satirical essays". Horrible of me. I'm perfectly willing to apologize for mistakes I've made in the past six months - six months is a pretty long time to go without making any mistakes. But I'm not about to back down before people who try to call me a "Holocaust revisionist" or compare me to a rapist or to a pogromist or try to slander me with other false hate filled accusations. When this kind of offensive behavior and personal attacks stop I will be quite happy to apologize to anyone who deserves an apology.
But that probably won't include people who've shown up on this case to cynically push their own agenda so that they can get a free hand in their POV pushing and content disputes.radek (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Skäpperöd posted an image on his userpage of a bottle of Russian vodka with link to this case page toasting "Skål!" to his expected "win" in the content space he shared with you guys, but it will be a loss to Misplaced Pages if balance is broken by the wholesale removal of one side. --Martintg (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, an image of a (good!) vodka is the most uncontentious way to link this EE madness. And if you think that there is anything to "win" here for anyone, you are badly mistaken. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
...just stop Skippered.. it so obvious what you meant by toasting "Skål!" and Russian vodka image...but I understand why you wanted to celebrate also.--Jacurek (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Amnesties and admonishments are insufficient". If they are to work this time, they need to be followed up by an attempt to restore good faith between radicalized editors. See my proposals to that goal here, here and here. I hope that the committee considers adopting / building upon some of them. If there is no follow up to the amnesty aiming to reform the editors, the underlying problem will not be solved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Skäpperöd, having read much of the archive, I'm stunned Radeksz is escaping without even an admonishment. But I assume the thoughts of Coren are similar here to those of medieval kings putting down rebellions (not like the Basil Bulgaroktonus type of course): treat the ring-leaders severely and allow the remainder to return to ploughing their fields and paying their taxes. They might be right on this one, we'll see. It's too early to make much comment anyway, as only one arb has voted on the proposals, and others may still propose more.
Yes, they'll definitely continue to co-ordinate in some manner, but it's very difficult to see what ArbCom can do about that. Console yourself with the thought that the golden age of dumb "good faith" in the face of conspicuous tag-teaming and vote-stacking is probably over. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps other Wiki "Tag-teams" and mailing lists members can learn something positive from it? You could not possibly think that this project is absolutely free of some kind of "coordinated editing", do you Deacon of Pndapetzim?--Jacurek (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The main lessons are for the community dealing with it, not so much the participants. All the participants are adults. If I were a pessimist, I'd say the main lesson for cabals of nationalist edit-warriors is likely to be "we'll no longer be so dumb to have huge mailing lists with lots of members"; but the optimist in me hopes the whole thing will be a wake up call for at least some. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The real question is whether list membership afforded any real advantage. It is almost an article of faith that it does, but did it really? Any objective analysis of the evidence will reveal that it didn't. As sure as night follows day, there is no doubt other maillists and other forms of off-wiki communication exists within other groups, to believe otherwise is simply delusional. The Foundation even encourages off-wiki communication through provision of the email feature on our userpage. Are we, as a community, mature enough to be confident in the robustness of our on-wiki processes, or should the community continue to hold on to this fear? Here the ArbCom have a golden opportunity to bust some myths and finally put to rest this "cabalist" bogeyman. --Martintg (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison

Compared to what members of EEML tried (successfully!) to get for their victims (that is indefinite blocks), three-month sanctions really seem too lenient.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody tried to get you indef blocked, Donald. You did you 17 reverts-in-a-row and such by yourself, nobody was steering you from behind the scenes... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your blatant denial of reality is just unbeliavable. "Help appreciated, I would like to avoid more then 2 reverts per day..." This is quotation from you email, calling to attack me, from the workshop section.
I've been reminded by ArbCom to ignore edit warring, I am trying to say on 1-2RR a day in that article, so I cannot by myself ensure it is correct. - this is also your own words.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Run it by me again: how is my attempt to avoid multiple reverts per day translates into your multiple 3RR violations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify, Piotrus. Did he revert the same thing 17 times, or did he revert various items in the article 17 times? I guess specifically I would like to know how many times in his 'spree' he actally broke 3rr. To avoid confusion, to break 3rr for the purposes of this question he must revert the SAME piece of information in an artice MORE than 3 times in one day. In addition, if he reverted the same piece of info 5 times, I would concider that breaking 3rr twice (once for the fourth revert, once for the fifth). I realise admins have some leeway for interpreting 3rr but for the sake of this question I'd like to see the technical answer.198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
DD broke 3RR many times (see his block log). The (in)famous 17-reverts in a row spree is covered here (see also my evidence). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't treat us all as fools Piotrus. You know very well that you and list members provoked editors into breaking 3RR. This does not excuse editors for breaking 3RR, but you and your list members do explain why members may have broken 3RR on occasions. Do I need to add this to the evidence so that others can see it for themselves? --Russavia 20:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, I see your point now. By making edits we provoke DD and others into disruptive behavior; like, let's say, I am to be faulted for creating tsarist autocracy, as this baited DD into making dozens of reverts in that article. Obviously, if I have not created the article, or at the very least, if I have not dared to disagree with him, he would not have had to resort to reverting me. Hmmm. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good link, had the evidence I needed, and I have to say that 'spree' is all in your mind. When your going to accuse someone of having a spree you really should tell people EVERYTHING. Like the fact that the 17 reverts were spread over the course of a week. The way you go on about it you act like it was in one day. Then I suppose that there is the fact that only 3 of his 17 reverts broke 3rr, not excusable mind you but concidering you could have called him on breaking 3rr with 6 revisions one wonders why you had to jump up and down about 17. The other 11 didn't even matter... and three of those weren't even relevant. The only thing I can think of is that saying 17 reverts is sexier as long as you rely on people to not actually check the diffs. I guess my other question is, if you treat your mailing list as a unified voice... how many times did you break 3rr in that week? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a revert does not necessarily have to be the same piece of information. Check the relevant WP:3RR policy: "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period" --Martintg (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Luckily that point is irrelivant since I checked the diffs. 15 of the reverts removed russian despotism from the article lead 3 of them changed byzantism to something else (one did both, thats why it adds up to 18). So even accounting for that my numbers dont change. Oh, and unsuprisingly, I have also answered my own question. The unified mailing list voice (in this canse Pioturs, Radeksz, Digwurgen) also had a 17 revert 'spree' in that time. They managed to rack up 6 3rr violations in that time but obfuscated it by coordinating off-wiki so that no particular individual violated 3rr. (Caveat: that may be less. I trusted the edit summaries and ASSUMED someone had to revert between DD's reverts I did not actually look directly at the diffs themselves but I am confident that who was doing the reverts was self evident from the history and the edit summaries).198.161.174.222 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that at that time Radek was not a member of the list... this may change your analysis a little. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Radeksz exchanged a lot of emails with you at that time and you invited him to the list Radeksz].DonaldDuck (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Martintg. I must say I was suprised by the 3RR thing. In retrospect I can see the reasoning behind it, but in my mind I separated reverts of different information as unique. I wonder how many people have fallen into that particular mistake by accident. Live and learn, I guess. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Community service: Wikisource

The idea of community service has been raised #Constructive proposals. How about each participant be required to transcribe 500 original pages of text on Wikisource as a form of community service? see s:Special:IndexPages for a list of transcription projects which are already set up. John Vandenberg 01:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I am not familiar with wikisource, but looking at the index page you linked, would the transcription needed be indicated by the red parts of the bars? Is there a way to parse the index page by language? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm? How does this work exactly? I'm also not familiar with this.radek (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A How-To would be nice indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
see s:Help:Page Status, s:Help:Side by side image view for proofreading and s:Help:Djvu (and other help pages). Red indicates that the page, with text, exists but it is at OCR quality. Where there is a white background, the page has not been created.
John Vandenberg 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are nearly 600 pages that mention Poland; most of them will be OCR quality, however the text for some of them may already exist on the internet, and a copy&paste is all that is required. We can easily set up new transcription projects if required. John Vandenberg 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check it out. I think you are on to something interesting here, John. There are a lot of wikignomish tasks on various WMF projects that can be quantified and are in need of attention. On Commons many images are in need of renaming, categorizing (, ), describing and translating, for example (just see this useful page for a list of tasks to assign). On Misplaced Pages there are scores of articles in need of project tagging and assessment. There are backlogs of articles tagged with cleanup tags. Perhaps we can try to compare and quantify them, and introduce a system of points. For example, an editor who would be usually sentenced to a 1 month ban could have it be put on suspension in exchange for a pledge that he will do a 1,000-points worth cleanup job within a given period of time. Similarly, he could be awarded points for uncontroversial content creation (community reviewed as DYK/GA/etc.), and deducted points if he is proved to be engaging in disruptive behavior. If accompanied by voluntary restrictions and mentorship this could turn a banned and likely resentful editor into a productive member of the community. A nice idea, John, indeed. PS. John, is there a transcription project for works in Polish language? I have seen many public domain books in Polish on Google Books, I'd happily help to transcribe some notable positions such as works by Zygmunt Gloger (). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
archive.org has many of his works, and Polish Wikisource could use some help. Pick one, and I'll set it up for you. John Vandenberg 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Polish Wikisource already has some of his works at s:pl:Zygmunt_Gloger, however they are not backed by pagescans, so it would be a simple matter of copy&paste. --John Vandenberg 02:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków would be the best one to work on, as it has been scanned by a library without Google watermark on it. John Vandenberg 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work on it. As Radek said, it is an interesting project that if I'd known about in the past, I'd have worked on already :) If we can manage to work this into a more general arbitration principle, for this case in particular and for other cases in general, that would be a great example of a productive arbitration case :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
s:pl:Indeks:Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków 1.djvu and s:pl:Indeks:Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków 2.djvu. --John Vandenberg 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
s:pl:Specjalna:IndexPages for a list of existing Polish projects. John Vandenberg 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are over 3000 Polish books to be transcribed. John Vandenberg 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if I can figure out how this works I can do some of this, ArbCom case or no ArbCom case (I'd be happy to help out simply if just asked).radek (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly a constructive approach that I would be willing to be a part of. There must be tons of stuff that would otherwise be neglected that would benefit from this type of thing. --Martintg (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I'm a little bit confused (sorry - like I said, never done this before). Do you mean 'transcribe' or 'proofread' or both? And if it's proofread, the way it works is that I go to say this source , click on one of the yellow pages, like this one , read and proofread that the text matches up and then change it to green (not sure how yet)? Is that about right?radek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading and verifying come after transcribing. see the history of s:Page:Old-Time_Recipes_for_Home_Made_Wines_Cordials_and_Liqueurs.djvu/59 - the first edit is transcribing. John Vandenberg 02:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, wish that particular one hadn't all been done.radek (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Would proofreading and transcribing be also acceptable as part of the community service? Should this be done by two (or three) different editors? I can see how our teamwork can be of use here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused but for different reasons. The problem appears to be that a coherent group of editors has abused their status as editors (and an admin) and basically shown that they cannot be trusted to make edits and abide by the rules in good faith and without disruption. So the solution is to put even more faith and trust in their edits? I understand the impulse to give them something useful to do in an area where it is perceived that they will do less harm, but until they have shown that they can be trusted to abide by the rules, I'm completely unclear as to how this will help. csloat (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On Wikisource it does not matter how much they collaborate; they will not be able to change the glyphs on the printed page. John Vandenberg 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree it will not help, but it does not harm. It otherwise occupies their time, and makes them reconsider doing this again. John Vandenberg 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Content creation in non-controversial areas (in addition to the above Wikisource stuff) would assist some editors refocus on building the encyclopedia rather than on conflict, which can be addictive to some. 3 months of conflict free contribution would go further in rebuilding confidence rather than a 3 month ban where suspicion and doubt is simply frozen for the duration only to be resumed 3 months down the track when that person returns. --Martintg (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Such bans simply delay the problem for a while. We need innovative solutions to remedy it once and for all, and this looks like one of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Like this ?radek (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or this and this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea for most of them, for the ones who might not be that bad and just got wooed in by feelings of fellowship and charisma of the more senior users. If for no other reason, it will be good because it should make it easier for the community to forgive them and let them move on, while at the same time they show their commitment to the project's core aims. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

While it is nice to see so much enthusiasm now, please think about what you are trying to voluntarily subscribe to. 500 pages that is roughly 2MB of text, which is 35hours of work for an average typist. I assume that you are all highly qualified individuals earning some 20+ dollars per hour, so that is roughly 700$ worth of your time, probably more. Playing on Misplaced Pages battlefield might be fun for you, which you all do not mind to spend your free time on, but I want to see whether you change your mind after first 10 hours of actual tedious work. Are you sure that after 50 pages or so there will be no outcry that it is "too much work" and "too big of a punishment"?(Igny (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Igny, thanks for the warning. But I don't see doing that kind of work as any different then looking up sources and reffing articles here or going through an article line by line and rewriting to avoid copy vio (as I've done before) - it's just another way to contribute to the project. Note also that I'm just doing it to be helpful.radek (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, some of those sources are pretty interesting to read - how to make tasty liquor (I might actually try out one of those recipies), or about how Germans falsified Polish population statistics in the 19th century ;).radek (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a blog sometime ago about how Misplaced Pages volunteer work can be similarly seen as worth many millions of dollars. Most of us here are are quite aware that we could be spending our time making $ instead of volunteering here. For some reasons, most of us do so nonetheless. 35h of work? Try to estimate how many hours I've dedicated to this project so far :) And no, Igny, "playing on Misplaced Pages battleground" is not fun for me. I'd much more gladly write another DYK/GA/FA or transcribe a book for Wikisource then deny I am beating my wife here :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
To Igny, I've spent 2x to 3x that $700 to buy sources being misrepresented on WP regarding Transnistria, the Holodomor, and other spheres of Russian interest because they were not even available at the New York Public Library. As for the proposal, I scanned and transcribed all the materials on LATVIANS.COM, with a good deal more in the wings that's not up yet. This is the first truly constructive suggestion I've seen so far out of all of this, I am glad to support this regardless (and also get back to History of Riga). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I would endorse this proposal, the only problem is that I have never been involved in Wikisource, and I do not know anything about it. Tymek (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems rather easy and fun. Check this out: . Click on one of the red numbers, and try to copyedit the editable text (mostly it involves splitting/merging paragraphs and fixing typos). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this idea. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. "Community service" is by nature punitive, and I don't see how it would prevent any disruption on WP. Offliner (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to build the encyclopedia, why not? The common purpose of building a 💕 trumps both the spirit and the letter of the rule. --Martintg (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
All punishment deters, and all deterrence contributes to prevention. The preventative/punitive meme is intellectually vacuous. In any case, unless this is incorporated in the remedies, it's purely an optional measure that allows these users to get back in the good books of the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't you oppose the blocks than? I think community service is a laudable alternative to blocks, although it may be and probably should be combined with other restrictions (such as the ones I proposed to voluntarily adopt myself). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Crime and Punishment

Two new projects on English Wikisource:

It would also be good to find a Polish translation which is public domain. There are at least two

Enjoy, John Vandenberg 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the list members would like to know what good this is going to do them if they do it. I'm kinda curious myself. What do you envision? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll second Deacon this time. I'd love to dedicate more time to wikibooks, but the distraction and stress generated by this case and threat of ban are somewhat demotivating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should they spend a little time improving the Wikisource edition of Crime and Punishment? I thought that it would be self-evident why they should do this particular work.
Why do any Wikisource work? Because there is no interpretation involved, so they can put there private collaboration skills to good use. I have seen bias and edit wars on Wikibooks; I have not seen them on Wikisource. The only wiki-fights that are possible on Wikisource are about typography, copyright, authenticity, and the short description provided for each work.
What is in it for them? Less stress for everyone. They could take a self-enforced break from the EE battles here on Misplaced Pages, and work together to build a collection of EE-related primary sources on Wikisource. Translating primary sources into English, French and Spanish allows other Wikipedians to write about these topics. John Vandenberg 05:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to Amnesties and Admonitions are Insufficient

Like anyone else involved for some time on the Misplaced Pages project, I have made my share of friends and encountered others who would not consider me to be their friend. It goes with the territory. To deny that there is off-wiki communication truly would be "delusional". Of course there is. There is nothing wrong with such communication, but what has transpired here truly puts the project in jeopardy and would make a mockery of its rules and regulations if it is allowed to go unpunished (with a mere wimpy slap on the wrist). The above proposal reminds me of having to write, "I will not be a bad boy," a hundred times on the blackboard (sure beats getting a switch, or expelled). There is no need for me to recapitulate what has occurred here for the benefit of anyone, let alone the members of this ArbCom. The evidence is there, and those guilty should not be able to slough off their guilt, unique in its enormity, with the hope that "this too shall pass". During other attempts to remedy these types of transgressions, and the behavior of some of the participants of the mailing list at previous ArbComs and the like, the arbitrators were unsuccessful only because of the lack of fortitude necessary to correct such transgressions. But regarding these people, this is the "Mother-of All-of-Transgressions" on their part. I have had the misfortune of having read a great number of their correspondence, if one can call it that, as I was one of the earlier recipients of the list. It saddened me to read those particular emails in relation to myself, and their conspiring to have me banned or otherwise "neutralized". I think one of the major tactics was to "ignore" Dr. Dan. Never had a problem with that guys, and I too have done my best to ignore you as well. Until now that is, because while you lied about the cabal being a figment of one's imagination and burbled a lot of euphemistic nonsense about assuming good faith, that was was not the case. All I ask of those capable of remedying this clear violation of what this project is supposed to be about, not to blow this one too. It's not about supposed previous "contributions" to the project, or associations made at Wikimania or the like, it's about reality. This reality is very ugly and will haunt this project in the future if not remedied appropriately. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Have they really planned to "ignore" Dr.Dan? Man that's a really diabolical plan, I hope the ArbCom advises them to stop ignoring you at once! Loosmark (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Loosmark, are you just trolling straw man nonsense, or did you really believe Dr Dan claimed to be bothered by cabal members planning to ignore him? If the latter, then reread his comments. If the former, then ... well, you deserve a good trout slapping. ;) Come on, your friends don't really need you to be acting like that atm. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully no one else thinks this is all a big joke. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple request 2

Umm, this one's related to my previous request - noting that no one on the list was "anti-Russian" but this one is even weirder and more inaccurate: encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or Western European point of view.

Uhhh... weren't we just being accused of *representing* the Western point of view? What is this referring to? Where did we say "those damned Western Europeans!"? We used mainstream Eastern *and* Western European sources (sometimes in the face of objections). This one really has me scratching my head.radek (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to your conflicts with Germans ... But I don't think that you guys will ever be accused of arguing a "Western point of view". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well in the dispute with Skapperod over expulsions I used ... German sources! And for that specific accusation - I believe it's on this very page in several places.radek (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly, you used Molobo as a source and Polish websites Molobo posted on the mailing list, one of them contained a translation of a German scholar which you used selectively resulting in the article being protected because of BLP. (Use of other information from the same source was instantly reverted by you , btw). Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no, I did not use Molobo as a source. What, was he published somewhere that I'm not aware of? I found a bunch of German language sources and since I don't speak German I asked Molobo for help with translation (while struggling with my own Babel fish translation).
Also, please don't misrepresent the fact that you were trying to hide the extreme far right nature and Holocaust-denialism of Heinz Nawratil and that BLP noticeboard completely agreed with me on this. And I reverted your edit simply because you were misrepresenting the source.radek (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the statement is not specifically about the sources, but about cultural standpoints. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what's that supposed to mean and I'm not even gonna ask.radek (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren has already responded here. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Err, I finally understood the question: I just realized I had rewritten this so often I had ended up reversing the sense I intended! Imma go fix this now! — Coren  10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!radek (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The way it's formulated now editors like Skapperod and Matthead end up with 'Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view' position. I don't think it's accurate.

Also, the ML members did not always defend 'prevalent Western European point of view' as could be perceived from current wording (Human rights in Estonia and the Amnesty International report about them come to my mind). Alæxis¿question? 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder about the oversimplification regarding Russian POV. I'd suggest rephrasing it to indicate that the list members dealt with "perceived undue weight POV"; it doesn't really matter where it came from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Being totally unfamiliar with the detailed facts of this case, I would nonetheless like to offer a few impressions:

  1. We don't (or shouldn't) do retributive punishment on Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't be applying sanctions because of what people have done in the past, but because of what they might otherwise do in the future (and the good things they will incidentally be prevented from doing ought to come into the equation too).
  2. In subject areas where strong points of view are prevalent (such as those of different nationalities) the normal editing model breaks down (I'm sure ArbCom doesn't need me to tell them that). Ordinary well-meaning editors tend to be shouted out and lose patience, leaving the POV-pushers to fight it out. There is no effective system for ensuring good content in these cases; the best we can hope for is a truce between sides that isn't biased too far in one direction or the other (but still probably won't be well-written or particularly factual). This is a fault of the system, not of individual editors. Enough cases like this have come to ArbCom by now that surely we can be thinking of ways to repair the system, not continually papering over the cracks by imposing punitive sanctions on individuals and describing them (perversely) as "remedies"?
  3. Given the system we have, if one group of POV-pushers is allowed to work their stuff, then it's no surprise that editors with opposing POVs work to counter them, even to the extent of coordinating their actions. It might even seem negligent of them not to, given that the system offers no alternative course of action.

I edit in the "Eastern" (Central) European area too, and am quite frequently annoyed by POVers of various nationalities editing to an agenda to the detriment of the encyclopedia (such as by removing places' former names and information about their having belonged to other countries in the past). I haven't been involved in any of the major content disputes that this case seems to be about. But my impression of User:Piotrus has always been extremely positive - unlike some Polish editors, he genuinely strives to improve the content of the encyclopedia and keep POVs out rather than in. He has also made vast and extremely valuable contributions to WP, and continues to do so. I would have hoped that the amnesty (which, following from the above numbered points, I clearly support) would be applied to him first and foremost. Effectively it is proposed (if I understand correctly) that he be excluded from his area of interest at WP for 15 months, which will undoubtedly harm the project significantly, for no visible gain. I don't know the other potential sanctionees so can't offer an opinion there, but would ask the Committee to reconsider the case of Piotrus. If we're in a retributive mood, is the desysopping not sufficient as a punishment?--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pasting together two parts of your statement: Does the presence of one competent editor justify the absence of those editors who turned away from EE battles managed by this editor? Which evil is lesser? Who will care to improve Franciszek Smuglewicz, for example, if even such benign (and well-researched) topic is a slow-burning minefield? NVO (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you're alleging here, or what your point is about this article. I doubt that "battles were managed" by any one editor.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What's the problem with Smuglewicz, other than some anon disruption (solution: request semi-protection)? If there are interested editors here, please keep in mind my offer - I will gladly help you or anybody else improve this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets see. I figure I can respond to each of those points individually.
1. This is not retribution, this is responce to ongoing disruption. What people have done in the past represents what they are likely to do in the future. Poitrus has had previous brushes with the law and each time it gets more damning. This mailing list represents long term commitment to actions the commitee is against and therefore their responce must be commensurate with it.
2. The 'System', as flawed as it is, did not make them do anything. They chose their actions, recognised its negative nature, and actively hid it from view. If you want the system improved then you should help improve it, not actively subvert it while waving a flag that says 'I only did it cus the system sucks'.
3. So its negligent to not edit war if someone else is doing it? You really think that ones gonna fly? Ever?

If the comittee believes what was in the FoF's are true, then no only has Poitrus actively persued multiple avenues of longterm disruption on wikipedia, but he has also used his position to assist others to do so as well. He was warned in previous cases it would come to this, and now it has. If he is such a good contributor, then he can be a good one in other parts of wikipedia where he can do so without worries of evil russian cabals.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps log in so we know who you are? (Seems courteous if you're going to make potentially defamatory accusations against named editors.) But it seems you - and the Arb who wrote the proposed decisions - are trying to make Piotrus a scapegoat for everything that's been going on. Even through my limited involvement I am quite aware that there is nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, and there always will be if we think that singling out individual editors for punishment counts as a "remedy".--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The case is not closed yet; nowhere near it. If you have evidence in favor of anyone involved, you still have time to present it. "Why do you wonder at me? I gave an onion to a beggar, so I, too, am here. And many here have given only an onion each — only one little onion.... What are all our deeds?" NVO (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't logged in yet, and I really have no intention of doing so. Any potentially defamatory accusations I have made are based on currently voted on FoF's, noting that the accusations only stand if the FoF's are taken as true. As for Piotrus being a scapegoat, the current voting list makes it out more that they are focusing on who they believe is the ringleaders as opposed to hitting the list with a carpet bombing of bannination. Anyone who agrees with that assessment will call it that, anyone who disagrees with it will call it scapegoating. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. As for solving the nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, I am sure Arbcom will be happy to hear your thoughts on how to solve the issue that does not involve either singling out individial editors for punishment and calling it a "remedy" or promoting editwarring as a method to combat nationalist agenda's198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If we could focus our discussion on that subject, then maybe they would hear all of our thoughts on it, and offer some of their own. Then we might achieve something useful. (But I think it would need a powerful discussion mediator - and all-round change of mindset - to make that happen.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I fully support the need for some mediation-like post-arbcom proceeding. Remembering past grievances is not helping anyone, we have to move forward (or we will end up here again in few months). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are precisely this. And I have made it known to the Committee. It is fine and dandy for members of the mailing list coming up with alternative remedies, and rolling out all sorts of character witnesses from wikiproject who are not involved. But the problem is, is that not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong, not a single list member has acknowledged that they have harrassed editors (even though evidence shows this clearly), and not a single list member has yet agreed with a single finding of fact. No, it is a complete denial. In my world, this is how children behave, and children who do such things are sent to their room until such time as they are willing to acknowledge what they did, and apologise. Only then should any of them be allowed to play with the grown ups. And the members of this list are no different. Why not encourage your colleagues to acknowledge what they have done...for this is the first step on the road to regaining an ounce of respect from the community. --Russavia 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly encourage everyone who has participated in this warring on whatever side to acknowledge and apologize for their deeds; but more noble and productive still would be for all sides to leave off the mutual accusations and help work out together what needs to be done to stop this type of situation repeating. --Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong". Sigh. For evidence of acknowledging of past mistakes, apologies and constructive proposals seek no further than here (and links that lead on from there), for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, despite overwhelming evidence you still deny organizing edit wars and provoking other users. You are still trying to decieve other editors. You are still blaming your victims and have not shown a bit of remorse. I hope, you will finally feel a fraction of what you made others to suffer. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have observed the work of User:Piotrus over time and found him to be a productive and helpful editor. I only wish he would change his signature tag. Newport Backbay (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn asked me to post this comment here:

Unrelated contents

5) Most of the mailing list traffic is not material to this case. It consists primarily of friendly banter and discussion such as would normally be found on users' talk pages, or of discussion unrelated to Misplaced Pages.

From what I see, about 90% is discussion of ways to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Much of this is off-line coordination of edits. The rest is about constructing software tools to disrupt Misplaced Pages or harass editors. Some is about attacking real life people or using Misplaced Pages to attack them.

Very few messages and even fewer threads are pure political commentary. I now ask you, which is the longest thread without conspiracy?

--Dojarca (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can only concur with Petri's assessment of his disputing of the nature of the FoF. Rather it appears to be quite the opposite, little of the list was friendly banter, whereas the majority was nefarious in nature. I would urge Committee members to reject the characterisation as suggested in the proposed FoF, and come up with one which is more to the reality of what we have all read in the archives. --Russavia 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not read the list, but think the committee just has a larger threshold than you for 'nefarious'. Idle banter about possibly doing various things don't rise to the level of nefarious unless someone actually does something. Perhaps you should read it as saying 'Most of the mailing list traffic cannot be tied to specific acts of on-wiki distruption and therefore is being treated as idle chatter that is unactionable'. So even if a couple of them were chatting about how they wanted to attack someone (which you would concider nefarious), unless that talk can be tied to a specific action then it was just that, friendly banter between people of like minds. I'm sure you don't like it, and I'm sure you really don't like it being called friendly, but it was friendly for the people who were supposed to read it. And that was not you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong. In this case the ArbCom banned Petri Krohn for a year even without looking at diffs (which were provided by the Cabal members with false descriptions). Petri Krohn by the time did not edit anything related to Estonia for severtal months and even did not know about the ongoing arbitration. He never attacked anybody and never disrupted Misplaced Pages. This was after Martintg complained that the proposed remedies were "assymetric" (in fact the case was opened after Digwuren traded GA-promitions in IRC with another editor). In the end Digwuren and Petri Krohn who was not guilty of anything (and even was uninvolved but very much hated by the group) were punished equally just as Martintg proposed.--Dojarca (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I fail to see either your point or what this example even has to do with the discussion. Are you saying because you have one example of conspiricy that every word of every email is part of that conspiracy? Are you prepared to prove the the entirity of the mailing list revolved exclusively around screwing over Petri Krohn? All I'm saying is that its reasonable to assume that even if they were hatching plots on the mailing list, most of it would just be blather, pipe dreams, and pillow talk. Saying Petri got one pulled over on him doesn't rebutt that in any way, shape, or form. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you read the mailing list, you can easily find the announcement of the attempt to banish him from Misplaced Pages by vote, which finally led to his ban by voting where the majority of voters were the cabal members. Anyway I was just responding to your thesis of supposedly large ArbCom's treshhold for taking harsh action.--Dojarca (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Petri Krohn was banned by the Arbcom well before the maillist was even created. Can we drop the weird time warping conspiracy theories? --Martintg (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. First time for a year by the ArbCom. As I said two comments before. After your, Martintg, appeal to the ArbCom that the proposed remedies were "assymetrical" and suggested to ban Petri who was completely uninvolved with the case.--Dojarca (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The relevance of this 2007 ArbCom case is? Krohn was banned on the basis of these FoFs, which included making generalized accusations that editors of a particular national or ethnic group were engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies. --Martintg (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble with that one is that we know that this coordination has being going on since 2007. See my evidence. The mailing list may not have started then, but proves that there was a coordinated effort to get some people banned from Misplaced Pages. Anonimu was named in that discussion. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes Paul, the evidence you posted, this single diff where Digwuren discusses and compares Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism is convincing proof that maillist co-ordination existed for years. Simply brilliant detective work. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you read my entire comment? I of course referred to the whole thread. Here in Digwuren's own words:" Piotrus might not know the details of mineral composition of eastern Latvian soil, or the detailed history of interwar Estonian spies in Germany, but he knows Ghirlandajo's tricks, and he also knows Soviet history. Building on this shared knowledge, we could pool our resources. On Misplaced Pages, an actively expressed consensus is more powerful than a silent agreement, and this is a force that can be harnessed to counter WP:TE so loved by worshippes of a certain moustached Georgian." () - yes, I bolded certain points myself. Is it not obvious that this is what happened? We even have one participant being proud that he created "actively expressed consensus" between Poles and Ukrainians. Come on, why didn't you start your own Wiki, while you were at it?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


See this Polish unhelpful coordinated editing - well known. M.K. (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the participants in 2007 ArbCom case that led to Petri Krohn's ban were really Polish socks. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What M.K. is saying is: "we told you so". And unfortunately, he is 100% right. Clearly suspicious support gathering among Polish Wikipedians (under the heading "Piotrus advocates the use of IM", Tymek gets mentioned, echoes of HG Wells and "The Shape of Things to Come") was, under the good auspices of Ursul pacalit de vulpe, turned into a Polish-Romanian alliance to counter editors seen as pro-russian, pro-lithuanian or pro-german. This old and long since archived discussion on Dc76's talk page is the beginning of the third step. It not only involves more than two nationalities or self-felt identities but an attempt to create artificial consensus, reached off-wiki. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Check the Misplaced Pages:Words of wisdom#On Misplaced Pages and the Cabal, third paragraph. Cause and consequence, folks. The mailing list was created as a last resort to deal with disruption that was continuing after several arbcoms failed to put an end to it. The system failed time and again to bring an end to the plague of disruption that affected EE topics. Is it that surprising that after years some editors decided to work outside the system? In hindsight, however, I agree that we should have not done that and instead tried to work with the system even more, by pursuing alternatives like major mediation, dedicated wikiproject/noticeboard and such - which is what I am now advocating here. We need a radically new solution to deal with this mess, or we will be back here - in 2010, 2011, 2012... and banning a few people will not help, as both sides (if we can talk of just two) have demonstrated in the past to have a steady supply of leaders and man-at-arms. Some leave, some are banned, new ones step into their empty shoes. The only way to end this battleground once and for all is to get the sides talking to one another again and assuming good faith. Nothing else will work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Doskonale. Unfortunately, self-fulfilling prophecy has worked both ways. You know very well that at the beginning of my editing here I tried to work together with you and your friends (for neutral parties who have trouble believing that, and I understand you: , and the Dutch version of that article). There is no way I would then ever have supported the actions taken by some of the obviously desperate "Russian" editors but now I can see clearly how I was worked into a plaything myself. And I see that you and your people are now, in this very discussion, doing the exactly same thing to User:Pantherskin who should normally be on your side on most of your battlegrounds, but he will not blindly follow you into the kitchen, so ... No, you are not the Borg, and I refuse to be assimilated. Now, you ARE obviously basically a good guy and a (horresco referens) intellectual: how does it feel to have people like Digwuren, Martintg, Sander Säde and Miacek (who links to his blog from his Misplaced Pages page) on your side, rather than csloat, Pantherskin and Irpen? Please write that wonderful book you could write about Polish history (for third parties: this is NOT sarcasm, on the contrary), drop your adminship and stop participating in secret mailing lists, Gadu Gadu and other off wiki to create an actively expressed consensus. Other Polish editors could then refer to your book on Misplaced Pages. Csloat is not really disrupting the Misplaced Pages, life is a beach and poka my zyjemy. Do widzenia. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"I was just responding to your thesis of supposedly large ArbCom's treshhold for taking harsh action." - Dojarca. Ah, I see now. Well, without commenting on how they chose to weight the evidence of the previous case, my point about raising the evidence bar to a higher level on THIS case is related to the unsundry way the evidence was presented to them. They are accepting the mailing list as factual, but are refraining from acting on everything in the list unless backed up by on-wiki evidence. Many people are upset that things on the list that they would concider horrible are being left unanswered for, but unless they want to have everyone and their dog send them haxxored mailing lists they need to keep the level of acceptance to things they can corroborate. For some, especially the ones on the list, its bad enough that they are looking at the list AT ALL let alone concidering handing out bans for something that may or may not even be true. I don't know why they chose to do what they did to Petri, or wether he did or did not deserve it. What I do know is that the mailing list ALONE is not enough damn them. If they said "lets get so-and-so banned today!" and nothing happend on-wiki, then its not a conspiracy, its people sitting around talking. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Any instance of of mailing list coordination has on-wiki consequences. There is plenty of on-wiki evidence both with apparent connection with the list and standing alone. There were numerous ArbCom cases in the past where massive evidence of disruptive on-wiki behavior of the cabal members was shown and most of them resulted in amnesties. This case is unique in that it shows their internal kitchen.--Dojarca (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
While true statements, lets not get too far from the topic here. The past Arb cases and the amnesties have little to do with wether or not the mailing list NOW containg more socialising or more plotting. I'm not saying there isn't evidence of disruption, nor am I claiming their innocence. All I am saying is that I doubt Petri's assesment of the mailing list being 90% disruption, and that Corens assesment that most of it is just people talking is a more reasonable conclusion. I am further stating that its likely the difference of opinion on that matter stems from a greater willingness on Corens part to dismiss things that cannot be directly corroberated into disruption as just talk and a greater willingness of the lists 'enemies' to latch onto things that were just talk and call them disruption. Where does the real line lie? I'm not sure.
Again, I'm not saying there weren't diamonds in that mine... but most of it was just dirt.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As you did not read the mailing list, so do not judge about what you've not seen.--Dojarca (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I do judge what I have seen. I have seen the noted opinion of a third party who has read the list and I have seen the the opinion of an involved party who has read the list. I find the third parties opinion to be more reasonable while admitting I have not literally seen it myself and providing a reason for that decision. Do you care to provide a reason why I should change my mind other than 'we caught them doing other things so the entire thing must be evil'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Shrug, Dojarca thinks discussing Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests is evidence of seeking support of government bodies in disrupting of Misplaced Pages --Martintg (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren is trying to do right thing

Coren considers people at the both sides as misguided participants of this project rather than hardened criminals who must be exterminated. This is a noble approach. Digwuren and Piotrus appear in sanctions as ringleaders and Martingt as a scapegoat. Indeed, it was Digwuren who created and administered the list and therefore initiated the entire thing. It is also true that only involvement of Piotrus made the entire enterprise legitimate in the eyes of people in the list, not so much through administrator's status of Piotrus as through his authority as an excellent content creator and a friend. Well, maybe he was not such a good friend, since he did not warn others of potential dangers of participating in the list. And maybe he manipulated his friends? Or maybe people wanted to be manipulated and Piotrus simply has excellent leadership skills? Whatever it was, Piotrus is undeniably the most prolific and neutral content creator in the mailing list. It may be fine to place him on probation and some set of voluntary/involuntary restrictions, but not allowing him editing articles on Poland-related subjects does not serve any purpose.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems I should apologize to anybody whom I might have drawn, purposely or accidentally, into that list, without fully explaining and/or realizing myself the consequences. In hindsight, I should have never supported discussions that could (and some that did) result in real edits; those should have been kept, as much as possible, on Wiki. Now that we have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Eastern Europe, I expect that all such discussions are moved there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You might also like to apologise to the community at large, and to those who you harrassed also. Some priorities and some responsibility taking is long overdue, don't you think? And this doesn't just go for you, but every single one of you who were on the list. --Russavia 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have issued my series of apologies already. And whom have I harassed? Diffs please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus -- everyone has read this Piotrus, and yes you blatantly lied on that thread, and actually had the nerve to pull the line that it was everyone else who was libelling/slandering/harrassing other editors on your mailing list. The Arbcom may want to avoid this issue, but I will argue until I blue in the face that they recognise there was a massive harrassment of editors (not only myself) by your mailing list; the rest of the community basically already recognises it. --Russavia 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Starting one ANI thread which doesn't even mention your name = my long term and nefarious campaign to harass you. Yes, I wonder why Arbcom is avoiding making this a cornerstone of this case... EOT for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, please see my talk page for Offliner's harassment, Viriditas' harassment, et al. Not to mention PasswordUsername's contributions in that department as well. Then there is your invective all over the place. Which, apparently, has been rewarded at least to some degree.
   When you were first topic banned and you asked about some of your content under development (e.g., Russia-Australia relations), I was going to suggest I correct a few bits regarding Whitlam's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics and that an admin post your article. I was clearly mistaken that there is any ground here for cooperation.
   Please show me where I need to apologize to anyone for "harassing" them. Your incessantly vituperative and combative attitude (shared by Offliner, PasswordUsername, and others) is a prime motivator for why I might wish to discuss topics with other editors in a venue offering peace and tranquility. I attribute the phenomenon of a mailing list not to my "depraved" (per another observer) behavior, but to yours, et al. Your use of these proceedings to berate others, and the apparent indulgence for you to continue to do so, rather disinclines me to apologize to anyone for anything. And so to you and to those who indulge you, you can collectively thank yourselves that I will be deleting the "apology" part of my "going forward" response to these proceedings. I am sure such action will be denounced by yourself and others as proof of Vecrumba's bad faith and recalcitrance. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Vecrumba, works in my userspace are my works, and I will post them in my own time, when I am satisfied that it is complete. Thanks for offering that anyway, but it is not complete, and it can wait until March 2010 when I am able to edit on enwiki again in that area. --Russavia 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus, your posts on the mailing list provide ample evidence for Russavias claim that you were engaged in harrassment. That you are still denying this makes it rather clear a topic ban is not punitive but preventive. All that even ignoring that your so called series of apologies is in fact a rather meagre collection of excuses (just look at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop/Archive#Proposal_by_Piotrus_-_voluntary_restrictions) and counter-accussations. And btw, I am not one of those who would normally support Russavia or any of the other rightly banned "pro-Russian" editors. Pantherskin (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Vecrumba rather proves my point. Makes me really, really confident that things will change in the Eastern Europe topic area. Pantherskin (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop with the thought police arguments. What I wrote on a private list may offend Russavia now - but it was private and never meant to offend him if he hasn't started reading somebody's else private correspondence. If I and you were talking face to face or exchanging emails in which I'd say something uncivil about Russavia, this is not harassing him. WP:HARASSMENT clearly states that it is concerned with on-wiki edits - and such are not present in evidence. EOT for me, till evidence is given that contains some on-wiki diffs. PS. I have no intention of discussing issues such as whether I am still beating my wife. PPS. On the subject of apology, where are the apologies from people reading private correspondence that was not addressed to them? EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussing people in private correspondence is not harassment, as someone else said somewhere above, discussing pipe dreams, engaging in pillow talk and daydreaming is just that, idle discussion. Whether it consumed 10% of the emails or 100%, it does not matter. What counts is what was translated into on-wiki action, and the only evidence of harassment that Russavia cites is the ANI report discussing his alleged account sharing, which was a legitimate concern that needed to be aired in my view. Whether it is because he is attempting to over compensate for his own conviction for harassing Biophys last year or it is some kind of persecution complex that is driving Russavia to claim he is being harassed, I don't know. But I do know that Piotr did not harass him. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I will let Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus and associated evidence speak for itself. You do not have an ounce of credibility on this issue Piotrus; none of your fellow list members do either. And I am afraid to say, that I don't have an ounce of respect nor good faith for a single one of you, so long as you all continue to deny what is clear to everyone else and is written in black and white. Echoing Panterskin, perhaps the 3 month vacation and a 12 month topic ban from the area will give you enough time to reconsider just what you have been responsible for. Now that is EOT. --Russavia 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your "Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus" contains no diffs to on-wiki harassment. Piotr has already asked you several times already on this page to provide diffs. None have been provided thus far. --Martintg (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have provided an entire thread of harrassment, which is tied up with emails from the list archive. It's there in black and white. Anyway, I see the harrassment is already covered at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination so it is being recognised in a proposed finding of fact. The only question remains whether editors are going to continue to deny absolutely everything? Only then can respect and good faith be truly restored and the community in general can move forward. --Russavia 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Diffs? Yes, you provided an entire thread claiming harrassment, but you have not provided any diffs to support those claims. If you are offended by reading emails about yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence in the first place. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats really chutzpa. Russavia provides a thread linking your and others posts the emailing list with diffs on Misplaced Pages and you come hear and just claim that there are no diffs, no proof, whatsoever. You know as well as me that this is not about you and mailing list members badging about their perceived opponents on Misplaced Pages, it is about you (yes you, specifically you according to the evidence presented) and other following up, here on Misplaced Pages. That you (and Piotrus) are denying even the fact that Russavia presented evidence which include diffs (sic!), let alone are willing to acknowledge the wrong you and other mailing list members did and the disruption you caused., all this only allows the conclusion that nothing better will come out of this. Seriously disgusted, Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Most people on the both sides should appreciate the generous offer by Coren and just move ahead with content creation, as time allows. But I believe that Piotrus is precisely the person who is best equipped to move the effort in the right direction of creating good content. If he did something wrong (and apparently he did), let him do some good community service to fix/improve whatever needs to be improved.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) <<Sigh>> more lecturing. As for proving points, Pantherskin's rush to judgement knowing nothing about me is the real point. For Pantherskin, who pretends he knows anything about me, and to those wish to believe defamatory evidence about me that I stick labels on people I don't like, please feel free to read this interview here. Cedrins, by the way, is probably the best-versed WP editor on the Baltics I know, and by no means a nationalist apologist, and driven away from WP by the incessant attacks of those pushing Russian interests. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You talk an awful lot about opponents and attacks and extremist editors. Of course you are on the right side, what makes it ok to treat Misplaced Pages as a battlefield, right? Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Due to the depth of feeling about this issue I have for the most part given considerable leeway on discussions. However this particular thread is now veering into an incivil dispute. This will STOP now. Any further discussion in this thread or on this page which does not directly relate to discussion of the proposed decision will be removed without notice or explanation. Voluntary striking of your own incivil comments would not be a bad idea. Manning (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeking support of government bodies in disruption of Misplaced Pages

I have added a new section to my evidence, showing that the cabal members attempted to establish contacts with Estonian government and involve them in the mailing list activity. . This has been pointed out by Petri Krohn.--Dojarca (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, Suva was not even a member of the mailing list, see List membership. So it would have been kinda hard for him to post there, methinks. And once again, what on-wiki action occurred, or just thought crime again? We are not in Soviet Union anymore, Toto. Do realize already that even private discussions involving murder of Jimbo Wales and replacing him with a sockpuppet on a stick is not actionable unless something actually happened on-wiki. --Sander Säde 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Uhm uhm. Since Suva did in fact intervene in the 2007 discussion on the Romanian talk page. So, unless we were to know that he never subscribed to the or a mailing list from the moment it was started up, you cannot say for sure. Of course, this claim is silly (counterproductive too), so that Suva point is moot.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he's referring to the fact - this was before I was on the list so I just looked in the archive - that according to the Misplaced Pages Signpost , the Estonian Wiki held a contest for writing Norway related articles, which was supported by the Norwegian Embassy in Estonia. And then somebody suggested that ... brace yourself ... this is going to be awful ... if it was a movie it'd be rated PG-13 so hide your kids ... look at your own risk ... not for the meek ... it's trully an evil cabal at work .... somebody suggested it'd be more useful if those articles were written for the English Misplaced Pages!!!!!!!!! (This is the "involving Estonian embassy in mailing list activity" that Dojarca is referring to ... oh boy)radek (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No. I am just referring to the mailing list evidence.--Dojarca (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

... ... uh ... you ... you might want to fix the heading of this section. If you read the "e" in the last word as a soft Russian "ie" it's sort of ... unintentionally humorous. At least I think it's unintentional.radek (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I completely missed the heading. I like this, may we have "Wikiperv", too? --Sander Säde 08:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It may or may not be relevant that some list members (such as Sander Säde here) edit warred heavily to remove all criticism (by Amnesty International and other sources) from the article of Estonia's secret police, Kaitsepolitsei—an organization which has been called "the political police" of Estonia. Offliner (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to add this to the evidence section.--Dojarca (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(irrelevant discussion removed by clerk)

Don't forget to add my attempt to collude with Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it should fit somewhere in that kitchen sink :D For details see here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Constructive vs. Destructive Proposals

I want to extend on something that has already been said, in particular in Kotnisky’s comment – and that is that the I hope that the ArbCom, in addition to being fair and dispensing “justice”, also considers the impact of the Proposed Decisions on the quality of the Misplaced Pages project.

Specifically I want to address the proposed 3 month block and the 12 months topic ban for Piotrus which for all practical purposes amounts to a 15 overall month block since Eastern European and Polish articles is pretty much all that he edits (a lot!). In judging the appropriateness of this, the committee should look at how Destructive such a long block will be to the project, and how alternate remedies are going to be Constructive for Misplaced Pages as a whole.

From all the evidence that’s been presented, it seems that there was only one instance where Piotrus “abused” his admin powers (note that he never unblocked Biophys). He protected the Battle of Konotop article after being alerted to an edit war on the article through the list. But that article in fact SHOULD HAVE been protected and WOULD HAVE been protected had somebody posted a request to Protection/Noticeboard. This can be seen as an inappropriate action by a “involved administrator” but it is about as mild of a transgression as one can imagine with respect to “administrator power abuse”. Especially since Piotrus protected the “other side’s” version!!

Destructive approach

De-sysopping and a 15month block seems like an extremely disproportionate response to such a minor mistake.

And what would the effect of the 15 month block be? Well, without meaning to be dramatic, first, WikiProjectPoland would probably collapse. Piotrus has already asked for anyone else to step up and take care of it while the case is ongoing – but no takers, and it’s doubtful anyone will be willing to fill in this huge gap. And I want to emphasize that this project does not involve any current controversies but mostly a lot of simple but mundane work.

Piotrus’ absence from Misplaced Pages, given his usual high productivity, will also result in quite a number of articles that will not be written. From what I can tell Piotrus averages about 300 edits in mainspace (all uncontroversial) and about 6 DYKs per month –for the duration of the block that’s about 4500 useful edits and ‘’90’’ DYKs that are not going to be made. And to that you got to add several GAs and a few FAs that are not going to be written either.

I think that makes it obvious how pointless and destructive such a block would be. What benefit is there to this project from loosing all these contributions?

What would the potential benefits of such a block be? Well, Piotrus is not involved in any controversies or edit warring right now nor has he been in the recent past (the few instances that can be called controversies seem to have been worked out through regular talk page discussion) so the answer is … pretty much none. I guess it would “send a message” (although as Kotnisky points out – that’s not how ArbCom decisions should be made) and may partially mollify some of those screaming for blood (but that one should definitely NOT be how ArbCom decisions are made).

Constructive proposals (2)

On the other hand a Constructive proposal would be something like what John Vandenberg made with regard to Wikisource. This would create additional benefits to the project and would be inline with the kind of positive work that Piotrus carries out all the time. Combined with the voluntary restrictions which Piotrus has already proposed here it seems like that would more than adequately deal with any potential problems. Even those who are of the opinion that Piotrus “deserves to be punished” should be able to see that it makes no sense to cut off one’s nose to spite the face.

The arbitors should take the above into account and consider the impact on the project of the proposed punitive and disproportionate ban and block.

--I am not going to respond further in the thread that is likely to develop and will ignore all the usual flames, personal attacks and false accusations that I’m sure will follow. I encourage others to likewise ignore these kind of provocations here.—

radek (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I think the bans and topic bans should run concurrent, not consecutive. It is unusual for arbcom to hand out anything past a year and I see no reason to change that now. As for losing Poitrus' use as a volunteer, I think it should be taken as a constructive proposal that he focus his good side towards other things (i.e. the topic ban). Yes, project poland will suffer, but wikipedia will be fine. No ban, topic or otherwise, has destroyed wikipedia yet. Assuming he is the great contributor he is, he will improve other areas greatly in need of his eye and I don't see the problem with that. If he can escape the controversy and the mud-slinging, so much the better. The same goes for anyone else topic banned. If you are here to improve wikipedia, then do it and do it anywhere you can. Don't try to dictate terms with it, cus it can live without you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How can one improve Wikipiedia on topics one is not familiar with? Can a plumber fix an electrical panel? Piotrus is an expert on Polish history and Polish related articles and I don't know any other Polish editor with so much knowledge on the subject and dedication to this project. Just so you know...--Jacurek (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The standard argument about how indispensable someone is to Misplaced Pages always make me think of s:The Last Department.--BirgitteSB 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
He seems an intelligent man to me, and I think it would be a service to himself if he researched other topics with such dedication. In fact, wikipedia prefers people who know LESS about a subject to research it and post about it because experts bring O.R. baggage with them while amatures are forced to use sources to back them up. This next bit sounds so cheery and upbeat it makes me want to gag, but he really should use this as an oppertunity to get away from the crap and brush up on something else so as to make himself and wikipedia a better place. Post about fine wines, learn about french cooking, invest yourself in the culture of ming dynasty china, research the construction techniques of Irish castles... all of these things can be done to make yourself a better and more knowledgeable person while helping wikipedia without the stress and mud-slinging. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well 198 and Birgitte, you guys are not flaming but are calmly discussing things (thanks!) so I will actually respond. Yes, of course Misplaced Pages will survive with Piotrus banned. But the question is whether or not the Misplaced Pages of 15 months from now will be better or worse than it could have been had Piotrus not been banned, but instead put on parole, allowed to adopt the voluntary restrictions he proposed and made to devote some time to the above mentioned "community service". And the answer to that is that if Piotrus is banned, the Misplaced Pages of January 2011 will be a much inferior Misplaced Pages to the one that could've been. Why loose this opportunity? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?

And I want to reiterate; the worst thing that Piotrus did was to semi-protect an article that should have been semi-protected anyway (and he protected the "opposite" version). Piotrus is not involved in any edit wars or controversies and "mud-slinging".

Lastly please remember that ArbCom decisions are NOT meant to be punitive. The impact on the project and its quality however is something that is usually taken into account by the ArbCom.

Thanks for the constructive (yuk yuk) comments guys.radek (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing Piotrus did was to reinforce the idea that the coordination and battleground mentality was appropriate and encouraged this while maintaining adminship. I don't know what things might be like after the bans any more than I know what they might be like during the voluntary restrictions he proposes. I do know that things can not just go on as they were. I look at Arbcom as an experiment by trial and error to try to make make things better. Not punishment. If I thought any remedies existed that would be particularly effective at stopping only the inappropriate behavior, I would be promoting them. Arbcom obviously took a narrow view of this case; too narrow to really change the larger situation. I would probably like to see more explicit Findings of Facts built on the FoF's from the previous EE Arbcoms which better tracked the history of problematic behavior with regard to everyone involved in the topic area. I don't have a strong opinion either way of the remedies (besides desysoping). I do think this Arbcom decision could to a better job of laying the groundwork for the next EE Arbcom. But maybe next time they will just liberally ban everyone who reappears making detailed investigation unnecessary. If anything really bothers me in the current decision it is the uncertainty of whether some involved in getting amnesty might have gotten amnesty in the past. I wish they would explicitly name who they are giving amnesty to in these things for future reference. Mostly I am ambivalent about it. It seems to be neither the end of the world nor a magic bullet for the EE topic area.--BirgitteSB 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Birgitte, actually Piotrus has consistently tried to get editors to voluntarily follow 1RR, reprimanded them not to edit war but instead to focus on content creation and in many cases actually argued for lesser restrictions to be put on folks like Russavia. If anything he has tried very hard to make EE topics less of a battleground - and I think this is reflected in his proposals which seek to promote mediation as well as dialogue between various parties. And these proposals are exactly the kind of remedies that would do a "better job of laying the groundwork for the next EE Arbcom" or in fact, avoid a need for another one in the future.radek (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you are better off not bringing up things Piotrus tried to do.--BirgitteSB 03:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Birgitte, in 2 years of editing EE topics I have never seen you there. May I ask how have you acquired such a profound knowledge on what going on in that area? You seem to have parachuted yourself here from nowhere and attacking Piotrus non-stop. Did you have some previous interactions with him or sth? Loosmark (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, please take this comment off of this page and move it to Birgitte's talk page. Per the clerk, If a comment is not directly related to the subject heading then it will be subject to either refactoring or removal. If it isn't removed by you, Loosmark, I will ask the clerk to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe my comment is related to the subject. If you feel like removing it, ask the clerk, I won't hold it against you. Loosmark (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject is constructive proposals, not the history of Birgitte's interaction with EE topics or users. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I am not aware of any significant previous interactions with Piotrus. I think we talked once about a Polish language reference that had gone dead in a backlog I was working on. I do not have a profound knowledge of the EE topic area, which I have pointed out myself before. I do however believe I understand why Piotrus has focused all discussions on things that were accomplished rather than things which were suggested. I don't think radeksz does his friend any favors by moving the discussion towards suggestions as he did above. I don't know who sth is. I have not been attacking Piotrus non-stop. I expected better of him as an admin. I am disappointed and frustrated that he could be an admin for so long and so thoroughly fail to understand how to protect Misplaced Pages. I am refuting those who see no issue with all that. That is not attacking. If everyone else would stop claiming that Piotrus did nothing significantly wrong, I would have run out of things to say about him some time ago.--BirgitteSB 04:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I will respond to Radek's mistruths here. Piotrus at no stage argued for lesser restrictions against myself. No-one in the web brigade did. In fact, at the ANI thread, Piotrus' own words were Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. It is only after the web brigade was outed that there was any such argument for lesser restrictions on myself, as it was plain to see that disruptive users should be taught a lesson, and Piotrus knew this would now apply to him. As to claims that Piotrus encouraging users to adopt 1RR, this is a half-truth, as it is plain to see for all of us that the web brigade's mailing list was in a large part a tool for users to break 3RR by essentially operating at meatpuppets. The only real constructive proposal is one that has been mooted; not the unworkable and weaselly proposals put forward by Piotrus and others. The entire web brigade gamed and teamed the entire EE area, and a constructive proposal is removing the most disruptive brigadiers from that area for a period of time, in order to let some sanity and collegiality to return to that editing area. --Russavia 04:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've said at least two times - including at the original AN/I thread before the archive was hacked - that I would support rescinding certain parts of your topic ban, in order to let you work on non-controversial articles, if you stopped the personal attacks and all the incivility. You didn't. You amped them up. With "gang rapists" and the like. So....radek (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus is admitted by everyone to be an excellent editor. I think he does particularly well when he is not working on controversial subjects. He and the encyclopedia would benefit greatly from a year or so of his working on topics not connected with Eastern Europe. I don't see the point of blocking him: what is it supposed to remedy? What is it supposed to prevent? Everything brought up here that needs censure is relating to Eastern Europe, and a good case could be made that having him working elsewhere would improve the prospects of cooperation in that area (I am less familiar with the work of other editors on this topic, but I suspect that this could be said of quite a few of them, of a political and national inclinations.) The topic ban is a good idea--and it needs to be extended enough to make a significant difference, not just postpone the conflicts--I think a year is about the minimum. I think such a ban is much simpler than the complicated arrangements he has proposed. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
DGG, I think Piotrus' proposals are "complicated" because he is trying to be exhaustive and because he is willing to try many different things - since, honestly, no one really knows what kind of arrangement is going to work in this topic area.
I seriously doubt that Piotrus' absence from EE topics will improve cooperation here - if anything the opposite; do you really think that having Misplaced Pages go through the "GDansk/Gdanzig Wars" (or proxies of these) or "What was Copernicus' *true* ethnicity Wars" again, as it may very well happen if some unscrupulous persons try to take advantage of this, is going to benefit the project? Even if nothing dramatic like that happens you will have a lot more smaller fires break out, and loose a moderating voice in this topic area - particularly in the Estonia/Soviet disputes in which Piotrus was not very much involved except in calming people down.
And of course, this still doesn't address the loss of quality articles that would result.
More generally, sure, one can "stabilize" a particular topic area by banning everyone involved in it, or banning the most active and productive editor in it - but then, who will be left to write the actual encyclopedia? Would this kind of "stabilization" really be worth it, given the great drop in content quality that would result? And a few seconds of thought should make anyone realize that even this "stabilization" is going to be very temporary as various sides replenish their ranks with new, inexperienced and more uncompromising NEW editors.radek (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to arbitrators, with special thanks to Coren. It is increasingly disconcerting to see editors, who wouldn’t give a damn for the honest and balanced wiki coverage of the histories and misfortunes of all the Eastern European nations represented in this case, crying wolf about the deeds of Wikipedians who do care. Personally, I don’t see Piotrus as deserving of the proposed punishment. His own proposed restrictions are quite sufficient, considering how extensive they already are. Please take this into consideration. --Poeticbent talk 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, please remove this comment. It appears to be divisive, distracts from the subject at hand, and attempts to bait editors into responding with angry replies. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - The criteria for inclusion on this discussion page is (a) relevance and (b) no personal attacks. While I agree that this comment *could* be deemed as deliberately provocative, it is otherwise acceptable in regard to the two criteria mentioned.
As a general principle, all editors are reminded that there is no actual requirement to respond to provocative comments, and that non-response does not automatically give an offending statement any actual credence. Manning (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why amnesty for web brigade only?

This is something that the Arbs should consider, if they are considering in passing Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Amnesty. Why is it that it is being suggested the web brigade get an amnesty for their despicable behaviour, yet those editors who are victims of this despicable behaviour don't have any such remedy or decision for things which could be reasonably assumed to be a result of actions by the web brigade. And I say this as there is absolute denial on the part of the web brigadiers that they did a single thing wrong, and are continuing the line that no-one has presented evidence of any wrongdoing on their part. All we see so far is web brigadiers rushing around on these pages looking for lesser sanctions for team members, and not an ounce of regret, remorse or taking of responsibility. This demonstrates at least to me that these are not the actions of editors who are looking forward, but rather the actions of editors looking to weasel their way out of a situation that they put themselves in thru no doing of anyone but themselves. It is incredulous to me that an amnesty would be considered for such people, but not extending an amnesty to their victims and their self-proclaimed enemies. Anything but a complete amnesty for all editors would be a traversty, and unbecoming of the Committee if they truly are impartial. Hence, the committee should reject the PD relating to this amnesty, or make it more encompassing to include victims of this unremorseful, unregrettful web brigade. Myself, I would prefer that the committee reject it outright, as it is not making editors take responsibility for their actions; past, present, and perhaps more importantly, in the future. --Russavia 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they did the Right Thing by defending the Point of View of Civilized Nations but slightly inaccurate, but you doing bad thing because you protect the evil Russians.--Dojarca (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it appears that both camps are taking the draft decision, as it stands now, for granted. It's not. Not even close. Coren wrote it, signed it, but no other arb has spoken publicly. Don't hurry things up, they're brewing. Let the perpetrators excel in their art, just watch them dance, and stay cool (did I already say it?). NVO (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the past the drafted decision was usually adopted.--Dojarca (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The weaseling is a correct word for a situation like this. Offering amnesty is a way ArbCom is trying to weasel itself out of an extremely inconvenient situation like this. The arbitrators probably considered different ways to handle this, and any solution would quickly draw criticism from the the affected parties. A harsh punishment like a ban for expressing thoughts freely in an off-wiki channel, or total amnesty for what is perceived as sabotaging Misplaced Pages? Either way it is going to be heavily criticized, and in some cases it could be criticized (as too harsh/ too lenient) by both sides. Actually the offer of amnesty is precisely what I would expect in return of pleading guilty to the minor charge of non-systemic disruptions of Misplaced Pages. I consider it possible that some members or most of them did plead guilty to the ArbCom in private messages to accommodate a quick and easy solution in form of an amnesty. But if that is true, ArbCom should insist that members offer a carefully worded public apology to the community, but that may be hard to do in an uncommitted form. And you are right that drafting this decision could be a way for ArbCom to test waters and check what feedback it might get. (Igny (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
It is easy to issue apoologies especially if there are no remedies proposed. They already issued apologies many times at any arbitration dealing with Eastern Europe, and promised not to do anything wrong. It is their standard weapon to avoid remedies (but they do not apologize if it is not necessary of course, if arbcom gives them what they want without any apologies). Anyway I do not have such high estimation of the Committee as you do to suspect the proposed decision is a psychological trick to test the participants. All previous ArbCom history shows the opposite. You're trying to explain the Committee's actions presuming it's neutrality. That's why your hypothesis that this is only a trick or that the Cabal mermbers apologised secretly. In fact the ArbCom's actions cannot be explained supposing their neutrality, otherwise we would not see here such blatant violations of all Misplaced Pages's rules starting in 2005.--Dojarca (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


The committe is hoping people will independantly review that bans/punishments of the victims/enemies of the list to verify they are correct on their face (see remedy 12). So in a way, amnesty IS being extended to them. Further, take a step back and stop acting like its the end of the world that these people aren't being dragged into town square and beaten to death for their horrible crimes against humanity. There is NO requirement for them to apologise to anyone, there is NO requirement for them 'plead guilty' to anything, and there is no requirement that says they have to accept what you say as fact dispite how much you scream its a smoking gun. Arbcom is not here for justice, and especially not here to placate you.198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(Irrelevant discussion deleted by clerk)
Well my point was that if the email list members were offered an amnesty for a private apology/guilty plea to ArbCom, they do have to give a public apology to the community as the whole, otherwise there will always be someone who would not accept such a solution. But I find it hard to write the public apology without admitting at least some guilt. (Igny (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
I partly agree with Russavia. Yes, it would be good if Arbcom looked at the evidence with regard to another side (Russavia, Offliner, LokiiT, PasswordUsername and some others) and explicitly stated if they did anything wrong. With regard to other questions, no, I never contacted Arbcom by email, excluding one response to an arbcom member because he asked me a question (long time ago). Yes, it's really important what people can learn. That's why I started my Evidence section from the apology.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


It does look ridiculous. Only a few mailing list members will be punished and relatively lightly? Others like Biophys will get away with nothing? Biophys was pretty much proven to be a disruptive user who shamelessly edit wars and pushes his POV. He himself even expected heavy punishment. I can see it now, when this case is over Biophys once again will come out of his "retirement" and continue to do what he has always done (same for the others on the mailing list). -YMB29 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You concider three month bans followed by a full year topic ban 'light'? Also, if punishment is what your looking for then your barking up the wrong tree. Punishment is not what Arbcom is here for, solving the problem is. Noting that even if you have a low opinion of their ability to solve the problem that doesn't make punishment any more of a requirement. And yes, punishment can be a solution via deterrent, but good leaders offer open hands as well as closed fists. Laying the smackdown whenever anyone steps out of line is part of the system gaming the mailing list is accused of trying to exploit. Arbcom wants to be above that.198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, he is quite right on Biophys. I cannot really agree with his "same for the others", but that does not matter here. Have a look at YMB29's talk page and Biophys' presence there. This for instance claims YMB29 cannot be unblocked because "what happened in June has no bearing on what happened in September" (that seems also to have been the rationale for blocking him). But the very existence of the mailing list means that what happened in June does have bearing on September, since with the mailing list more than one person could stand sentinel at that article (proving there is "intangible" value too to off wiki cooperation), and YMB29 was only one person. Being in constant edit war with YMB29, Biophys even tried to bend the rules by telling YMB29 that he was also under edit restrictions and you can rest assured Biophys has been here long enough and been in enough disputes to know perfectly that that was not the case. The point is that some on arbcom may think that if Biophys and Digwuren retire, why should they be punished, let the system take care of itself, as they say. But history tells us that such people return to the project to disrupt it. Even people who were never "punished" or "admonished" but disappear because they have had enough of the constant strife, come back (not to disrupt it, I hope). By the way, again my apologies to you for being a bit rough in the discussion that was deleted.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The punishment does seem light considering how much violations and disruptions were caused, the histories of the users involved, and the response that was expected by the community (including the mailing list members themselves).
And how is not handing out punishment to most solving the problem? Again, it will only encourage them to continue what they did. -YMB29 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Request to clerks

Could you please keep discussion here at least on topic of the section titles, if not the Proposed Decision. The Evidence and Workshop talk pages would be more appropriate. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my note above, I have given all of the leeway I am prepared to give and strict topic enforcement in now in operation. If a comment is not directly related to the subject heading then it will be subject to either refactoring or removal. Thread drift is not being tolerated either - if you have a specific point to raise (which had also better be related to the general topic of "Proposed Decision") then create a new subject heading.
If things are a concern and a clerk does not appear to be around, please alert the clerks-l list clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Manning (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On Proposed Remedy 12 and the sanctioned editors from the other side

Proposed remedy 12 strikes me as a well-intentioned but also overly optimistic proposal. The idea of leaving it to the community to carry out an objective review is admirable, but I fear that any review will degenerate into an unproductive free-for-all. Mailing list editors (and those who hold similar editorial views) will likely argue that the sanctions were correct and that any baiting doesn't justify whatever response may have been provoked. Hard-line administrators will also reject any justification position, likely supported by those administrators who view themselves as virtually incapable of error. Supporters of those sanctioned will argue that the baiting was extrordinary and highly coordinated, and will probably make all sorts of allusions to how bad the content of the archive is. Uninvolved editors and administrators will either stay as far away as possible, or will hope to help - but will have to wade through the entrenched views and won't have seen the relevant evidence (on the archive) in any case. If you want to allow the community to look at these sanctions and believe that a useful review is possible, please please please at least put a back-up in place. Delegate to the BASC a right to review any sanction at the request of the sanctioned editor. That way, a decision can be made by people who have read the archive and so are in a position to assess the severity and context of any baiting. BASC would also not have the "noise" of barracking from the onlookers and those with vested interests. I believe it would be unfair to the sanctioned editors to not make 100% clear that an objective review of their sanctions is assured. EdChem (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Passwordsharing

Tymek (talk · contribs) has willingly shared the password to his account,...

Let me ask a stupid question: Why? What was the sense of sharing his password? The mailing list members are all well established users, so there is (should be) no reason to use any other account but their own. So again: WHY? I can only imagine two possible answers a) other users should be enabled to use one more vote in any voting or dispute or b) blocked or banned users should be enabled to use a different "unsuspicious" account. It's in fact the invitation to use the account as a sock. There is a policy for such behaviour WP:NOSHARE and WP:sock puppetry#Blocking and both policies have a clear consequence: a) "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked" and b) "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator". Well, here it's not the usage of a sock, but the incitement to do so, however just saying: don't do this again and take care to find a new password is really ... generous. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Herkus, this is a good question and the answer seems to be "out of momentary stupidity" (sorry, Tymek, it's true). And this is why Tymek is being admonished. It's also why people on the list told him not to do it, that it was a dumb thing to do, and why nobody on the list actually utilized his password/account.radek (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
mmh, a lot of things happen "out of momentary stupidity", however WP:NOSHARE doesn't say.."if the account is effectively used", it's sufficient to share a password, the incitement is as condemnable as the offense. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess here's where the whole preventative versus punitive jazz comes in. The policy you cite refers to blocking as the immediate administrative measure designed simply to stop the situation. Indeed, Tymek was blocked, right in the beginning of this affair when it transpired his account was compromised. And as is customary in such cases, he was unblocked a few days later when he had secured the account again. But I agree the apparent intention would have been to allow sockpuppetry – from the wording of the mailing list post, he is offering that people should use his account "if any of you need my help". The "help" could only realistically be a show of support in some debate, vote or revert war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not familiar with the whole story, I just don't think "don't do this again" is an adequate reaction. I'll leave it to the admins.(P.S.: How can we be sure, nobody used the account as a sock?) HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We can't, probably, but IIRC the account was checkusered and apparently no edits from other than his normal IP(s) were detected, except for the use of the e-mail function by the person who leaked the archive. Also, Tymek made his announcement on the list in the context of saying he'd be away for holidays, and the account then in fact remained silent during the time he had said he'd be away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
And as I said before, feel free to run a checkuser on myself. I also proposed already that everyone listed as a party in this case (plus a few of those who thought it pertinent to show up and comment) should be checkusered - I'm pretty confident that if any socks are detected they're not going to be those of the list members. Nobody from the "other side" has had any inclination to support this proposal.radek (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You've been here since 2005, and it's safe bet that you know how this place works. This means that you also know that per Misplaced Pages:CheckUser, on the English Misplaced Pages, such requests are typically declined. So, why do you keep repeating this proposal? Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Because this is an ArbCom case, not a typical situation. So, why do you not support the proposal?radek (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1) Where did I express my support or opposition, and 2) you are inferring that I am a sock puppet. Thanks for that, this is precisely the level of discourse I have come to expect from you and the EE mailing list group. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You didn't - that's why I'm asking why you're not supporting it? And no, I am not "inferring" (I think you mean "implying") that you are a sock puppet. In fact I'll come out and say that I'm pretty certain you're not. I'll also come out and say that I think your whole sole purpose here has been to "get" certain people by accusing them and ... implying ... certain things about them - which is why I'm saying - checkuser all around. You also might be worried because in your heart of hearts you know that if anybody's been sock puppeting here, it ain't anybody on the list.radek (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
And here you've done it again. You've distracted away from the topic of the proposed decision by proposing something that has zero likelihood of occurring and yet, you continue to propose it after this has been pointed out to you. Tell me, Radeksz, what would checkusers "all around" prove if the logs of suspected sock puppets are no longer available to CU's? Of course, you know that as well, which is why you proposed a red herring in the first place. Nice try. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the bad faith. I actually don't think that check user all around would not prove nothing. I think it would prove the opposite of what you and others have been falsely accusing people of. But you're right, at this point, this is becoming irrelevant.radek (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
"Nobody from the "other side" has had any inclination to support this proposal." I actually announced that I was prepared to give my full name, address and local e-mail address and family history and any links to any government to arbcom. Stating that my real address and e-mail address should remain secret outside arbcom. (Yes, I am prepared to mention all the other things on my user page) And I am prepared to authorize a local administrator of Misplaced Pages to check my birth certificate to see that I am telling the truth. Unfortunately, the administrator here decided to delete that part of the discussion, but it is still in the history. The problem with this email list is of course that it is hard to keep assuming good faith: someone bursts in to have material deleted and then less than a day later, someone makes unnecessary assumptions based on the absence of that material. Cannot you guys see that from now on AGF will always be a problem? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul, what are you talking about? The proposal is for a CU all round to see if anyone has used Tymek's account, what has your name, address and local e-mail address and family history and any links to any government got to do with anything? --Martintg (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Voluntary CUs will always be denied. Correctly so, since people will only propose them when they are sure that the IPs will be different, because they went to an internet cafe or whatever. Giving one's real email adress may actually be more interesting. But you need not worry, I have in the last few days made a small number of completely innocent minor edits on another wiki which show my IP (now ain't that naughty). By the way, Radek has answered on my talk page and he does see the connection between the two proposals. When he made that assumption above, he had not yet noticed which side I was on, or whether I was on any side.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Voluntary CU's are not actually forbidden by policy. However AFAIK historically they have always been declined (please correct me if I am wrong). The Arbcom certainly has the authority to order a CU should they believe it is relevant to this case, however that is (by definition) no longer a "Voluntary CU". To my knowledge no CU on Tymek's account has been requested thus far (however please note that I am certainly not privy to all of Arbcom's activities). Manning (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerks, please

The FoF "Disruption", which deals with Martintg, is currently in a sub-heading under the section dealing with "Tymek". Could you fix the heading hierarchy please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't immediately make sense of this. Some links would be appreciated. Manning (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice there were several headings "Disruption". I was talking about Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Disruption_3, currently section 3.2.10.2. It's a sub-section filed under the wrong parent section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I suspect this is a drafting error by Coren. I'm not entirely sure of his actual intent here, so I shall bring it to his attention immediately. Thanks for alerting me. Manning (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The current solution is a part of the problem

On reflection, this whole remedy system of blocks and bans is actually exacerbating the battleground environment. The multitude of conflicting narratives within the EE space means that this area is prone to conflict, there is no escaping that, and the prospect of gaining the upper hand via blocks and bans is actually working as an incentive to battle. Just to illustrate what a powerful incentive it is, check out this user page with a bottle of Russian Vodka with the link to this case, toasting Skål! in celebration of his "win" at the likely demise of his Polish opponents. Look at the number of AE, ANI and 3RR reports from the all sides, and ofcourse, ArbCom is the ultimate battle ground where all sides can slug it out. We need a new paradigm if progress is to be made. Piotr has some deep experience and insight into the issues, his proposals on possible remedies to break this cycle is worth serious consideration. --Martintg (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. My final attempt to untangle this mess is below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on this matter have been posted at length on WP:AN. Moreschi (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the terms "win" and "his Polish opponents" just shows that you still think that the battleground mentality intrinsic to your mailing list group must necessarily apply equally to who you labeled your enemy. I never chose to be in your battle. I never chose certain editors to be my opponents. Theses editors chose so by categorizing other editors as either potential members of their group, potentially useful idiots or opponents, training and radicalizing themselves on off-wiki platforms, and coordinating drive-by reverts, baiting and other attacks. Not me. And for me, an editors (alleged) nationality never played a role. I wonder how many AE, ANI and 3RR reports would have never happened in the first place without this group and Piotrus' "deep experience and insight into the issues". Certainly not this one, which was the result of Piotrus, Tymek, Radek and Poeticbent reverting content they had no clue about and proxying content of their blocked friend just to harm someone - me. And I second Moreschi's assessment. I am sceptical that having the group draft their own parole and amnesty conditions is the way to go here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be complaining that you violated 3RR and ... got away with it (after you launched a massive POV rewrite of several articles on Polish cities to make them into "German town" - and as it happens I do happen to have some clue about Polish cities, thank you very much). And seriously, your use of the Russian vodka bottle along with a toast is ... what exactly? Surely not indicative of battleground mentality intrinsic to your behavior? If you are serious about not "choosing" to be in battle or "choosing" your opponents then please show it by making a constructive proposal rather then the same ol' same ol' "ban my content dispute opponents!" song. Hell, I'll help you - if you want help - with articles on history of Pomerania in the early modern period (medieval is probably another story). Or universities in Alabama. Or think of some other topic that is not likely to result in obvious clashes. Seriously, this is an opportunity to step up and show the community that you mean it (applies to others here as well). Come up with a constructive proposal.radek (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

On five years of EE conflict, and how to avoid another five

I have had a lot of time to think about recent and not so recent events, and I've distilled my thoughts into the following analysis. I tried to compress my 5+ years of EE experience and several DR proceedings into it, I hope you find it useful.

This is I think the 4th major EE arbcom that I recall, but I know there were some smaller ones as well. The big ones seem to reoccur regularly around fall. There is an English proverb that seems quite applicable here: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." (see also )

The enemy here is not "the other side" (and generalization into two sides is a major oversimplification anyway). The enemy here is "us" - all the editors who became involved in EE areas and became radicalized over time. Sure, some are worse than others, but nobody here is a paragon of shining virtue.

What needs to be done to end this vicious cycle of EE arbcoms every year? I for one have enough of them. Yet by myself I cannot end them. Even if I leave the project, nothing will change.

However many sides are out there, they have all proven over they years that they can replenish their ranks. Both leaders and man-at-arms can be banned or leave - but others will step in their shoes and the "battleground" will continue. Those who left only serve the new generations as martyrs - "remember X and Y who were chased off by the others!".

Hence any arbcom remedy that is as crude as a block/ban is futile. Few months will be just a delay, indef means a martyr whose role will be taken up by another, or an infestation of socks. Plus desire to block an opponent one cannot deal with in terms of content creation leads to baiting and wikilawyering mentality, often contributing to the cycle that ends up at arbcom.

Amnesties, warnings, admonishments and their ilk are futile as well. Those warned will think they got off easily and can resume their actions, probably in a more sikrit and organized way. For every person who is scared off, another will step in, and the scared off (reformed) editor will be seen as semi-matryr/coward, and peer pressure will be put on him to rejoin his brethren.

Is there no hope? Not quite. I do think that a new type of solution needs to be implemented, one more complex than "block them all" or "do nothing". Major pieces of the solution puzzle have already been suggested - and this is not the first time they were. In fact, Irpen Alex suggested something akin to what I am suggesting last time... shame his idea was never taken up (I should've supported it more strongly then... if I did... sigh).

What I suggest this time is a several-pronged approach to deradicalize editors:

John's community service idea is also good.

Mediation and collaborative content creation (which should be the goal of it) should reestablish trust between editors, make them see that the other guy is also an editor who wants to help. Mediation should also be combined with mentorship. There should be enough mediators in MedCabal and MedCommittee to step up to deal with a bunch of editors if the Committee asks them (2-3 mediators should be able handle such a large case), and finding a few mentors/coaches (many who could oversee multiple editors) should also be doable.

Noticeboard should eliminate the need for "call to arms" in partisan forums.

Restrictions should penalize editors and limit the chance of further problems. Somebody cannot help but to revert too much? 1RR. Incivil? Civility parole. Looses cool when dealing with editor X? Interaction ban. Looses cool on article Y? Article ban. And so on. Crucially those restrictions should last until mentor/coach/mediator thinks the editors they are overseeing have shown enough good faith and restrain to be allowed to regain their former freedoms. If abused, it should be easy (no red tape) to reinstate restrictions or block them. The editors should know they are watched and will be watched by the community for a long time (there should however be also a watch for those who attempt to bait them, and such editors should be put under severe restrictions as well).

Community service should create a way to penalize editors while teaching them about the project (telling them "this is not what you may want to do but it is what project needs") without turning them away from the project ("you are blocked - we don't want you here") and making them felt betrayed by "the system". Of course it means that blocks and community service should not be combined (editors who refuse to do community service should be blocked, but why not give them a chance to do something constructive first?).

And those who refuse to acknowledge they need to join mediation/take up restrictions/mentorship/community service and so on may end up getting banned. Some people cannot be reformed.

Such restrictions should not only target one side, they should affect all editors involved in the EE issues. To determine who should be affected, lists of editors should be submitted by all parties (but they should not affect editors who were on the administrative fringes of the business, just those involved in content disputes).

This approach has multiple benefits, primarily:

  • deradicalized editors can ensure by themselves that the battleground will not reappear, and can later coach and mentor newcomers, turning them not into future warriors, but good editors. Thus the troublemakers are turned into gatekeepers
  • experienced editors will not burn out/be forced to leave, but will continue creating content (and this is the primary goal of Misplaced Pages, after all)
  • users who fail to improve under that scheme ("extremists") will still end up banned, but the moderates will be reformed (instead of allowed to radicalize into extremists or chased away)
  • obvious but: the EE battleground will finally end

To summarize: blocks/bans and amnesties were tried and failed. If we don't want to see this dramu repeat itself in 2010, 11, 12 and so on, with slowly changing caste but the same set of issues, wasting everyone's time over and over, we need a new paradigm to break the cycle and to deradicalize editors.

The current case can end up as just another EE arbcom, one of many both in the past and future - or as a landmark case that broke that vicious cycle and introduced new innovative methods of dealing with such problems.

Such approach is indeed our best, last hope.

For a more theoretical and hyperlinked version of this see my mini-essay on "Model of mass radicalization and conflict generation".

For your consideration. Please be constructive in your replies, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this essentially what you have written half a dozen times on various other threads and parts of the case pages? Anyway, without wanting to sound repetitive, the problem as it stands, is that each of the previous Arbitrations have already set out proposals and remedies which would get rid of the battleground conditions in this area of editing, and I note that you have been party to most of them, and had findings of fact mentioning you directly. I argue that the web brigade totally gamed the system and used WP:DIGWUREN as their own tool to eliminate other editors with whom they didn't agree. No-one forced you to participate in the web brigade; no editor, no imaginary USSR cabal, no government, no nothing, made you do this, you did this of your own volition. And you were more than a willing participant. Instead of noting previous Arbcoms, and the outcomes of those Arbcoms, you completely ignored them. Why is now supposed to be any different? Call me cynical, but it is because you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and proven yourself to disregard previous attempts to lessen the b/s in this area of editing, and have only worked to further the b/s. You, yourself wrote, Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. Why should this apply only to those editors which the web brigade were targetting, but not yourself?
The best hope that this area of editing has is to remove those who have done such things for a period of time, and let other editors sort it out, and then those other editors can come back to the area and show whether they have learnt anything. In regards to proposed remedies against yourself as are currently written, I don't see them as punitive, but rather preventative, given your own previous Arbcom history, and what is obviously your ignoring of those Arbcoms. Yes, proposals such as those proposed by Jayvdb are good, in that they will keep editors away from this project, but such proposals shouldn't be considered as a remedy for actions performed here on enwiki, but rather an option to help editors to change their ways, in order to help them to return to editing. --Russavia 22:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(irrelevant comments deleted by clerk)

Perhaps you should for once not concentrate on "us" but on yourself. If the patient has been having this problem for years, perhaps the doctor should start wondering whether the treatment he is applying is a good one? You have been active as an admin in this "domain" for years now, and of all the people who also write articles you are the oldest survivor. I am going to shock you now: my reference to the Borg was not accidental, I really believe that over the years you have assimilated a lot of contributors here, and turned them into effective warriors. Because the other side could not stay behind - it being the very raison d'être of Misplaced Pages that one person's POV does not really matter because it will be cancelled out by another contributor's POV - effectively Misplaced Pages's coverage of Eastern Europe turned into the battleground that it now is. The indirect net result of your treatment of the patient has been that good content creators of Polish material have been scared away from Misplaced Pages. With the further indirect result that people can now confidently claim that your presence is indispensable, not of course on the grounds that they would then lose their great mentor, but on the grounds that Polish Misplaced Pages articles would suffer. Sorry, but as I already hinted before: Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła - you are not really indispensable. I suppose you are too young to consider this, but I am not: old age pensioners' rest homes are full of people whom their colleagues considered indispensable. Try it out.
Do I think you should be blocked? Probably not, because it would not really achieve anything. Reduced to 1RR for a very long time? Certainly. Stripped of adminship for a very long time? Certainly. Topic-blocked, so that you may not interfere in any discussions or articles on East European matter not involving Poland (I am sure Lithuanian editors will not like this one, but perhaps they can construct a compromise that would stop you from intervening in Polish-Lithuanian disputes, like zeroRR or something). Probably.
Unfortunately, the rest and that is the main part, you will have to do yourself. Stop your involvement in secret off wiki activity directed at influencing the working of Misplaced Pages (I have no problem with open forums). As for the rest of the mailing list participants, we only hope that the decision will make it clear that secret off wiki collaboration to create artificial consensus and to insinuate anyone who opposes that consensus as fringe (I am not going to repeat all the possible insinuations) is not on and WILL get you punished. If that is not made crystal clear, it will not take much time before other people use this venue. Since you still seem not to see that that is a problem (do not forget the intangible benefits of a mailing list, like reducing the need to sentinel an article in person) I do not expect you to complain about that, but only when the supasikrit Lithuanian Mailing List contacts the supasikrit Russian mailing List. Another self-fulfilling prophesy. Do widzenia.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page

Clerk note - previously I have attempted to refactor comments in order to preserve what is actually on topic. I have only so many hours in my day however, and my patience is exhausted. Hence now entire threads are getting erased.

I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, but here goes another attempt.

The purpose of discussion on this page is to assist the arbitrators in developing the proposed decision for this case. All discussion must be relevant to that topic. Long discussions about the purpose of Misplaced Pages, quotes from Russian songs and general thrashing about add nothing and hence interfere with the job of the arbitrators. Hence I delete it.

So: ALL discussion that is not clearly relevant to the topic of the proposed decision will get erased without so much as a courtesy note. I hope that is a clear enough reiteration.

Hence before you write your latest brilliant expose of "why the other side is wrong", stop and ask yourself, "Is this clearly relevant to the proposed decision?". If not, save yourself some effort, as I will only delete it.

I also reserve the right to delete otherwise relevant material that has been littered with criticism of other users. Stay on topic. Manning (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Manning, my original contribution regarding the "Purpose of Misplaced Pages" is directly relevant to the Proposed Decision, since most Arbcom cases I have ever seen has such a principle, for example here, and it is lacking in this case. I think this is very important and I ask you to please restore my original contribution. Thanks --Martintg (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Marting: I am not entirely convinced your discussion is relevant. However as you are a proposed target of sanctions, it might be inappropriate of me to deny you the chance to completely present your case. Hence I will reinstate your post as a courtesy, but I will not permit further discussion, as I do not regard the thread as entirely relevant. Manning (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz and Biophys should be prevented from further disruption

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I urge the arbitrators to take mesures against at least Radeksz and Biophys as the most active EEML members. They continue their coordinated reverts even during this arbitration which shows that remedies agaist Martitg and Digwuren are not enough. Note also Piotrus presenting himself as an "uninvolved editor" in the RfC already after this case opened.--Dojarca (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Your "urging" of the arbitrators is noted and the arbitrators will (no doubt) refer to the extensive evidence already provided in order to make their decisions about who (if anyone) is to receive formal sanction. Just to be clear, the arbitrators are also monitoring the activities on these pages and will draw their own conclusions. No further discussion of this particular topic is needed. Manning (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Clerk note - This discussion was originally deleted as being irrelevant. I remain unconvinced of its relevance, however Marting is a potential subject of sanctions in this case and he argued that he has the right to present his case (an argument I find - for the moment - persuasive). Hence I have reinstated the discussion for the benefit of the Arbitrators. Further discussion will be erased or refactored if it fails to be directly relevant to the "Proposed Decision" subject. Manning (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Original post)

There does not appear to be a "Purpose of Misplaced Pages" principle in the Proposed Decision. So what is the purpose of Misplaced Pages? The question is directly related to the role of the ArbCom, whose primary purpose is the protection of Misplaced Pages. What is Misplaced Pages? Of course we know it is an encyclopedia, but is is also a social network. The question is: what is the relationship between the two aspects. I guess the answer depends upon whether one is an idealist or a pragmatist. "Idealist" and "pragmatist" is probably not the best terms to describe these outlooks, but I'll use it for convenience. An idealist would see the social network, along with its system of rules, as central to the creation of quality content. A pragmatist would see the creation of content as the central purpose, with the system of rules as subordinate to that goal and the social network aspect is secondary to it.

A pragmatist would examine whether or not this list has had any adverse impact on the quality of the content. They would look at whether the list actually gave any advantage or was it in fact a hindrance to the perceived goals of the list members. This could be done by comparing the rates of Admin notice board outcomes pre and post maillist. AfD participation could be examined to see if a general trend of list members participating in topics outside their area of interest developed (we already have a comparison of the outcome of two AfDs held on the same article, the first while the existence of the maillist was unknown and a second AfD when the existence of the list was made known during the debate). If something was discussed on the list but nothing subsequently happened on-wiki, then that discussion is just irrelevant circle-jerking pillow talk.

To an idealist, on the other hand, a maillist is a direct threat to this social network and its body of implicit and explicit rules. The mere existence of the list is sufficient proof of disruption, regardless of whether there was any material affect on the content itself. Even if it was objectively shown that content was actually improved and on-wiki drama reduced, that does not matter, the existence of the list is an affront to the creed of the social network.

Now some believe that certain forms of private social intercourse is wrong and any perpetrator should be given the most severe sanction in order to suppress and discourage others from engaging in this type of behavior. But it is human nature to communicate. As an analogue, some societies have imposed the most severe penalties for certain forms of sexual intercourse, as a warning to others not to engage in that behavior, lest the social fabric be undermined. However these exemplary sanctions do not suppress social or sexual intercourse, it only drives it further underground. The paradigm of eliminating the person to eliminate problem will not work in the longer term.

That is of course not to say that a functioning social network is unimportant to the creation of content, we all need to be able to work together. Trust is key here. The main damage that I see this list caused was damage to trust. Now banning someone will not repair that trust, but what will restore trust is giving that person an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to furtherance of the goals of Misplaced Pages (which I trust is to create quality content), for example through mediation, collaborative content creation and voluntary community service, as required.

If the ultimate goal is to discourage private maillists, rather than drive it further underground by imposing heavy sanctions, the progressive view is that the exposure of the list with its embarrassment and loss of reputation is more than sufficient a social sanction. A combination of the acknowledgment of the objective fact that the list was demonstrably ineffectual to influence the outcome of anything anyway (if that was the intent) due to the robustness of wiki-processes, tied with the encouragement to set up a more transparent forum to discuss EE wiki-issues, would do far more to encourage those other unknown maillists to come out of the closet, so to speak. --Martintg (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe your definition of pragmatist is too narrow. A pramatist would take more than specific AFD's into account when weighing the lists possible disruptions, specifically I think the coordinating of posting would offend a pragmatist as much as coordinating of AFD votes. The addition of an admin to the accusation makes it even more offensive. A pragmatist would see this as an attempt by the social network to use its rules to undermine the quality of the content to fit the social networks goals.
I also believe that Arbcom IS following what you call the 'progressive view'. Many on the list are being given another chance, much to the consternation of others on this page. It is still, however, a multi-faceted responce in that who they believe are the 'ringleaders' are being sanctioned. This will (hopefully) have the effect showing that secretive lists will be dealt with commensurate with the disruption they cause, while avoiding pushing others too far 'underground' by not clear-cutting the list members with indiscriminate bans. For some the embarrassment IS enough, but others have exhausted the patience of the community (as represented by Arbcom) and will receive stronger sanction. I almost take it as an affermation of the correctness of their actions that neither side thinks the Remedies are correct. In predictable fashion, one side says its too harsh, the other says its not enough. That sound like its just right to me.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure the thing about the 'purpose of wikipedia' was just an overlooked convention by the drafter. Yes, most cases open with it. However there is no law stating it must be there. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course WP is an encyclopaedia, as it is one of the pillars of WP:FIVE. But it is WP:NOT a social network; it is rather an environment of collegial editing, and there is a difference here. The brigade mailing list could be construed as a sort of social network, except it stepped over the line in a big way by moving away from being a social network into one which has only gone to further destroy collegial editing on this project, and particularly in an area of which there is contention. And this was done in such a way that it ignored WP standards of conduct and policies. No-one forced list members to join the list; everyone was on the list by their own free will, and it is obvious by reading the archives that list members knew that this was no normal "social network" and that there were goals which needed to be achieved. This is so egregious, that it moves beyond the pale of simply being one which would warrant "community service" (carrot), to one which involves requiring real remedies (stick). And this is especially moreso evident due to the majority of brigade members being involved in several Arb cases in this area of editing in the past, and even moreso due to there still being no self-recognition of list members doing a thing wrong or shouldering an ounce of responsibility. --Russavia 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • 198.161.174.222, thanks for your thoughts. Evidently Coren considers me a "ringleader" and that have I exhausted the patience of the community (via ArbCom) such that I should receive a stronger sanction. I hope that other committee members don't share that view. It should be noted that it was found that I had not violated policy in the Eastern European disputes case. The list was created after that case, partly in response to it I suppose. In hind sight the lack of a charter meant that different participants brought their own assumptions to what the list was meant to be, and thus some inappropriate things may have said or suggested; however list members did show restraint to these suggestions. Also I think another flaw was the fact that it wasn't transparent or publicly viewable, I'm sure there have been studies in psychology about lack of accountability in groups leading to a drift in purpose. There is a need for a kind of Misplaced Pages Review from an EE perspective, and a more public forum has apparently now been created, as the list had clearly failed to live up to that purpose. --Martintg (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Marting: as promised, I have given you the opportunity to present your statement and discuss the idea of an additional proposal. However I do not see further discussion of the general "What is Misplaced Pages" or "What is a legitimate off-wiki discussion forum" topic as relevant, hence I am closing this thread. Feel free to continue the discussion outside of the Arbcom pages.Manning (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Misplaced Pages principle (2)

In an earlier section of this page I also raised the question of a Purpose of Misplaced Pages principle for the proposed decision. Neither of the responses addressed the point I had raised, and I believe my point was both valid and relevant.

So, I would like to raise it again, and I would really like someone to explain to me why the principles as stated begin with Consensus. In the earlier section, I wrote: if the mailing list has influenced the formation of consensus, disrupted wikipedia processes, and attacked / harrassed / baited editors (all of which are alleged in various parts of the evidence), surely the ultimate motive was to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The logic of begining the principles with consensus escapes me, in that achieving consensus is desirable as a means towards high-quality unbiased content; consensus is not an end in itself.

In other words, surely the fundamental problem flowing from the mailing list participants was not the disruption of consensus formation but rather was the disruption to advancing the purpose of the encyclopedia - namely, content development. That being the case, a statement regarding the importance of consensus is a logical consequence flowing from the purpose of Misplaced Pages, and the logical structure of the decision should reflect this fact. Please, if my reasoning is flawed, please explain what I am missing. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A remedy that seems obvious, but is missing

I should think that an obvious step here would be to topic ban the participants of the mailng list from all Eastern European articles, broadly construed. Zapping a couple of the people who were most deeply involved is a good start, but it does nothing to deal with the very large number of people on the list who've also been causing trouble. An amnesty really sends the wrong message here. Jtrainor (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. Giano (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Come on, that's too harsh. There are editors among ML members who could be accused only of knowing what was happening and doing nothing about it. But since apparently one of them eventually disclosed all this stuff even this accusation shouldn't be made imho. Alæxis¿question? 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Failure to report a crime about which one knows - is a crime, and this was an indisputable crime, we are not talking about an odd sock, or an extra vote on FAC, or a little incivility; this was a highly organised mass crime, a crime that deliberatly and willfully influenced the whole encyclopedia, and more importantly its reputation and credibility. Firm, even harsh, precedents need to be set, so that the next case, and there will be one, can be more easily adjudicated. This is a wiki-crime that is new to Arbcom, hard precedents are required, or to put it bluntly, it needs nipping in the bud. Giano (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is that the 'crime' (as you put it) has been eventually reported. Alæxis¿question? 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that if you're a "prolific content creator" and your userpage resembles a trophy case, even the most egregious policy violations can be overlooked or given a slap on the wrist at most. I can only come to this conclusion, having witnessed the ease with which year-long blocks or even perma-bans have been handed out to the less "indispensable" editors. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Not really... a "soft" ban is perhaps the most hypocritical punishment (dear Socrates, we don't do lethal injections now, would you mind drinking your stuff voluntarily?) ... and as past cases shoes, it is seldom enforced. Perhaps a forty-eigth month hard block for the soldiers will suffice. NVO (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who says that my proposed remedy is too harsh hasn't paid attention to all the problems caused by the denizens of the list. And it's not enough for the problem to be reported-- something must be done about it. An amnesty does nothing to prevent these users from simply continuing right on with what they've been doing. A topic ban, on the other hand, removes them root and branch-- they'd have to sock to get around it, and the ones silly enough to do so will presently get caught and dealt with permanently.

Jtrainor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Such scenario was discussed-it would mean basically eliminating most active editors in FA's DYK's and content creation within Central and Eastern European topics, while leaving many users with heavy POV active. This would create in effect obvious issues.

As to problems-hmm, the list proved rather more place to talk then any actuall action that wouldn't happen anyway. Could you point any problem that the list members created that wouldn't happen without the list discussions ? A wide range bange would be problematic-many list members provide much content and valuable additions to Misplaced Pages. Also it wouldn't change the problematic nature of those disputes that happen time and time again the area concerned-a more productive solution would be enforcing 1RR rule and strict enforcement of RS and Civility. In previous cases where beginnings of such restrictions were introduced the quality of discussion and beheaviour started to improve.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The are probably hundreds of editors around who routinely contribute to the Eastern and Central European topics. And most of them, myself included, do so in ways that don't make a travesty of the policies and guidelines. So, what's so special about your collective that we can't do without you? By the way it's just mind-boggling to see a sweeping amnesty offered to all these conspirators, who to this day continue to vehemently deny any wrongdoing. I believe, only Biophys has offered an apology of sorts so far. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 04:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Realy ? Hundreds ? I would very much like to know them and exchange information with them. Could you tell me some names of contributors dealing with Soviet occupation of Poland or Soviet occupation of Baltics for example, or Bolshevik invasion of Poland ? And really, it isn't hard to get the number of DYK's and FA's in connection to users, and could probably be done. Why strip Misplaced Pages of such content contributors rather then to guide them into more content creation. Using your proposal would leave CEE topics in hands of extreme pro-Soviet users, which I think anybody can see problems with. However as you sign with hammer and sickle sign, I guess you have your own view on such result. I am of the opinion its better to have content created, sadly my proposition to work with Russavia on such topics as :
   * Rapes committed by German forces on Eastern Front-while they are frequently accusations against Red Army for their beheaviour, there is no information on Misplaced Pages regarding Wehrmacht's, SS and other German forces rapes and sexual violence on Eastern Front during WW2.
   * Hunger Plan-the article could be expanded on information how Germany planned to organise a famine in Soviet Union.
   * Concentration camps for Soviet prisoners-I have several books and much knowledge which I could share to contribute to that topic.
   * Russians in Generalplan Ost-we could cover and expand information on plans regarding Russian people in Generalplan Ost.

Has been left unanswered.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your selection of proposed topics is quite strange. First of all, productive editors, who don't treat Misplaced Pages as battleground, do not like writing about war crimes/massacres/concentration camps/murderers etc. Such topics may be part of their work, but usually only a small part. Second, wikipedia is encyclopedia, it is not a place for atrocity propaganda. DonaldDuck (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Your selection of proposed topics is quite strange

I proposed topics within my historic expertise and field of study which is German history with focus on WW2. Naturally I incline towards writing articles where I can offer a great deal of knowledge. Feel free to suggest your proposals. I would like to add that armed conflicts, concentration camps are valid encyclopedic content in my view. Certainly Encyclopedia Britannica and I believe every major encyclopedia has articles on such topics. Not only that, but also they are specialised scholarly fields of study devoted to that subjects. An I wouldn't describe scholalrs reaserching Soviet massacre of Katyn or German concentration camps as not worthy of their titles Certainly Encyclopedia Brittanica has whole area of articles on rape as weapon of war, Soviet occupation, German concentration camps-it doesn't make it "atrocitity propaganda" in my view. Perhaps though I didn't understand what you meant by atrocitiy propaganda-if so do explain what you meant by that sentence. Can I ask you what kind of propaganda do you expect from article about plans for Russians in GP, Hunger Plan or Concentration camps for Soviet prisoners in WW2 ? "who don't treat Misplaced Pages as battleground, do not like writing about war crimes/massacres/concentration camps/murderers etc" Why so ? Isn't your sentence a confirmation that they are a valid problems with CEE topics if you believe every attempt to write about this faces battle, that do not come from the list itself ? Perhaps you are confusing cause and effect. A 1RR restriction and strict enforcement of RS and Civility would help in calming down the area of Central and Eastern Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)