Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 20 July 2010 (Reverted edits by NuclearWarfare (talk) to last version by Amorymeltzer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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)

Motion to open case

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(archived from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator votes and comments

On a motion, a majority of all the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for adoption. There are currently 11 arbitrators listed as active, so a majority is 6. If any arbitrator listed as inactive votes on this motion, he or she shall be moved to active for purposes of this case and the majority adjusted accordingly.

Support:

1. As proposer. This situation requires our expedited attention and under the particular circumstances it is appropriate for us to proceed nostra sponte rather than wait for a formal case to be filed. I would like to reemphasize that nothing in this motion, or any other action taken today, reflects a predetermination of any aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Support the motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them—and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Support; also without prejudice. It is important to note that the celerity with which the committee is acting in this matter is borne not out of the substance of the alleged mailing list but from the combination of the gravity of the allegations and the significant risk to privacy of a large number of editors. — Coren  23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Support; — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Clerk notes

Question: The notes below are written as though this is a full motion; for the purposes of knowing when to open the case, are we looking for a majority as suggested below or the usual net four? Hersfold 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(not clerk or arb, clerk should move if need be) I'm not sure if a case can be opened by motion (if it can, it makes the whole net 4 rule moot), but it can probably fixed by interpreting all aye votes as accept votes as well as votes in favor of the motion's conditions and modifications on the case, and any nay votes as no to both, unless the arbitrator indicates otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought about your point before I made the motion; theoretically, if a case was about to be declined under "net 4" despite majority support for acceptance, a disappointed arbitrator could offer a case-by-motion motion instead. This would obviously be a misuse of this procedure (which I've just invented, by the way). I'm sure no arbitrator would act in this manner—although it does illustrate a drawback of the net 4 rule, which many of us have said needs revising (but this isn't the time for that discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recused MBisanz 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I be removed as a participant?

Can I be removed as a participant? Although I am flattered to be included, I don't really have much to offer this arbcom. I just made a general comment on the ANI about cabals. I have no first hand knowledge of this super-duper secret mailing list. Although I have had a little contact with Russavia, it was simply to offer him advice about his edits, etc. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions listed in that section and contact the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. Daniel (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel, as always, you are a wonderful help. :) Ikip (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

hello, how long does it usually take to get a response. I sent an email yesterday, I guess I am used to the instant gratification of wikipedia, were your change is seen immediately. :) Ikip (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect the list of parties will be altered within the next few days. It's probably worth remembering that at any time, the list of parties reflects who is believed to be "of interest" to the case, or who has a stake in the proceedings. It neither marks "suspects", nor binds who can be affected by the eventual decision; it's mostly a list of "people who would be made aware of the proceeding because they are likely to participate or have a stake in the case". — Coren  00:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am of really no interest nor do i have any stake. If I continue to be included, I will be fairly inactive. Thank you again Coren, you arbs are so helpful, I will close this discussion. Ikip (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Extend this motion

Is it possible to expand the scope of this particular motion to include all specific geographic areas? I put to you, that it is time that the issue is of private, off wiki conversations regarding any action, and particularly any policy issues, is brought into full exposure of the wikipedia community at large. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would expect this to be both unlikely (because of no evidence), and unwieldy to widen the scope that much. Mind you, this case may end up establishing a number of principles of broader relevance than to this specific incident. — Coren  01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The creation of those broader principles can be the only fruit of this case because the source of this case is an action that is a crime in most jurisdictions and a gross violation of privacy. Anything else would encourage crime by actually making it worth wile for the perpetrator. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

Since I am listed as a party to this case, and there seems to be no provision for public statements as in other cases, but I dislike doing Misplaced Pages business per e-mail, I am posting my statement in this matter here.

I was first made aware of the (alleged) existence of this mailing list in the WP:ANI thread of 17 September 2009, and have not seen the supposedly leaked archives. I have not participated in any offwiki coordination related to Eastern Europe in general or administrative actions in this area in particular. I am not aware of any attempts, as has allegedly been the purpose of this mailing list, to influence me offwiki. My administrator and arbitration enforcement actions in this area are all based solely on the requests made and evidence presented on the administrators' and arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and this will continue to be the case.  Sandstein  07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, as a suggestion, posting this as part of your "evidence" section would likely make it more prominent for the arbitrators. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not evidence, just an assertion of facts. But I'll do so nonetheless.  Sandstein  12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the evidence page will double as a statement page given the unique circumstances that surrounded the opening of this case by expedited motion. I will give appropriate consideration in terms of evidence section length to parties who choose to make short assertions of facts in statements (such as the one above) as part of their evidence. Daniel (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to be included in the arbitration.

I am a member of this list and I hold some VERY STRONG opinions about whats going on here. Therefore I request to be included as an involved party. The whole issue presents a several social, moral and ideological problems for me.

1. What editors do in their off wiki activities in unofficial PRIVATE channels(bedroom talk, calls, etc) is not something that should be used to judge actions on WP. WP does not OWN its editors.
2. Is it acceptable to hack an account of a person to obtain so called "evidence", distribute this private information far and wide and then use it to harass them? Cases in any form of judicial system can not be based on STOLEN and UNVERIFIED evidence because it validates crime.
3. Am I guilty of something by just belonging in this list even tho I have been almost totally inactive in WP during the existence of this list?

By taking up this case ArbCom has basically said, that it is OK to steal private information and use it for an attack on Misplaced Pages, directly supporting a crime.

Crime against the privacy of me, all people on that list and most of all, Tymek.

The only correct and nondiscriminatory action is to dismiss this evidence and declare that ArbCom/Wikipedia does not handle fruits of a CRIME to discourage future hackers from going on fishing expeditions into private lives of their fellow editors.

This statement is posted here because I want it to be public, not e-mailed to select few eyes.

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you are involved in this particular issue; ie. were you on the mailing list in question, or were you discussed on the mailing list? Merely being "interested" or "holding strong opinions on the issue" does not merit being added to the party list. You are still free to comment and present evidence as a non-party. Daniel (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought my first sentence above made it clear. I am on that list. Please add me to the case.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I confess my eyes were drawn directly to the capitals that followed it :) Given the fact that you were on the mailing list, you certainly fall within the criteria used to determine the initial list of parties; hence I have added you to the list. Please note that this decision is provisional and could be overruled by the Arbitrators, but I think based on the facts that it won't be. Regards, Daniel (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia

Could someone please lift the sanctions on Russavia imposed by Sandstein (Sandstein still refuses to do so) The Arbcom can look at the evidence themselves to see why this is necessary, I will not break confidentiality here. Howver, the community support, and reasons, for these sanctions now look very dodgy indeed. Pending the outcome of this investigation Russavia should be allowed to edit normall, Irpen and Ghirlandajo shpould be requested to return to normal editing. The sooner these miscarriages of justice are righted - the better. Giano (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests like this and acting on them are exactly what I mean by validating a crime. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Alexia, still on the welcoming committee - are you? Giano (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

What committee? Ive been inactive over a year now. I came back for just this case because I don't like cyber crime and sites like WP validating it as OK for insite politics. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano: I told Russavia and repeat it here: right now the best course for his is to stay cool and stay aside from public discussions. Lifting censorship right now will provoke further conflict. The ban actually protects him now - if it is lifted and if Russavia replies to provocations, he'll be lynched in an hour. NVO (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That may or may not be so, but concencus for supporting these sanctions was orchestrated by this group. (The Arbcom have proof of this in their possession, I cannot currently say more) so it is definitley an injustice. You cannot keep a person in prison because, allthough innocent, they will be very cross if released - well you can't in this small pocket of Europe - I thought all civilised communities felt the same way. Giano (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be orchestrated. To imply it can is a strange concept. Consensus forms from input of individuals. I don't have a clue what he was sanctioned for and I honestly don't care. What I care about is stated above. Validation of a crime.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be orchestrated. Right you are. But harassment and provocations can be. I personally beleive, it's what this list was all about. Please feel free to prove me wrong - if I am, of course. As to the ban, it was imposed after the user was provoked, by a group of users, who have discussed their tactics before, and acted in concord against Russavia. Clearly this is not all Russiavia's guilt, as the admin thought, when banning him. And, I'd say, every each of those on mailing list, who hunted their fellow user, actually attacked him psycologically - which, in fact, is a criminal act in most states. Just a thing to consider, before discussing hackers and ways to punish their crimes.FeelSunny (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with FeelSunny here. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress is a tort. As is Assault. I'm not suggesting any legal actions, I'm just listing causes of torts; perhaps people who are claiming that mere hacking is a crime, should do the same. I remember Russavia's edits when I first met him on Misplaced Pages, and his edits of today. He was clearly, and blatantly provoked. Either that, or he was abducted by aliens, schooled in bashing, and returned by E.T. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the admin responsible for imposing an indefinite block on Russavia, not Sandstein. I do not agree that his block should be lifted, though I do think he should be permitted to submit evidence in this case. I received no contact from anyone alleged to be part of this "group" and so it's difficult to say they exerted influence on me and thereby "orchestrated" the sanction I imposed. My sanction was also imposed entirely independently of any influence from Sandstein. I imposed the sanction based on Russavia's behaviour and not for any other reason. Good Ol’factory 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, you are a mere Admin, so one can expect and hopes for better and more rational outcome from a member of the Arbcom. If not, then this mailing list needs to see the light of day, and it shall, so that all can see how naive and orchestrated you actions have been. I expect to see fairplay on Misplaced Pages, and be assured we shall have it - one way or the other. Giano (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Fair play" notion on wikipedia can not be rated higher and more important than laws that govern what is a crime and what is not and an individuals right to privacy. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My actions were not "orchestrated". I had no contacts with and nothing to do with any of the users in question. I didn't have a horse in this race, unlike some. I think it's easy to tell who did and who didn't. Good Ol’factory 12:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If not, then this mailing list needs to see the light of day, and it shall, ...

Is it just me or did Giano just publicly threatened to post information that includes private details about other editors?--Staberinde (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is at all what Giano said, to be honest. Merely having the details that ArbCom provide in their final decision, published publicly, is providing the mailing list with a degree of "sunlight" (to continue the metaphor).

That being said, as a general warning, anyone publishing emails will be proverbially hung, drawn and quartered - I'm sure everyone involved in this case is sensible enough to see that ArbCom has made it pretty darned clear that this will be cracked down on. Daniel (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, given that Giano has been going around bragging about how he's seen this "archive", I think this is a very clear threat to publish the information from this "archive" if he doesn't get his way. This is aside from the fact that neither I nor anyone else with the authority to do so has given Giano the permission to look through my personal private emails (whether fake, genuine or doctored) which are supposedly included in this "archive". Giano, since you are in possession of illegally obtained private emails, do not disseminate them in any way and I demand that you delete the relevant files as you have no right to posses or view them. I also want to ask you how exactly you obtained these private hacked files. If they were sent to you by a Wiki user then I think this needs to be explained right here. If you obtained them in some other way then you need to inform the concerns persons (ArbCom, myself, others) via private email to prevent further threats to security and privacy.radek (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano, please, don't get violent. I guess we should all trust NVO when he tells us to take a breather. Now, Ol'Factory, you say that your action on the ban of Russavia was independent of Sandstein. However, you also stated that: " have not demonstrated much desire to change your behaviour, and most of the extended discussion has been your attempts to punch logical holes in the discretionary ban put in place by an administrator. In so doing, you mentioned that according to the logic of that admin, your only option would be to recommend legal action." I think we both know that the admin Russavia talked about was Sandstein. Thus, one can argue, that it was Sandstein's actions, that promoted Russivia's conduct, that earned him your ban. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It would make no sense to unblock previously banned people. As the clerk team is going to see for themselves the people on the mail-list will in general be critics of the modern-day Russian government. The people apparently 'targeted' on the mail list were defenders of the Russian government. To say that all of those have now been a victim is a mouthful as many of those users have been extremely disruptive in the past. No sockpuppeting or tag teaming from any critical user(s) justifies that. And what makes us believe that pro-Putin editors never talked to each other in private? I've seen them exchange e-mails through wikipedia and I've also seem them act like web brigades. Should we look through their msn / irc chatlogs, gmail accounts and phone conversations if they ever discussed something not kosher? I guess they can be happy their accounts didn't get hacked. -------- It wouldnt be surprising if Russavia was discussed a lot on this mail-list. As I showed recently his editing pattern on Russian related subjects was always in the interest of Russian history or the Russian government and he edited on average 55 hours a week which included a large amount of edit warring. It's no wonder that if users who edited critical of the Russian government spoke to each other in private about wikipedia they would mention Russavia because there was no way for them to avoid him, but that doesn't mean at all that they stalked him. -------- I feel that the accusations of Alex Bakharev should be carefully looked at. He mentioned several users of which I severely doubt they breahed the rules of wikipedia. Being on the mailing-list doesn't make someone guilty. Sure people with sock puppets should get sanctioned, but speaking to each other in private about wikipedia is not a crime. Grey Fox (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Grey Fox, without going into discussions further, I'd say your last message looks very much an ad hominem, more exactly, the abusive ad personam type, hence violates the formal logic. It all also makes me wonder why this case of (alledged) canvassing and Harassment draws so much attention from those anti-Russian users that are not (alledgedly) on the list.FeelSunny (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's unwarranted. Some people exchange e-mails for fun. Or to share each others' views. Or to find out about life in other countries. It's because of stuff like this, that people are afraid to exchange e-mails. Considering that all of my Misplaced Pages work, well 95% of it, revolves around the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, if I choose to talk to some pro-Russian editors about education, or about sports, I find nothing wrong with that. All of my edits are kept on my talkpage, none of which is archived. The archive I have, is what used to be on my user page, but has been archived. I may talk about uncontroversial parts of the article, such as the Order of Battle, and even that talk is on my talkpage. I would never hide anything about the actual, and controversial article parts that I edit. And I would never, NEVER launch a psychological attack, en masse, against a fellow Wikipedian. Don't try to turn a psychological attack against a fellow Wikipedian, into pro-Putin camp vs. anti-Putin camp.HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, you do not need to provide any reasonable arguments back when a counterpart is only able to give ad hominems. Ad hominems speak for themselves, and need no reaction other than telling what they are. When Grey Fox says it's ok for those Estern Europeans to gather in a web-brigade b/c it was (as he thinks) practiced by pro-Russian editors before, you do not need to pursue any discussions any further. Everything is said already. FeelSunny (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said I think it's ok for anyone to gather into a web brigade, I said it's okay for people to talk to each other in private, otherwise the entire e-mail function on wiki shouldn't be allowed. The mailing list, subject of this arbitration, might not be a web brigade at all. Perhaps 1 or 2 people have used it abusively, but that doesn't mean everyone on the list did. Grey Fox (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You implied it here: "It would make no sense to unblock previously banned people. As the clerk team is going to see for themselves the people on the mail-list will in general be critics of the modern-day Russian government. The people apparently 'targeted' on the mail list were defenders of the Russian government. To say that all of those have now been a victim is a mouthful as many of those users have been extremely disruptive in the past. No sockpuppeting or tag teaming from any critical user(s) justifies that. And what makes us believe that pro-Putin editors never talked to each other in private? I've seen them exchange e-mails through wikipedia and I've also seem them act like web brigades." In other words, without any evidence, you went ahead and claimed that it's ok for anti-Putin posters to form Web Brigades, because you believe that pro-Putin posters act like Web Brigades. In essence you are encouraging Vigilante Justice, based on your own POV. You are furthermore trying to divide groups here into pro-Putin and anti-Putin. That's not the case. People have their own opinions. I think Putin's handling of the 2008 South Ossetian War was stellar. I also, (not on Misplaced Pages but via other means) protested, rather successfully, Putin's pollution policies, which he later changed. Does that make me pro-Putin or anti-Putin? You cannot have the World in black and white, you need to have shades of gray, and all other colors as well. While we are on Putin as a topic, tell me, do you think Russians are stupid? It was blatantly obvious to anyone that Medvedev, the candidate of Putin's party, was going to win. Why did so many Russians, over 70% of those registered, turn out to vote? Is there any other reason, then Russians' pleasure with Putin's policies? And try as hard as they might, no agency found massive fraud in the votes, with the exception of the Caucasian Region, which didn't influence the vote in any way, shape, or form. So please stop trying to set up pro-Putin and anti-Putin camps here. The reason that it has been called the "Anti-Russian e-mail group" - is because most of the editors attacked by this group have been born in Russia, or live in Russia, or both. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words? Again I nowhere state that it's ok to form web brigades, I'm pretty confident in knowing what I write. I said you don't need to have a mailing list to form web brigades, and that a mailing list doesn't have to be a web brigade per se. I'm not going to discuss elections here because you seem to be extremely naive and never read about human rights issues in Russia (especially the caucasus region). Grey Fox (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment wasn't meant as an attack on a single wikipedian and I'm sorry if it appeared as such. I did place it in a topic calling for the unbanning of several users and that's what I was replying to. I want to say that for several reasons the Eastern-European subjects on wikipedia have turned into a constant state of passive agressiveness and distrust and that's one of the reasons why I and other users went inactive. One example is how you User:FeelSunny just called an entire group of users "Anti-Russian" which I believe is insulting though you probably didn't realize that. I specifically use terms such as "anti-government" when categorizing groups of peoples, because Anti-Russian is almost the same accusing someone of Racism. Why would someone be defined as anti-Russian for having a stance against the Russian government? Am I anti-American if I didn't support George W. Bush when he was president? Am I anti-German if I don't support Angela Merkel and edit critically of her on wikipedia? Calling people Anti-Russian draws us back to the principle of Enemy of the people and it shouldn't be allowed. That is, if we'd ever want to change anything concerning Eastern-European subjects. Grey Fox (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my previous post, under your previous post. Here's an explanation why FeelSunny might have called in anti-Russian: "The reason that it has been called the "Anti-Russian e-mail group" - is because most of the editors attacked by this group have been born in Russia, or live in Russia, or both". If you can't handle passive aggressiveness don't edit controversial articles. From these articles, passive aggressiveness results; it's just human nature. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's no reason to call anyone anti-Russian. Some of the people who were on this list were Russian, and at least several of the users that they discussed aren't Russian. Pretty funny for someone who isn't Russian to consider a Russian "anti-Russian" isn't it? It doesn't matter anway, calling someone anti-Russian should be in violation of several policies. Grey Fox (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If, (and it's only an if at this point,) but if someone is going around, attacking Russian users, or those residing in Russia, as well as making a group that targets said editors, that group is anti-Russian, as they are primarily attacking Russian editors in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy. Svante Cornell, Pavel Felgenhauer, Boris Yeltsin, I'd say they're pretty damn anti-Russian, working very hard to screw with Russia's economy, and hurt Russians. Poorer economy, less work, higher unemployment, rise in alcohol consumption, violence on the streets, etc. Am I supposed to be banned from Misplaced Pages for saying this? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Grey Fox, I'm not here for giving language lessons, and I won't. Just one thing: when I call the users in question "anti-Russian", I mean anti-Russia, not anti-ethnos. "Russian" is ethnic identity, right, but it also denotes everything "of Russia", which was exactly what I wanted to say. I beleive many of those users on the list dislike the very country. I can remember many anti-Russian posts from them, e.g. calling Russia "underdeveloped", and so on. As to the giving ad hominems as arguments - this absolutely implies you accept the adversary's POV. This is pure logic. Like, "You're bad" - "But look, everyone's bad these days". You understand it well, I think.FeelSunny (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The best way to catch a spider is show him a spider. Giano (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My activity

Just so everyone knows, I'm going to be no-where to be seen until around about 0600 (UTC) tomorrow. Given this is still very early stages in this case, I suspect there may be some urgent issues that will need clerk attention during the time between now and then. If there is, please contact an Arbitrator or another non-recused Clerk who will hopefully be able to help you.

Disappointed

As someone who has blocked (by my count) 6 of the participants in this case I'm a bit disappointed not to be involved. Does arbcomm have something against me? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Er. The list of parties is very rough (initially approximated by participation in the ANI thread). The parties will certainly change. If the Eye of Mordor ArbCom glances in your direction, I'm sure that we will immediately add you as a party. Cool Hand Luke 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Questions to ArbCom

1. What kind of evidence does ArbCom want in this case? Since most of us don't have access to the off-wiki evidence, it is impossible to for us to know which diffs really are relevant to the mailing list affair and which are not.
2. Is ArbCom going to be both the prosecutor and the jury regarding the off-wiki evidence, or will those few admins who have access to the material be the prosecutors?
3. Is ArbCom going to make some of this evidence public?
4. Will ArbCom verify the authenticity of the off-wiki evidence itself, or does it want some kind of help?
5. Does ArbCom need help in determining whether the mail list discussions led to disruptive behaviour on Misplaced Pages? Offliner (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In short:

1. It is expected that the members of the mailing list will be the ones providing most of the evidence, given that the mailing list itself is at the center of the incident.
2. It may be more appropriate to compare this case to a coroner's inquest than a trial; the role of prosecutor applies only when the proceeding is adversarial, not when it is an investigation
3. That depends what you mean by "evidence" and "public". Any decision that would rest on evidence that should remain private will state what the evidence is, and may selectively quote redacted portions of it. It is unlikely that significant parts of the mail archive will be published, especially given that most of it is unrelated to Misplaced Pages at all and may disclose information with significant privacy impact
4. The authenticity, reliability and accuracy of private evidence is always an important factor. This is something that will occupy an important part of the investigation in the days to come.
5. I expect that I will ask the parties (and, indeed, the community) a number of specific inquiries of that nature during the case, where evidence of specific incidents will be requested.

Right now, I'm still organizing and preparing, so much of the answers above are preliminary. I hope it's enough to give a good idea, though. — Coren  16:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My intent here is to make it clear that taking any action wiki side based on peoples private conversations and venting is inappropriate. If there would have been violations in the actions on WP, they should and would have been noted at the time. What's on the table now is editors right to have private conversations. I would like to assume we all have that right. Therefore I refuse to discuss any of this "evidence". --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to that concern there, though I expect you'll not agree with it. — Coren  18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, Coren. I already collected some evidence that I think might be relevant or useful to ArbCom: . You said that members of the mailing list are expected to provide most of the evidence. I'm not a member of the list, but do you think it would be helpful if I posted this on the evidence page? Offliner (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to post evidence, and encouraged to do so when they can shed light and help getting a complete picture. — Coren  18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unlikely that significant parts of the mail archive will be published, especially given that most of it is unrelated to Misplaced Pages at all and may disclose information with significant privacy impact. Hmm, most of it is unrelated to Misplaced Pages at all? Coren could please clarify whether the ArbCom seeked the advice of Wikimedia Foundation laywers before starting to examine private emails? Loosmark (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please state the theoretical cause of action. To me this looks like another scare tactic. If someone told me, "look your library is being vandalized by this private e-mail group, look at the e-mails" and I looked at the e-mails, what crime have I committed? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it probably depends on the type of vandalism and how were the emails obtained. In my opinion that is very much a legal question and only a lawyer can give a definite answer on which way the balance go here ("the right to know" vs privacy breach), thus my question. I think the comunity has the right to know whether the ArbCom got "legal clearance" for their actions. Loosmark (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that community has the right to have it's arb com left alone, and without any threats of any legal consequences. These dozens of posts with claims arb com may be punished for it's actions look like a real campaign, organized and coordinated. Definitely there's something people on the list are afraid of, but that does not give you the right to threat anyone on Misplaced Pages. Dear users on the list, and their friends, please do not threaten anyone, for it may only further undermine your position in this case.FeelSunny (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

punished? threaten? FeelSunny what are you talking about? I only suggested wikipedia lawyers clarify the situation, that's all. If the examination of private emails is really legal (I'm not saying it is isn't, I have just not seen any convincing argument supporting it) then I don't see whats the problem with that, as it will only put to rest all doubts. Loosmark (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any "community" around asking for "legal clearance" - there are just several users involved in the mailing list actions, which would do whatever to stopp the inquiry into this all. That is what I see. Claiming that arbcoms may lack some "clearance" and advising someone to go check if he has permission before acting (more exactly - "seek the advice of laywers before starting to examine private emails") is very much close to threatening, from my POV.FeelSunny (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is no doubt that "that is what you see". However: 1) I am not on any mailing list. 2) If somebody would want to examine your private emails I would raise the same objections. 3) I have yet to see a legal argument for examining the private corrispondence. Loosmark (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and you are shifting it to the defendant. No one is required to provide legal arguments, before charges have been provided. I have yet to see a legal argument for the plaintiff, and you claiming that the defendant is the first one to give the legal argument isn't just plain silly; in this case, it's Unconstitutional. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While we may, or may not believe with Stimson that "gentlemen don't read each other's mail" but I don't believe that doing so in these circumstances is likely infringe any law or create a tort. Even if it does there is no guarantee that the readers are in the jurisdiction where such a tort may arise. So legal hand wringing over use of the information is pretty much by the by. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Request to be included in the arbitration

I have been editing the 2008 South Ossetia War article, extensively. I have been also dealing with POV Forks as a result of said article, and other POV matters. Contrary to the expectation of eternal edit-warring, the general consensus on one of Misplaced Pages's most controversial talkpages has been largely reached. There have been no more major arguments in the two week period, and for that article, it's quite an achievement. Since you have asked for evidence that might corroborate the e-mail evidence, I can provide such evidence; just include me and let me prepare my arguments.

As per the silly comment that this investigation will only encourage crime, I have but one thing to say: What crime was committed? Mere hacking, in and of itself, is not a crime. One can hack someone else's computer, take no other actions, not damage anything during the hacking process, and thus, no crime has occurred. The crime of "hacking" results from an action being taken, that follows the hacking, such as stealing money, stealing legally obtained information, or revealing personal information. None of this took place. One cannot use illegal Misplaced Pages tactics, if indeed this is the case, and then complain that said tactics have been illegally exposed. An undercover officer doesn't read a drug dealer his Miranda Rights. Illegal actions do not enjoy the same protection as legal ones. I have never heard a case, where an e-mail club was hacked and exposed as illegal, where no private information has been exposed, and where the hacker was punished. In order to encourage crime, the investigation must recognize crime, and here no crime of "hacking" took place. If you illegally stole money, and someone hacked your account and gave that money to the government that you stole it from, you do not get immunity; you go to jail. If you illegally try to influence the knowledge and mindset of Misplaced Pages readers by a secret e-mail cabal, and someone hacks and exposes your cabal, and returns the proper knowledge to his fellow Misplaced Pages readers, then no crime took place, except the crime that you committed.

Has a crime been committed? Is there an e-mail cabal out there? Will people receive Misplaced Pages "vacations"? We don't know. That's what were are here to find out. But to claim that this committee should stop working and investigating a potential crime, because someone else believes that a crime has been committed, where no crime took place, is absurd! It's like Bernie Madoff claiming protection from lawsuits to avoid exposing his "business secrets". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior, you state "I can provide such evidence;" (to corroborate the "evidence") so I'm going to ask you directly. Do you have access to one or more of the supposed "archives" and if so, how did you obtain this access?radek (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I have such evidence? I shall quote from my previous post, and I believe the quote shall answer your question: "We don't know." In other words, I have no idea. That's why I want this to go forward, to find out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Clarification: the evidence I was talking about, that I do have, either links to, or is part of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. You are more than welcome to check out that fine article, and dig through its not-so-fine archives. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking if I even should comment on your post because I think that this case "stinks" and there is lot's more to come, possibly scary things, because all this is sooooo illegal and on top of that in my opinion we are dealing with pros, whoever they are, but after reading your post I started to shake my head with disbelieve..:) and decided to comment a little. So according to you it is O.K. to hack into somebody's account, steal private e-mails containing private information, possibly manipulate their content to make sure they fit your agenda and then post them for other people to see as evidence? Right? Did I understand you correctly? :)--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. You wrote: "So according to you it is O.K. to hack into somebody's account, steal private e-mails containing private information, possibly manipulate their content to make sure they fit your agenda and then post them for other people to see as evidence?" I specifically stated: "One can hack someone else's computer, take no other actions, not damage anything during the hacking process, and thus, no crime has occurred." What you are describing are actions contrary to my post. Stealing is a crime. Manipulating is a crime. Posting private information for others to see, that's a crime. That would be taking other actions, and thus would be quite contrary to my post, saying "take no other actions". If you have anymore questions please ask, I'm always happy to clarify :) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK for a burglar to enter your house, take pictures of everything you own and then post them for the world to see? Nothing was taken after all...--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If he just takes pictures, then he isn't a burglar :) A Burglary requires a "felony committed on the premises". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer the question: if someone hacks into my e-mail, and doesn't touch any of my legal e-mails, which are all of them, I wouldn't really care, because I have nothing to hide. Comparing an e-mail to a house is a bit, well, it's a poor comparison. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On top of it all, Jacurek, is my feeling that we are dealing with a real web-brigade. And - let me make such a supposition - supported by government agencies. I would really like to see all of those people on the mailing list stating - voluntarily - they are not connected to the government agencies of any country in any way. Just because, as you say, this case stinks.FeelSunny (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, could you clarify what makes you an involved party in this issue? I assume you weren't in mailing list, and so far you haven't been mentioned anywhere as "potential victim" either. Currently I don't see how you are more involved then many many other editors who have interacted with alleged mailing list members on Eastern Europe articles (German Expulsion, Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes, Paneriai naming, etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgia is part of Eastern Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm as is Russia. I devote, on average, 30 minutes a day, some days much more, others much less, to the 2008 South Ossetia War article. I can assure you Staberinde, the edit-warring that took place there, as well as ten people miraculously voting one way in 24 hours, as well as a strategic voting campaign to get a certain POV Fork going, and someone from the list possibly using Samogitia as a sock-puppet, etc. If there is a mailing cabal out there, I can assure you that it operated in 2008 South Ossetia War article, and as one of the main editors of that article, that makes me the victim of these illegal tactics. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont remember claiming that Georgia or Russia are not part of Eastern Europe, my point was actually that Eastern Europe in meaning relevant to this case includes also lots of other stuff from Ukraine to Lithuania to Germany etc. There are/were lots of disputes including crapload of editors, I don't see how South Ossetia war is particularly different from all those various disputes until someone who has actually seen this supposed evidence makes such claim. You can't really make any reliable claims about being victim until someone who has seen appropriate evidence confirms it, assuming that you haven't seen what is in those infamous archives yourself.--Staberinde (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't you actually let me make the arguments, and then the committee can decide if it's relevant or not. Use of scare tactics, and similar methods to silence the investigation, or those participating in it, will not work. Statements, including, "if you allow this, you are encouraging crime" or "you cannot really make any reliable claims" - are very silly. Anyone, who has previously not been proven wrong countless times, can make a reliable claim, that's why it is called a claim. If if I am not included as a party, I still get to present my facts, and then let the arbitrators decide, as per Coren: "Any editor is allowed to post evidence, and encouraged to do so when they can shed light and help getting a complete picture. — Coren (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)". I've never heard of evidence in court being thrown out before it was presented, just because someone thinks it's irrelevant. Same goes for an arbitration committee. I fail to see what you are trying to do here Staberinde, what you are trying to gain. And I already said, I don't have the mailing list, so stop it with the veiled accusations. The reason my post is taking a while, is because, instead of just listing evidence linked to 2008 South Ossetia War, I actually want to get it organized and make it easier to read. That takes time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Scare tactics??? Oh my. Well, I guess that in this case I should appologize for sounding threatening because that definitely was not my intention. Also I have in no way stopped you from making arguments or said that you can't present any evidence. Only thing that I actually did was disputing your claim that you should be considered involved party in this issue due your conviction that there was evil plotting going on in South Ossetia war article. If those emails actually contain plotting against you, then arbcom logically will add you among involved parties anyway, no matter if you apply for it or not. But that if you are involved party or not is in no way related to your right to present any evidence .--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The scare tactic that I was talking about was Alexia Death's claim - "investigating this, is promoting crime!" That's a scare tactic. As to the rest of the argument, you're probably right. And since I get to present my evidence anyways, I guess the point as to whether I'm a party or not, isn't crucial at the moment. Thus, until the evidence is presented, I won't raise the issue again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Staberinde, some of your last claims look very bad to myself. I'd propose both of you to stop discussions on hacking nature, scaring arguments, etc. HW just wants to be included in the discussion, and I beleive he was discussed on this mailing list extensively. Just because those pople on this list were the users we both interacted with very much in several articles. And b/c HW is pro-Russian, and obviously was a very "legitimate" target for those in the (possible) web-brigade. Thus I can see no reason to question HW's wish to be included, or make him give any additional proofs for anything - taking into account he numerous times interacted with those people on the list (and not received a very welcoming reactions from them). Obvious is that he could have been discussed off-wiki by those users, like Colchicum, or Biophys, or Kober, or others (I do not remember all of them on the list, but most names sound very familiar).FeelSunny (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you FeelSunny :D But in all honesty, I don't think Kober was part of this, but I could be wrong. However I am almost sure that Biophys and Colchicum discussed me and you at least once. A certain POV Fork comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/2008_genocide_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia, with a very interesting voting pattern. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I almost take it as a compliment being among those discussed by the group. On Kober - I do not know who was on the list, and it's a good news for me Kober was not one of them.FeelSunny (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One of this case participants reappeared under a different name

Please see . This is User:PasswordUsername. Note that the following IPs are also him: User:166.217.251.170, User:166.217.128.203, User:166.217.202.68, User:166.203.202.83 User:166.217.80.95. Biophys (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, ever heard of a Dynamic IP and forgetting to sign in? Also, PasswordUsername admitted that he is Anti-Nationalist openly, on another Wiki user's talkpage. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So user HistoricWarrior007... what makes you involved with the issues here, again..? Sorry you were asked that question already but I never saw the answer.--Jacurek (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your previous post looks like this is your page and you do not want to see HistoricWarrior007 here. This is hardly acceptable. FeelSunny (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dimitry (FeelSunny), you are wrong. --Jacurek (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dmitry, not Dimitry. on your edit - why do you ask him to give you any explanations on why he is writing in this discussion then? FeelSunny (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He was asked that question by one of the Arb's but I never saw the answer. P.S. Thanks for the name spelling correction Dmitry.--Jacurek (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So why should he answer separately to every user who missed his answer to that arb com member? It looks like it's all about pestering a user that does not support your POV on this list, frankly.FeelSunny (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm here, thanks for noting it. I find it interesting that Biophys linked to my contributions rather than my user page for the stunning shocker, because I plainly identified who I am and why I'm here on my user page in real clear English. (See also User talk:Offliner#New_account.) Presently I'm collecting diffs I will present to ArbCom in this case. And yeah, the Dynamic IP is mine (but you already knew this when I pointed it out to you in May). They get rerouted to different computers after a while, so I can't vouch that everything connected to them after May was stuff I did. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• i think we all saw the message on offliner talk page. I dont see anything wrong with what you have done anti-n, so long as you havent used it in a dispute which backs PU..and that is obvious you have not. You may want to contact the arb clerk to have your name amended on involved parties list. Russavia 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Good advice, I've let Daniel know now that my evidence's set. 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jarucek, can you show me where an Admin asked me that? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European mailing list Arcticle tag - proposal

(I will delete the proposal text for now, as I see it brings about too much unnecessary discussions, and most are not even closely related to the matter). I'd rather repost (or not) it later when the arbcom makes it's decision.FeelSunny (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except I wouldn't use the 200 number, and I would raise the 50 number of edits to 100. I made roughly 60-70 percent of my edits in a single article, so if I only made 50 edits in that article, the overall number, would at best be 90. Also, 3 months seems a bit too long, have about six weeks instead? Additionally, all articles that were deleted, due to a substantial difference made by the e-mail group, should be reinstated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny, whilst I understand what you are suggesting, I don't think that the use of this template would be beneficial to the project. Instead use {{controversial}} on article talk pages. One need only remember Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda - the template that was deemed by uninvolved editors to be an attempt to use a supposed NPOV template to make a POV statement. I think the suggestion is exactly the same, although quite understandable given the circumstances. As I am not able to edit anything outside of this case, I would only suggest that editors, who ever they may be, revisit any suspect articles themselves, and edit them as part of normal editing processes. --Russavia 09:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case the arbcom finds the presented evidence shows users from the group did not edit in a fair way, we should let other people, editors and readers, know. And adding a template could be a good way of doing this. It's not about the template lacking the good faith, namely because the template is proposed to be created only after the arbcom makes it's decision regarding the group's actions. I also proposed quite strict criteria for using and handling the template, as you see, to make sure everybody refrains from using the template to editwar anywhere.

I beleive just adding the {{controversial}} template can not be enough to either 1) prevent other users (most important, readers) the article may have a considerable POV, or 2) make sure non-involved users would take any actions correcting thed damaged articles.FeelSunny (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The horse isn't dead yet. "No user from the group may take part in the new vote" equals a topic ban regardless of personal guilt, which is highly unlikely. Also, I'm afraid you're betting on the assumption that the topic ban will easily shift the balance in favor of Soviet POV. It's a flawed assumption: the other faction has always been stonger in numbers and there's always a steady inflow of volunteers. NVO (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The new pro-POV users would be inexperienced with the topic area, and would easily be exposed, via a discussion page. I remember users claiming all kinds of funny things in the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that discredited them, and their additions to the readers. I.e. air force isn't army, France started the Franco-Prussian War, and it's important to know what the the article is about before editing. These basic facts were missed by some "editors". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

On your first concern: I propose to create such a template only after the decision is made by the arbcom. If the arbcom decides the users from the group may continue to edit EEurope-related articles, they, of course, should be let to vote. Moreover, if the arbcom decides the group did not make any damage to the articles, there would be no need in the template, of course.

On your second concern: Please have some good faith and do not judge my proposal too strictly. I only mean what I say, and have no intention of switching the POV balance to "Soviet POV" side or "other faction" side. I just want the (possible) serious damage to Misplaced Pages to be undone, and users (possibly) inflicting it could not undermine the process of reconstruction.FeelSunny (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FeelSunny, whilst I know what you are getting at, and it is slightly covered by what NVO says, I think the best avenue is this. Find any articles which you believe have been affected, place {{controversial}} on the article talk page (if the article subject is one which is truly controversial), then place {{POV}} and/or {{POV-check}}, or another relevant template from Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Disputes on the article page at the top, and then create a section on the article talk page detailing what the problems with the article are, in order to start discussion. A list of articles could then be made up and placed at WP:RFC, or even WikiProject talk pages, such as WT:RUSSIA, asking for editor input into talk page discussion. And, of course, there is nothing stopping individual editors from being WP:BOLD and adding information. From what I can see the purpose of this group was to ensure that their POV was adhered to in articles, and get rid of everyone who was in opposition to that stated purpose. It doesn't have anything to do with ensuring that one POV is given precedence in articles (as seems to be the modus operandi of the email list), but ensuring that all POV are adequately covered within the confines of existing policies, and ensuring that our articles adhere to WP:NPOV. As was mentioned to me once a while ago, our readers are not stupid and will be able to see blatant bias...or at least one hopes anyway. Again, I understand what your concerns are, and I share them too, but I do feel it is probably best that we try to find a way of dealing with such things with existing resources, rather than re-inventing the wheel, so to speak? Thoughts on that? --Russavia 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Thoughts follow. Let's imagine an option where the arbcom decides the group is bad, and restricts members from editing EE-related articles, i.e. sets a topic ban. I beleive there are quite a few possible "supporters" of the group's cause out there, including support for their methods, in the name of, say, "enforsing truth on EE topics". These supporters may do many things to hinder recreation of those articles, including campaigning. How do you prevent them from doing this? This is one important question. Another is - how do you draw other editors' attention to those (possibly) damaged articles? When a simple reader comes to a page that is discussing neonazi, and sees there are neonazi everywhere in Europe, but in Estonia, where only "alleged activities" of neonazi exist - would the editor think of the wording in this example? Even with a {{POV}} tag? I beleive, a simple {{POV}} tag can not be used to draw anyone's attention, or prevent anyone the article is not ok. It's just too frequent. This case may need some extra caution from readers and editors. That is, of course, for everyone to decide. In the case arbcom founds anything was done wrong by those users at all, in the first place.FeelSunny (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would only lead to provocations. If a few users misbehaved it doesn't mean all the articles have become unbalanced just due to that. It doesn't take into account all the tag teaming by the other teams, which have quite clearly happened with or without them exchanging private messages. Grey Fox (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, but there's the difference. If two editors happen to have a similar opinion on an article, they agree with each other. However, this is perfectly acceptable within Misplaced Pages rules. If, on the other hand, you have editors that coordinate their attacks, using cleverly devised tactics, to alter an article, then you have a violation of Misplaced Pages policies. The difference is that one the one hand, you get truly knowledgeable people editing an article, and on the other you get a cabal. The difference in quality offered can be seen on the discussion page, and via the sources they bring in. Most scholars agree that Russia defeated Georgia in the 2008 South Ossetia War. Most scholars also agree that Georgia started the war. Thus it would be very likely, to have several editors argue that point. However, a cabal would come in and argue fringe points, make disastrous edits, attempt to take out quality information, create and assist in the creation of POV forks, try to get certain users, whose POV they don't like, banned, while trying to keep, and even offer membership to those that share their POV, to keep these editors, irrespective of the low quality of their edits, on Misplaced Pages. There's a fine line between editors who support each other due to similar scholarly views and each of whom found the article on their own, and editors that are assigned to articles, via a cabal, to "help out" in showing the "necessary" POV. You arguing that the two are the same, is quite frankly, bullshit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Grey Fox, the poposal was not aimed at dealing with a few misbehaving users. I clearly stated I am not interested with whatever sanctions the arbcom would or would not rule out for them. The tag is intended solely to help repair the damage in those Misplaced Pages articles that were seriously disrupted. And I propose to discuss every case of tagging before placing the tag, and only place tag by admin or arbcom level user.FeelSunny (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me summarize it for you. Number of articles severely disrupted by an Eastern European mailing list: 0 Grey Fox (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? And this whole case is also non-existent, right? I can think of at least two attempts to severely disrupt 2008 South Ossetia War and there's been a whole POV Fork created. Also, another article dealing with Russia-Estonia relations, that dared to point out that despite being better educated, Russians have lower salaries then Estonians, that one was deleted too. That's three articles from my experience, and I edited less then ten articles. Nice try. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I am pretty sure nobody is treating this seriously :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I really hope so ("Let's not just punish those on the list, whether guilty or innocent of anything, but let's also punish those who might agree with them!") but Misplaced Pages has been an eerie strange place lately.radek (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - thanks for the cheer up from a respected admin. This is surely what Misplaced Pages expects of the users of your level. FeelSunny (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) PS. Overall, a good example of an established team work in the last three posts, guys.

Reply to FeelSunny/Re:2008 South Ossetia war

While following this case, I initially did not want to participate here, since, in my opinion, 2008 South Ossetia war was only a minor "battlefield" between the parties currently investigated in this arbitration. However, since FeelSunny mentioned my name and brought the article up as an example, I'll add my view. If this is the wrong page, please move to the correct place.

For the record: I have never been part of said mailing list and only know of its existence since it was brought up on wikipedia.

2008 South Ossetia war

The article has been a constant battlefield from the instant it was created. I only started editing it about 3 weeks after its creation, so I missed the hottest initial phase, but, as can be seen from , members of the mailing list as well as their usual "opponents" were among the first editors. Most of these seem to have lost interest in the article after the prolonged article name debate (see below). User:Offliner and to a somewhat lesser extent User:Biophys stuck around, taking part in the usual edit wars. However, most of the later reverts were done by myself, User:FeelSunny, and especially User:HistoricWarrior007.

HistoricWarrior007 managed to rack up 94 reverts in his total 162 edits listed in (my own count from the history, I might have missed a few, since not all are labeled and some are patently misslabeled: ). For his efforts, he was awarded a barnstar by User:ETST and recommended by User:Offliner.

Article name vote

As anyone is free to check in the talk page archives, there are literally douzens and douzens of pages discussing the article name. Eventually, Offliner suggested to hold a vote instead . I implemented his decision a day later, see Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 24 (Offliner and I were on opposite sites of the debate, as well as the later vote). During this vote, HistoricWarrior007 took to canvassing votes for his prefered outcome (discussed at: ), leading to a close decision on favor of his prefered solution. He still gloats about that result . Those members of the mailing list who voted, did so for the losing side. Whether they canvassed votes on their mailing list, I don't know.

The mailing list

As far as I tell, 2008 South Ossetia war was a low priority target for the mailing list and their opponents after the article name discussion. --Xeeron (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know? Have you read the e-mails? Not to mention that the POV Fork was kept through enormous efforts of Biophys, and the list made up a huge chunk of the "blame Russia" side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems only the last sentence really answers to my post about the 2008 South Ossetia war. It is really interesting the article was a "low priority target". FeelSunny (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing how South Ossetia War (still under fringe title btw) was brought up even though we have so far no confirmation that any canvassing by e-mail cabal took place there, while canvassing by HistoricWarrior007 was well seen.--Staberinde (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not on the list, Staberinde, so I do not know exactly what articles were discussed. But thanks for letting me know another interesting fact. Strange is that you and Xeeron claim different things about the (possible) cabal influence in that article. FeelSunny (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, only 90% of all wars are named after location or in the aggressor-defender format. Totally Fringe. (Sarcasm)

FeelSunny, as I hopefully made clear above ("as far as I can tell"), that is only my personal opinion, being neither a member of the email list, nor one of their opponents. The only ones who truely know how big a target that article was, are, respectively, the members of the list and those on the other side. If you want a better opinion than mine, I suggest asking Biophys or Offliner, as the most prolific editors of both groups on that article, for their view. --Xeeron (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but from the last phrase of your previous post it was not clear you tell me your personal opinion.FeelSunny (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Response by HistoricWarrior007

Note: These two parts of the response were extracted from where they were originally posted, within the 17:36 statement by Xeeron.

(under the heading "2008 South Ossetia war")

Xeeron, you skewing facts again? Haven't I busted you enough times already? Yeah, I have 94 reverts. And the last 21 reverts, were done because a zealous newbie messed up and placed his edits in the wrong section. Speaking of which, you wanted to kick him from the article, whereas I was/am in favor of giving him a chance. And look, he just made a productive edit! Furthermore, I was given an award for my arguments in the "Title Vote", that, by the way, no one on your team even remotely came close to defeating. In fact my arguments were so persuasive, that most of the truly neutral people voted in favor of the current title. My arguments further withstood your little flash mob attack. That's what I was given the Barnstar for; not for reverting. But thank you for twisting facts and making me sound so evil. Twice you have cried out against me, when I pointed out that you are responsible for the very edits that you make, with your counter-claim being that since you were quoting your sources verbatim, the sources were responsible for your edits, not yourself. And speaking of Xeeron's credibility, here's a certain edit by Xeeron, where he uses tactics unworthy of a Wikipedian - where he just flat out changes facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia#New_York_Times_and_Xeeron

Here is the statement from the New York Times: "Kokoity’s words are a rare public acknowledgment by an official that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide."

Here is Xeeron's "interpretation" of said statement: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"

Xeeron switches the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" to support his point. My response:

"NYT: "ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide"

Xeeron: "Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing"

So if someone says that "cars are a form of transportation", feel free to pull a Xeeron and argue that "transportation is a special form of cars". Yo, check out my transportation, it's the best form of cars out there! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)"

Also, for some reason, despite everything you've done to me, and everything I've tolerated from you so far, you're still fed up with me that you couldn't defeat my arguments in the "Title Vote", no wonder the Barnstar bugs you so much, perhaps its time you let your Vendetta go, and let me edit in peace? "As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results

(under the heading "Article name vote")

Ahh yes, the "canvassing" case. The "canvassing" involved me informing 5 users who edited this article before, one as recently as a few weeks ago, and posting a message on Russia's talkpage, instead of Wiki:Project Russia. Then Team Hysteria entered, and began to spread accusations of "canvassing". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Historicwarrior007 above

This is a prime example showing why editing on 2008 South Ossetia war is so hard.

• "you wanted to kick him from the article"
  • While I feel that Reneem's (the user HistoricWarrior007 is talking about) actions are detrimental to the article, I never advocated "kicking" him from the article. My words where: "A ton of unsourced additions. Please add sources. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)"
• "Here is Xeeron's "interpretation" of said statement: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" "
  • HistoricWarrior007 failed to properly quote me here. The real quote is: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" which makes clear that I am not interpreting the NYT, but instead advocating the (different) definition used in our own article on ethnic cleansing. A fact also stated in my own post on the same site a few lines below, which HistoricWarrior007 also did not quote here: "Like, the fact that I related to the wiki article on ethnic cleansing, which has a definition that differs from the NYT one. And which is backed up by the UN, for example."
• perhaps its time you let your Vendetta go, and let me edit in peace?
  • It needs to be pointed out that I was editing all that article well before HistoricWarrior007 arrived there and started his reverts. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Xeeron

• I aplogize about Reneem, I got that wrong. Now, as to the rest of your post.

• :HistoricWarrior007 failed to properly quote me here. The real quote is: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" which makes clear that I am not interpreting the NYT, but instead advocating the (different) definition used in our own article on ethnic cleansing. A fact also stated in my own post on the same site a few lines below, which HistoricWarrior007 also did not quote here: "Like, the fact that I related to the wiki article on ethnic cleansing, which has a definition that differs from the NYT one. And which is backed up by the UN, for example."

• The section was/is called 'New York Times and Xeeron'. Yet, now, after replying there, you claim that you were not interpreting the New York Times. You then went ahead and claimed that according to your interpretation of the UN's definition, ethnic cleansing doesn't have to involve killing. When I asked for an actual example of ethnic cleansing that didn't involve killing, you started wiki-lawyering. I just wanted an example.

• :It needs to be pointed out that I was editing all that article well before HistoricWarrior007 arrived there and started his reverts. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• While you boldly went on your "HW007 Bashing Tirade", you forgot to mention that I have over 600 edits to the talkpage of the 2008 South Ossetia War. I actually prefer to talk, before editing. Furthermore, the majority of the sources that I placed into the article were NPOV; all this pales in comparison to your silly accusation "HW007 is racking up 94 reverts in his total 162 edits". The real reason you hate me, is because I kicked your ass, almost every single time on the talkpage, the most recent one being on the exclusion of Pavel Felgenhauer, the "analyst" that thought that the war would be tough for Russia to fight. Here's that debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Reposting_an_Argument_that_wasn.27t_addressed_by_Xeeron_and_company.2C_and_yet_an_argument_they_pretend_they.27ve_addressed_about_Pavel_Felgenhauer.

• The sad thing is that Xeeron is working his ass off, trying to show me as a pro-Russian guy who is Putin's secret Misplaced Pages Weapon, that reverts poor, poor Xeeron's supposedly "correct" posts. In reality, the reason I am hated, is because I make valid arguments on the talkpage, that no one can rebut, due to their high quality. That's the sole reason I was given the Barnstar. Offliner doesn't need to praise me for my Misplaced Pages edits. He doesn't much care if I make them or not. What he wants me to do, is to show the wrongfulness of Xeeron's and company's edits, that he knows are wrong, but cannot quite place it in writing. Here is a link to just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Borisov. Thanks for clarifying this. Could you please post this to Talk:South Ossetia as well, so that others will see it too?. If I was a pro-Putin reverting weapon, I wouldn't have a mere 94 edits, most of which are unrelated to POV, I would have a lot more. I wouldn't have just 162 edits. And I definitely wouldn't have over 600 quality edits on the discussion page.

• The "Eastern European Wiki-Cabal" and other similar cabals are wonderful at edit-warring, revert warring, frustrating users and getting them to leave. However they are powerless against a truly well written argument, as I have demonstrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia (Just click, I won't copy-paste the whole thing, it's a five minute read.) On top of all this, I bite back, but I don't get violent, I don't threaten anyone, I don't break any rules, and I give other pro-Russian editors hope: (from my talkpage)

"Of course, i couldn't help but open the article a few days ago, on August 8, and i just can't describe how immensely i was relieved to see, that the title is still the same. Unfortunately, i was having severe fever, and couldn't express my gratitude immediately, so here i go now. =)

As it seems in the end, it took just one determined and skilled person (looks like our opponents were unable to find one that matches both prerequisites, despite their huge community base) and just a single reasonable admin to settle the case. Thank you. Your effort was beyond anything i could imagine. I was thinking on joining to ETST's and Offliner's award comments, but what you did this time deserves a whole another dedicated award with a star drawn by me personally and exclusively for you. =) Of course, that would be some day, when i'll have the time to do it, that is, so keep on waiting. =)

Also i can't help but admire the way you was handling with the whole affair. Like, when you took Devil's Advocate statement word for word, but changed "South Ossetia war" for "Vietnam War", etc. It was total fun! =) And the latest piece in Name and Google hits section, about rename attempts going on and on, with links to all rename discussions, is even funnier, since it's true. =))"

• And that is the sole reason I am hated. But I am a historian who left his Ivory Tower, and I intend to continue making quality edits that bite when necessary. Here is what the IP User is talking about, (long read): http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Discussion.

• Finally, let's remember why Xeeron hates me, from http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results: The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, I have extended an Olive Branch to Xeeron, and have continued doing so, albeit I have bitten back occasionally, when "asked" to do so; anyways, here is the Olive Branch, I am truly saddened that it hasn't yet been accepted: I really hope we can get past this, so that you don't end up bashing me everytime you don't get your way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) You can feel free to accept at any time Xeeron. I haven't brought you here, I haven't even made the arguments yet, and you have already launched your preemptive strike. I am only human, so I don't have infinite patience. If this continues, I might eventually have to withdraw the Olive Branch, but keep in mind, that despite everything you have done, even your attempt to discredit me here, I am still offering the Olive Branch. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a personal vendetta against me, please feel free to stop it, I would appreciate that. My problem is with your editing and your faulty talk page arguements, not with you as a person. However, while you write untrue and insulting stuff like "The sad thing is that Xeeron is working his ass off, trying to show me as a pro-Russian guy who is Putin's secret Misplaced Pages Weapon, that reverts poor, poor Xeeron's supposedly "correct" posts." making up ever new untruths and lies about me, your branch (coming after that post) looks less like olive and more like fig. --Xeeron (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, I do not have a personal vendetta against you. However, since you continue to slander me, I have no choice but to expose your tactics of editing. Usually the way Xeeron edits, is that he places a source, originating either from the Jamestown Foundation or one of its allies, into the article. Then I come along, and point out the source's fallacy, little things, such as the fact that Russians didn't outnumber Georgians two to one as Svante Cornell alleged. Xeeron then pretends that since he quoted Svante Cornell, it's not really Xeeron's argument, but rather Svante Cornell's, and since Svante Cornell has a PhD, and I am a mere wikipedia editor, I must suck it up. When I bring in Peter LaVelle, who also has a PhD, much more prestigious then Svante Cornell, and post LaVelle's criticism, Xeeron informs me that such criticism belongs in another article, and LaVelle is a Kremlin hired gun, whereas Svante Cornell is an "independent researcher" who just happens to work for oil companies, that apparently have nothing but the good of mankind in mind.

So to sum it up: Xeeron cannot be criticized, for Xeeron's edits, because Xeeron merely quoted a Jamestown Foundation allied source. The source cannot be criticized, because the author has a PhD, and I don't. And any PhD I bring in to counter that, is a Kremlin hired gun. Nice system Xeeron. If I don't play along, within this system, Xeeron slanders me and launches a tirade of Ad Hominems. And if things really don't go his way, Xeeron starts playing the victim. Dude, you're posting Jamestown and Co. propaganda, and worshipping this crap, and when someone points this out, you slander them with Ad Hominems and play the victim. How stupid do you think we are? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior's summary above is not a proper characterization of my editing (as can be seen by the approximately 95% of my edits not involving that specific source), nor of my talk page actions (everyone is free to look at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war and its archives to check just who used Ad Hominems there). However he is correct in pointing out that I believe in WP:NOR and as such require him to back up his accusations by sources other than his own wiki talk page edits. --Xeeron (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe my wording was "that source, or sources allied to it", i.e. Pavel Felgenhauer, Svante Cornell, etc. I also believe in WP:NOR, but I fail to see why it should protect a source, that is later disproved by facts, or a source that states that Ethnic Cleansing is a form of Genocide, even if it is the New York Times Blog. Your provocations have led to my Ad Hominems, in already heated articles. You came in here to attempt to discredit me, and are now playing the victim. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, sorry for intrusion into your verbal games, guys, but may we all consider your last posts to be a peace declaration signed? No more strong words towards each other, at least? Please let us know if this is really the case:)) FeelSunny (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys retirement

Biophys' retirement announcement should not be allowed to have any effect on the case. We have seen Biophys retire many times before -- he often does this when his actions are under investigation.. For example, when his edit warring was being investigated at WP:AE, Biophys retired during the investigation, and thus managed to avoid being placed on 1RR. Soon, Biophys returned. Other editors had to point this out to Thatcher, who then implemented the 1RR restriction: . Offliner (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if he's going to retire. He said he was going to abondon his account because he gout outed and herassed. He might inform involved admins of a new account in the future. Grey Fox (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So what's wrong with Offliner's point? No one is preventing retirement, we're just against Biophys using the "retirement tactic", and a proper punishment should be issued, whatever ArbCom agrees that it is, irrespective of retirement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I say something is wrong? Grey Fox (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of your overall comment? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No measures taken by arbitrators or admins on Misplaced Pages are meant to be punitive. Their only purpose is prevention, let alone the fact that it has not yet been established whether Biophys is guilty of anything. It has, however, been reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption. Colchicum (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That injunction hasn't been enacted yet, so quoting it is a bit misleading. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit. The injunction is just a reminder, such conduct has always been unacceptable. Colchicum (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If he does return, he will need to advise the Arb case clerk, and the community of the new user name, as if there are any sanctions as a result of this case, they will obviously also apply to any new account established by himself, but such an account should be done by following WP:VANISH. --Russavia 16:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be of interest to all involved in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Without meaning to get "lawyery", does that provision basically mean that failure to notify the ArbCom of a new account would be grounds for the new account being banned as well? The only reason I ask is that what entail the sockpuppet actually being caught as such, and some editors might be willng to run that risk not just once, but many times. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

More precisely, failure to notify ArbCom of a new account while the editor is under sanctions is grounds for a ban. Remember that it is editors that are sanctioned, not the accounts being used. — Coren  21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys already returned to editing. His 4th retirement did not last for a day.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Violation of unblock conditions

Conditions Violation 1 Violation 2 Not sure if they are severe enough, but a reminder is in order. Colchicum (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to know whether the spirit of the conditional unblock extends to the talk pages of parties, Arbitrators and the Clerk of the case. I will wait for Coren's input before taking any further action. Daniel (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They would, but it's not entirely clear that they should. I'll remind the editor. — Coren  10:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to Arbcom: 2008 South Ossetia War

I have been monitoring the article 2008 South Ossetia War from some distance for a while, quite independently of this case, watching an almost uninterrupted slow edit war between always the same group of editors going on for months on end. The most intensely involved users on this and a few other related articles appear to be HistoricWarrior007 (talk · contribs), Xeeron (talk · contribs), FeelSunny (talk · contribs) and a couple of others. There has been hardly a single day throughout much of this year when these editors have not been reverting each other over South Ossetian – Russian – Georgian political conflicts.

I've long since come to the conclusion that probably only full topic bans for several of these editors will help, since the editing climate on those articles and their talk pages is absolutely toxic and a hostile battleground attitude on all sides is deeply entrenched. It now appears most of the participants in that South Ossetia case are also somehow involved in this "Eastern European" case, although it may not be the case that the majority of the edit-warring was directly triggered by activities from the list. Responsibility for the bad situation appears to be shared between both factions. Question to Arbcom: do you arbitrators wish to treat the edit-warring as part of this case, or would you be okay if this was treated on the admin/community level while the case is ongoing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that most of the participants in that South Ossetia case are also somehow involved in this "Eastern European" case.Biophys (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Before this has gone too far, may we all see examples of editwarring from my account which you are talking about? Maybe that could be a better start for a discussion about topic bans, and could shed some light on whether the alledged editwarring was connected to the Eastern European mailing list or not.FeelSunny (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, FeelSunny, remember the song we talked with you about, . How to translate it to English? "Our song is a hit by a knife-bayonet that is driven into someone's resilient body..." and so on ("Kill the Georgians" to make long story short?). That sounds too militant for WP. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, there was nothing about or against Georgians or any other ethnos in the song, and you perfectly know that (well, I hope you do). Of course, you also understand there's nothing militant about the song - it's about treason and corruption, not about killing anyone or fighting any ethnos. When they say "We will stop the hatred, stand in it's way" - there's nothing militant in it. And when they say "The love is forgotten, and only the blood revnge is left here" - they do not describe themselves, for Russians do not have a tradition of a blood revenge. But seriously, I beleive you should know that. If you don't, please stop referring to the poem, for you do not understand Russian at all (disregarding your Russian background). So - what do I think? I think your post is a very strange one. What else? 1) "Our name" instead of "our song" is a right translation. 2) No, I do not remember the song by heart. 3) We did not talk with you about this song. 4) I lost 5 minutes of my life answering this strange question.FeelSunny (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted that song on FeelSunny's talkpage. It has nothing to do with racism. The song bashes Yeltsin and Gamzakhurida, with the lyrics "Presidents lie, there's no cost for them to violate their oath", but you have to have a wild imagination that's out of this World to imagine that it's about racism. Not a single race is mentioned. Also, let's recall that SpetzNatz didn't just fight against Georgians, but also against Wahhabi Sects, and foreign mercenaries of all races. If you actually bothered reading part of the lyrics Biophys, the song is about SpetzNaz preventing racism:

Залит кровью поэтом воспетый Кавказ (The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood)

В сердце ненависть врезалась жалом (Hate crushes the heart like a stinger)

Но дорогу ей грудью закроет спецназ (But SpetzNatz will stop hatred's path by blocking it with their chests)

От беды нам бежать не пристало. (Because we don't run from trouble)

(It sounds better in Russian)

Leave it to you Biophys, to try to wreck a beautiful song for your POV needs. At least attain fluency in Russian culture, before commenting on it again; there's enough ignorance about that Great Country as it is, we don't need your rather ignorant input. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I know Russian just as well as you are. You believe this to be just a "beautiful song". Yes, you are sincere. But I see this from a very different perspective.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you think of a racist song that doesn't mention the race, or the stereotypes? Or perhaps you can show me races and stereotypes of said races in this song? I think you're just trying to mislead the public, yet again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Biophys, no matter what the perspectives are, there's nothing about killing anyone, incl.Georgians, in this song. And there's no use of spreading things like this, b/c people who don't speak Russian may well think that HW is posting some racist songs on my tpage and then we start to discuss them together.FeelSunny (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I happened to strongly disagree with you. I included this in Evidence section, and you are very welcome to respond. If you remember, I tried to tell you about a much better Russian poetry, but without any success.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you what qualifications you posess that give you grouds to think, you may teach me what Russian poetry is better? FeelSunny (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read your song Biophys, all it contains, is a sick and sad parody on Patriotic songs, that can be applied to any country. The purpose of my song, was to show that when something seems impossible, but one continues to strive, then, even if it is 16 years down the road, even if the odds seem impossible, victory will occur if the cause is just. The two songs come from different genres. Comparing your song with my song is like comparing Verka Serduchka with Valery Gergiev. However your POV won't stop you from the comparison. So to quote your very own song: "Вперед, вперед, свободный раб...цветной мираж, рассеянный Трубой". "Forward, forward, free slave...colored Mirage, that is dissolved by a horn". Geez, I wonder why people like my lyrics better? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of the team members

Põhja Konn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a highly suspicious account. Almost all his article edits are reverts. Furthermore, he appears only in articles where the list members are active. He helps the members to edit war. On talk pages, he always take the side of the list members. He does not appear to have any other substantial contributions.

Here are just three examples:

• At Soviet Story, there is an edit war between PasswordUsername , Martintg , Russavia, Vecrumba, and Biophys. Põhja Konn then arrives to revert:

• At Neo-Nazism: Offliner reverts Martintg: . Martintg reverts Offliner: . PasswordUsername reverts Martintg: . Põhja Konn reverts PasswordUsername:

• He took part in the early June edit warring at Ethnocracy, Anti-Estonian sentiment , and supported Digwuren at the Mark Sirők talk page: .

It's the same story in all the other articles.

I couldn't find a mention of Põhja Konn in the secret emails, but there is a high probability that this is a sockpuppet of one of the list members. I don't know which one, but my guess is either Digwuren, Miacek or Alexia Death (all editors of Estonian subjects), but anyone is possible. Digwuren has repeatedly discussed creating sockpuppets on the secret list, and Miacek has said he has a number of "dormant" accounts (20090602-1428- Molobo ban.eml).

This should be CheckUsered immediately, since if he is a sockpuppet of one of the list members, his actions need to be investigated here as well. Note that The account may have been created by a skilled person. Offliner (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed before that everyone of the involved parties (plus Deacon) get CheckUsered all around. Are you willing to agree to a CU on yourself?radek (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that I would never agree to be check usered as part of this case. Been there, done that. And all I got out of it was a shedload of evidence of harrassment against me. So one may not want to check user me again anytime soon. :D --Russavia 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to go around recommending CU for folks ("immediately") based on no evidence then you yourself should be willing to do it. Put up or shut up. BTW, what are you referring to with Been there, done that - I'm genuinely curious.radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for me to put up or shut up. I have put up once already, and unfortunately, it didn't shut the web brigade up. And I am not doing your work for you. It's been done. End of story. --Russavia 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was not going to post much stuff but it seems some explanations are warranted ;-) I definitely don't need PK as a sock puppet of mine. And whatever e-mail you read, you quite curiously missed my irony on planting new Molobo sock puppets. Now you can't seriously argue

Miacek says he has a number of dormant accounts which he could give to Molobo if the latter is blocked. (20090602-1428- Molobo ban.eml)

as you are trying to do at your talk?! As for dormant accounts, I had indeed a trouble-maker account registered in May, 2008, but soon forgot the password (alas?).
How many accounts do you have? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

, Colchicum (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny, being less active here on wiki, I've even forgotten of that. It seems I'm even having a friendly conversation with my socks. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Miacek, you will need to disclose that account, so that it can be shut down. the fact you call it a trouble making account is telling enough also. --Russavia 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing out on a joke here - as are probably a lot of people in regards to some of the stuff (inside jokes) that's supposedly in the emails. But hey, why consider the context and allow for the possibility that someone's not being entirely serious, when it's easier to assume bad faith and join a lynch mob against your content opponents.radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A question to the group members: in other words, guys, do you claim Põhja Konn is not your sock puppet and not a sock puppet of another group member, that you are aware of? FeelSunny (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware no one on the list (with the possible exception of Molobo - but even there I honestly don't know) ever used sock puppets. This whole meme/false accusation started with Alex and Deacon pretending that hypothetical discussions on the list about sock puppeting, which were carried out in order to better catch sock puppeteers were some nefarious plans to engage in sock puppetry. In fact, I remember that the consensus on the list was that sock puppetting was not just unethical, but also pretty stupid. So yes, that is precisely what I claim - Konn is not my sock puppet nor of anyone on the group as far as I'm aware.radek (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. CU the sock(s), ban whoever is using them, move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is likely a sockpuppet of User:Digwuren; if this is the case, both accounts should be banned immediately. --Russavia 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, is there anything that made you think so? User:Digwuren, do you have any comments on this? FeelSunny (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't speak for Russavia, but it does seem Digwuren and Põhja have suggestively sockoform time patterns. Can provide data to Arbcom if requested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. For the record - no, I'm not sockpuppet, this is my one and only account here in Misplaced Pages. I'm not in the before-mentioned list, have never been and probably never will. I think I can probably guess real life identities of couple of people mentioned belonging to that list, but I have never communicated with them directly, not in person, not online. And I'm not meatpuppet either, all my edits have been mine and only mine, I have never communicated with somebody about my edits off-wiki, I just happen to share the view or better, I dislike same things (deliberate blackpainting some countries, nationalities or people).
That is all I can offer you. Understanding the situation, I don't object CheckUser, but I'm not very convinced that resources and knowledge available for CheckUsers has gotten up to that level that allows to take their findings as absolute truth. I know that even mentioning this is immediately turned around as circumstantial evidence against me (or my "sockpuppeteer"), but let me point out that your checkuser process has miserably failed many times. I'm not going to provide any more details about my person or explain my editing patterns or behavior, as I've seen how personal and private information is treated here, even by admins - sorry, but I value more my privacy and personal life than questionably valued right to edit this thing you like to call encyclopedia, but what looks a lot more a MMORPG or social networking site. One exception - if somebody and somehow manages to stack up some evidence and really is going to accuse somebody for sockpuppeteering with my account (right now it seems more like fishing expedition by Offliner), and the accused one feels that all this is really important enough, then I ready to prove my identity, but only to real and verified person (from ArbCom or foundation behind this project), only with procedure accepted beforehand by me.
That is all from me. You all are taking this Misplaced Pages thing too seriously - in its present condition it's not worth of it. AS long as Misplaced Pages doesn't have some kind of working mechanism that keeps politics, chauvinism and extreme nationalism away from here and forces editors (I mean, ALL editors) to behave, it's not working. Sorry. Põhja Konn (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes me think it is Digwuren, or at least someone editing on behalf of Digwuren? Well there is now Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_official_unblock where this editor who has but a handful of edits on WP, and who is well versed in WP policies and the like, finds my post there requesting unblock, and couldn't resist making a post. As Digwuren and his group have clearly created more than enough disruption, perhaps we could prevent yet more disruption here right now? I am willing to bet $50 that this editors IP resolves to Tartu in Estonia. --Russavia 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also the editors edits on Ambassador of Estonia to Russia only a matter of hours after creation by myself. Not to mention this on WMC's talk page in relation to Martintg. This is not appearing to be an indepedent editor. There is too much similarity to Digwuren or this groups edits. --Russavia 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if there's somebody who dares to criticize your actions, it HAS to be evil monster Digwuren or somebody from his "evil group", because actually you're very nice person and everybody should love and admire you, right? ;)
BTW, I don't owe you any explanation, but last message to AN would have stayed unwritten if you only had provided all facts. Why didn't you? And why so painful reaction? And may I ask, what disruption have I caused, posting two links on-wiki, so admins can read for what you earned your block? God, you really are desperate...
BTW, if anybody is willing, accept the bet, it should be easy money. I'd take it myself, but I think it could be a bit un-ethical, as I've got inside info. :) Põhja Konn (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we have already proven back in 2006/2007 that there is only one Misplaced Pages editor in Estonia and all editors who don't write on Estonia from pro-Russian perspective are his socks? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I will let Digwuren have his last bit of fun here on WP; for he won't be around officially for too much longer. --Russavia 20:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not making threats again, are you?

All this junk is based on a "I have a feeling that...". That's nice, I have some feelings to. Can I use them as a basis to accuse people of stuff? Like I said, Check User all around. Impartial, fair and might clear some stuff up. What are you afraid of?radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not. Põhja Konn, I understand you are not connected to the group members neither in real life, or online, i.e. not their classmate, oк teacher, or pupil etc. Maybe you could - out of pure courtesy - explain, what exactly brought you to the two pages Russavia named? I perfectly understand I do not have the right to question anyone on reasons of his actions, and you have any right to refuse explain things like this, so if you don't want to answer, just ignore this message. FeelSunny (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another fishing expedition. I've got more PL work to attend to. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I don't owe you any answers and I'm too a bit skeptical about your point, why you're asking these questions. But whatever - I see WP as a big soap opera. I like to watch what's happening, as a play, I have pretty big watch list and I'll try to check it at least once a day. I seldom edit, when I do, it's mostly reverting vandalism, correcting most horrible mistakes and deliberate lies, which includes finding and adding sources to articles. Of course, play is nothing without actors, so if I see that somebody is having his "special performance", I'll check his contributions, not to miss the full show. I guess that was the path that led me to Ambassador of Estonia to Russia, which was created 6 hours before by Russavia, also tagged by him immediately as unreferenced - so I added link to Estonian Embassy's webpage. Was there something wrong in my actions? As with WMC's talk, I think it was some fuss about yet another edit warring at some place and I wondered, why WMC sees a revert in edit, what was not returning the article in some previous state, but only corrected the previous edit, so I asked and got my answer. I specially pointed out that I'm not taking sides, I'm not excusing Martings' edit warring, I only wanted to get a clarification. As with AN, it's in my watchlist. Satisfied? Põhja Konn (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that it was a coincidence. Please don't make a monster of me. I do not presume there was anything wrong with your actions. FeelSunny (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not trying to make a monster of you, on the contrary, whole this thread is dedicated to making monster of me. If you hop in the bandwagon and start asking questions about my actions, here in this thread, this doesn't leave me any illusions. So much about my grumpiness. Põhja Konn (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you question my reasons behind asking these questions, they are quite simple: I just don't want some discussions go abstract. Because we could have had here two dozen posts without any down to earth comments, of the very kind you do not like - the social networking one. That is why I started to ask concrete questions - to get all this discussion back to life. So noone is making monsters of nobody here, me glad:)FeelSunny (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Paul Sibert

Although I was recently notified about ongoing discussion I tried to abstain from participation in it because, whereas I exstensively work with articles like Gulag, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact etc (the most iconic subjects for peoples from new Central European states), and whereas someone characterized my edit as "Soviet POV", I never was a subject of any concerted actions of the alleged Eastern European mailing list group (although I had numerous conflicts with some of them separately).

In my opinion, the present discussion resembles another version of "Mafia" party game, however, I don't think Arbitration talk page to be the best place for such an entertainment.

However, one thing seems to be established unequivocally, namely that several WP users privately discussed their possible WP edits and kept this fact in strict secret. I don't know how punishable it is, however, without any doubts it is deeply immoral. How can somenoe express his opinion (that, per WP:AGF is assumed to be neutral) in support of one or another editor if he maintained private personal contact with this editor and, therefore, his opinion cannot be neutral by definition? I believe, there is only one noble way for the lits's members to resolve this situation: they should openly name themselves and let everybody know that they cannot be considered a fully neutral party in discussions involving the editors A, B, C etc. I also believe any sanctions are senceless (the Mafia game demonstrated that an ill-intentioned group can develop many ways for secret communicatios), and the only thing we can rely upon is the Wikipedians' good will.

Finally, I would like to tell about an outstanding case (that, probably, will be the major point of my post, and that, I believe, will help to tone down a discussion). I recently had a short but fierce edit war with some newcomer who managed to violate several key WP rules in few hours. I notified him about that and proposed to cease a war and forget the incident. His reaction was fantastic: he admitted that he violated the rules (without knowing about that) and reported to admin requesting for punishment., . I believe this newcomer presented a good lesson of nobility to all of us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add me to this case

I left a note on Daniel's talk page to have me added to this case, but it looks like he's been offline for a few days. Would someone mind adding me to the case when they get a spare moment? My perusal of the mailing list indicates that at least 38 emails were focused on how to "deal with" me. As a direct result of my run in with this group, I was almost completely disenchanted with Misplaced Pages and our inability to deal with groups who chose to act in this manner. I'm here alone. I edit alone. I pursue topics of interest that interest me alone. I believe that most people who use Misplaced Pages are in the same boat. Groups such as this mailing list's members are here solely to take advantage of Misplaced Pages's potential to offer a genuine compendium of the diversity of views and topics that make up Humanity's learning.

When we allow groups to bastardize this project by using our own policies against us, so that patently subjective representations of facts are defended through the use of a meatpuppet administrator, stonewalling, and death by process... then we have abandoned the project. Our job, as dedicated editors, as administrators, and as members of this committee is to defend this project from those who would use it to to attack other groups by misrepresenting subjectivity as objectivity, and subjective consensus as an objective NPOV.

In the past I have made a lot of noise and raised opposition to the actions and decision making process of ArbCom. Most of this has been in regards to ArbCom stripping the mop from admins who I feel represent those few on this project who are willing to take the time and expose themselves to the inevitable frustration of trying to contain the type of behavior that this mailing list was fostering. Until now, I have argued that ArbCom should either start ruling quite heavily on content, or stop hitting those few admins who can negotiate the subtleties of tendentious editors operating with good hand and bad hand accounts specifically devised to thwart CU requests, mediation, or ArbCom rulings. I do not excuse bad behavior by admins who did get punished by the committee, but most of us (I think) realize that this mailing list is not a rare occurence, but we just happened to get lucky that someone mailed it to us.

I hope that I speak for the majority of this project when I say that I'm interested in Misplaced Pages only so long as it provides an honest repository of objective knowledge that spans our varied perspectives and experiences. I'm not naive enough to believe we have achieved that, but I've remained here as long as I have in the hope that we might begin taking the neccesary steps to see that this vision is achieved. I want to be added to this case as a representative of all those who have thrown up their arms in frustration and walked away from Misplaced Pages, because it is the type of people who subscribed to the mailing list who are responsible for driving so many of us away. Without any significant, high impact decisions from this case to help actively curb this type of coordinated, vindictive, and hateful behavior, I honestly can't continue to advertise Misplaced Pages to friends and family as a meaningful project. Ask yourself whether or not you could, in good faith, direct someone to Misplaced Pages for answers while knowing full well that that person might blindly encounter an article which has been goal tended by a vicious group of editors solely to denigrate another group of users. None of us want to send anyone here if that person's respect for our intelligence is something we value.

I appologize for rambling, but I am passionate about this project. I have given a lot of time to making Misplaced Pages an unbiased and diverse resource. I have grown highly frustrated with the project this year, as evidenced by a number of rambling posts questioning the judgement of the committee or our impotence for protecting the project from manipulation. I'm simply tired of watching the good people walk away exasperated and broken. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I added you to the case as a party. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just taking this opportunity to ask why Future Perfect and Sandstein are still on the involved parties list. And why Deacon ain't.radek (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Committee are the only ones who can answer that. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel! Hiberniantears (talk) 01:05, 29 September 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) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not apparently a good development. KnightLago has blustered into the case removing large sections of text without informing the authors based on a rather narrow and intellectually naive view of what "evidence" is, including my own. Seriously annoying, compounded by the fact he's trying his best to sound like a computer, with no benefit to anyone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a clerk's perogative and duty to maintain order on the case pages. I have reviewed the evidence KL moved to the talk page (he didn't remove it entirely), and concur that is not evidence to be posted on the evidence page. You are welcome to your opinions, however they should be made in the proper location. Much of your statement does not appear to be relevant to the matter at hand; your assertion that "ArbCom needs to reform itself in certain regards" has nothing to do with the matter of this mailing list. If you are able to refactor your evidence to include links and examples of how your comments are relevant to the dispute, then the clerks can review it again to see if it may be included on the evidence page once more. In the meantime, I would remind you of the notice posted at the top of this page, asking all participants to observe proper decorum. Ad hominem attacks such as calling someone a communist, naive, or mechanical (above) will not be tolerated. Please remain civil, and review the guide to Arbitration for further information. Hersfold 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a hike with the pontifications, Hersfold. No-one was called a communist, although naive comments where styled such. And if you wish to discuss why they are naive, I'd be happy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what you meant by "acting like a government official from the 80s Eastern block" then? And naive was your choice of words, not mine. Hersfold 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The first and second posts on my talk page sound like the comments of a rigid official enforcing the iron cold will of the all governed state with all the charm and flexibility of a computer, just like officials of these states (communism as an ideology is irrelevant, and as the grandson of a communist activist, no insult). But actually, he was just enforcing his own discretion based on decisions I view to be flawed, and then restating the same thing again as if nothing else could compute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he was removing inappropriate comments from the evidence page. Manning and KnightLago were acting on the general principles of the evidence page; it's not explicitly stated on this case, it seems, but is on the Speed of Light case, and is as follows:

Submissions to this page should be limited to evidence. Personal interpretations, general rebuttals, statements of belief, and other such commentary will be moved to the talk page. In cases where it is difficult to disentangle evidence from commentary, the submission will be moved to the talk page and the posting editor will receive a message asking them to correct the submisison. "Wall of text" postings, excessive argumentation, and other contributions that overwhelm the evidence and discussion may be refactored or removed entirely. Personal attacks and excessively inflammatory language will be removed. Repeated incivility or other disruption will result in a ban from contributing to this arbitration case.

If you wish to appeal the refactoring, you are welcome to contact the Committee as indicated on the evidence page. Hersfold 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And now you're sounding exactly the same. No class at all. I suggest you and Knight take some lessons from Daniel, who could easily obtain the same objective if he actually wanted to without inducing anything like contempt you guys are inducing in me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can get a thesaurus and use some different words if you'd like my comments to at least look different. I'm sorry, but this is the job of a clerk. If you don't like it, too bad. Talk to ArbCom. Hersfold 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And there you go again. You're not understanding me at all, I'm afraid. Just drop it ... if only for the sake of my stomach! I'm not too fussed about the removed evidence anyway ( , though as ever I am fussed about the professionalism of you and most of your colleagues). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that evidence by Petri Krohn has been rejected entirely by the new clerk .--Dojarca (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... what can one say? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One can say that neither are evidence. We have been patiently trying to explain that to you. It does not seem to be working. KnightLago (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could compute my previous comments, you'd be less bemused as to why it's not working. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading foreword of Petri Krohn's "evidence" I would find it highly amusing if it had actually been included.--Staberinde (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Goals of the Cabal" section for instance would be useful. That an experienced editor in this area perceives these things counts as evidence, and it is up to the reading arbs to make of it what they like. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being available to comment until now but I was asleep. The comments were removed by me and not by KnightLago. This is a huge case, hence every effort is being made to keep it manageable. I removed comments from the entire evidence list strictly based on the criteria in the terms of evidence as given in guide to Arbitration. As a trainee I had all of my proposed refactoring actions reviewed and confirmed by a full clerk (I do not recall which clerk reviewed this specific action however). I apologise if offence was caused, as that was not the intention. Manning (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, Manning, as far as I'm concerned. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled.

All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Misplaced Pages. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

There doesn't seem to be any information anywhere as to just what is going on here and what exactly is this "Eastern European mailing list" case. Could somebody be good enough to post a link to a definition page? Thank you so much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk response - This is a complicated case and there is no easy definition. However the Signpost give a good overview: Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-09-21/Arbitration_report (also see subsequent issues). The proposed findings of fact (see here) is also a good starting point, though bear in mind these are not yet "official".Manning (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much. I'm sorry I overlooked your message when it was first posted. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by EEML member Jacurek

The following arbitration-related discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have requested arbitration enforcement due to disruptive behaviour of Jacurek. Since Jacurek is a party here, but the issue (a) requires quick administrator attention since sourced material is being falsified/deleted and thus can not await this case' closure, (b) should be actionable under WP:DIGWUREN, and (c) is not directly related to the list itself, I chose to post it on WP:AE and leave a note here. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - user has been blocked because of other issues, AE thread thus closed and archived. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Extended irrelevant section removed. Warning to be issued to Molobo for posting a comment which served no purpose other than to attack the credibility of Skäpperöd. Manning (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Skäpperöd - a note to me would have been helpful. I'm just going to blitz the entire thing because it's all irrelevant. Molobo was way over the line and I'll issue a formal warning later (too busy IRL at the moment.) Manning (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Manning-I sincerily believe that that presenting the non-reliablity of the claimed "sourced material"(in fact one author being described by his own university as "polonophobic") and warnings by administration regarding repeated attempts of banning other users was not an attack, but attempt of providing a wider context of the situation.I would be greateful for your description how should the information be phrased in properly manner.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Molobo: The original post by Skäpperöd was an alert about an ArbEnf he had launched, which was an acceptable alert as it concerned someone involved in EEML. You then wrote an extended series of comments that were clearly an attempt to discredit Skäpperöd and his intentions. Now your comments were not particularly uncivil. But I don't tolerate overt criticism of another editor at the best of times, and doing so in regard to something not directly related to EEML is completely unacceptable.

Now on further reflection I've decided to not issue a formal warning as your comments were not uncivil as such. But they were not relevant. The place to discuss your opposition was at ArbEnf, not here. As it is now over it's a moot point regardless. Manning (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek AE (2)

I requested arbitration enforcement at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jacurek. This note is only for your awareness, please do not comment here (arbs and clerks excepted, of course). Skäpperöd (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - as per OP, take any discussion of this matter to AE. Manning (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck's indefinite block

DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was unblocked by Coren with rationale "Unblock to participate in an ArbCom case". DonaldDuck was indefinitely blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for sockpuppetry and block evasion. As the ArbCom case is over, does this mean his indefinite block is overturned - and if yes, what is the rationale for it? --Sander Säde 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of how compelling the evidence against them was or whether it can or should be viewed in a different light after this case. The default position is to not block, but Thatcher (who knows in detail the rationale behind their block) is the best person to ask. — Coren  16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

After a history of edit warring, WMC blocked him indefinitely. He negotiated an unblock with WMC about 3 weeks later. However, he was using a sockpuppet during that time, which I feel invalidates the negotiation and original unblock by WMC. Of course, WMC is no longer an admin, and I have no particular opinion of DonaldDuck other than that he really shouldn't be using sockpuppets. Thatcher 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Either DD was unblocked for participating in this case and he has to be re-blocked exactly the same as Molobo was or he was unblocked for other unrelated reasons prior to that. In that case he shouldn't be re-blocked. Rather than writing these nebulous statements like the one above which nobody understands just make it clear which it is.  Dr. Loosmark  19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

... or extend the same courtesy to Molobo with the same proviso (no edit warring).radek (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to bargain with DD's unblock reflects poor on you in the light of this: . Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The case is over Skapperod. And whether something reflects poorly on me, or you, is not up to you to judge. In fact that kind of comment borders on a personal attack.radek (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that none of those messages were written by anyone commenting here or Molobo and I wasn't even on the list at the time - but like I said the case is over. Nice try at 'guilt by false insinuation' though. Shouldn't people be required to stop wikilawyering the case and hounding others with these messages (falsely in the present situation) once the case has been closed? Drama's done, let's move on, stop flaming people.radek (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)

Initiated by The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tymek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dc76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miacek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded. However I made a request to Martintg and received no response. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please strike out your comment concerning the "purpose of the complaint". (It is not even a complaint, it is a request for clarification.) You should realize that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations

Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren#EE_topic_bans, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD:

• Communist terrorism - that's okay since most of the article is international in scope, just avoid the bits related to EE
• Putinism - obviously not okay since the article is about a peculiar form of Russian nationalism
• Eastern Bloc emigration and defection - obviously not okay

--Martin (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve

Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo

If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that you are already on record as believing the article to be synthesis, I can only imagine the kind of mental gymnastics involved in maintaining that belief in the numerous forums and boards where you promoted the article's deletion while coming here to state "I find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage". --Martin (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Commodore Sloat

There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo

This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.

Regarding the need for clarification of extent, Martintg is currently participating in broad article process at MKUCR, and the discussion of who to solicit on the topic of the appropriateness of an AFD is ongoing. The issue is pertinent and current and needs resolution. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "at least two failed AfDs," there were three, and they were No Consensus rather than keep which doesn't seem quite like a failure of the AFD process. Regarding the EE content of MKUCR, 2 1/3 units are clear EE, 3 1/6 units are clear non EE, 1/2 unit is mixed, 3 units are refs lede and toc (units being a screen length in front of me). Of the body content, the article is about half EE, or, of the entire article about a third is EE.

To Martintg, "Fifelfoo… long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs". Actually, I have systematically argued that the article should be supported out of sources which theorise all the events listed as linked by a cause inhering in their communist nature: a general theory. A general theory will thus necessarily cover Asia, Africa, Europe (including EE), South America, etc. An RSed general theory would remove the COATRACK and SYNTH (as long as not-covered events were deleted). This has been a consistent and fixed position of mine, that the article must exist on the basis of an RS that theorises communist mass killings as linked and as caused by a common feature of communism. I'm not particularly interested in a broad or narrow restriction, but a definitive one; but I do find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage. 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If its a COATRACK and alienable, the article shouldn't exist at all, as it would be OR. If it isn't a COATRACK then it must have a general theory to over come SYNTH/OR, and thus its sections are inalienable. I don't want to push the article at AFD (yet again) until the article is in the best possible state it can be in (I measure this time in months), which means searching for a general theory to justify its existence (and believing that the article had a cause to exist as persuaded to do so), which is precisely what I have been doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See with same complainants clarificants. same complainants clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" The purpose of this complaint clarification is to remove editors with whom the complainants clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Struck out a word objected to by The Four Deuces. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To igny: I am totally uninvolved in the EEML arbitration. Clearly if I make a comment here, I am "involved" if that is your criterion. is my major edit in the article, which, I submit, is quite non-controversial. I made zero substantive edits to the article, so I find your claim of me being clearly "involved" regarding EEML to be rather unimportant. Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha.
  The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement.
  Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending Aspic is an area of geopolitical strife.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92

I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul

Of course, Nsk92's statement (just like the bans themselves) sort of ignores what was actually happening. POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE activities were not happening at Bering Strait, or at Bărcăneşti, Ialomiţa, or at The Good Soldier Švejk, or at Mikhail Lermontov, or at Valdis Zatlers, or at Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna. Nor are they ever likely to. Trouble was generally confined to Alexander Litvinenko, Nashi (youth movement), Anti-Estonian sentiment, Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Human rights in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, 2008 South Ossetia war, Mass killings under Communist regimes, Russian apartment bombings and at most a couple of dozen other hotspots. The current topic bans are both punitive and damaging, and do nothing to address the underlying issue. The Committee was offered a constructive solution: find mediators to work with both "sides" to minimise conflict at those articles by referencing them thoroughly with high-quality sources. Instead it chose to decimate a slew of productive contributors who generally behave well, while neither addressing the wrongdoing by the other "side" nor proposing steps to defuse conflict at that group of articles. Personally, I believe the Committee would be wise to revisit the bans and retrieve the baby it has discarded with a few cups of bathwater. - Biruitorul 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

And, Collect, you are not uninvolved with regard to disputes over Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Radek

I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

Ok, let's get things straight here:

• NOBODY here thinks that Putinism does not fall under the ArbCom topic bans. The ArbCom doesn't think so, those under the topic bans don't think so, Four Deuces doesn't think so. It's covered, everyone knows this. Likewise, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection pretty much falls under the topic bans, for the most part. Except that NOBODY, AFAIK, has any interest in editing that article anyway (article history - can anyone find any one related to arb case in it?). So why is it being brought up here? Why are we even discussing the obvious cases that everyone agrees on (as Steve points out)? Why is Putinism - an obvious case - being brought up here for that matter? And what makes those two articles different from the other two; Mass Killings and Communism Terrorism?

• Basically Four Deuces includes these two articles along with Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism simply to create an association between articles which are obviously clear cut cases of falling under the topic ban with those which aren't. It's a cheap manipulative trick, mixing in one with the other, in the hope that it can be sold as a wholesale package. And judging from Fritzpoll's comment, it's working (hence this reply).

• Furthermore. What else makes "Putnism" and "Eastern Bloc emigration" different from "Mass Killings" and "Communist Terrorism"? Well, the first two - the clear cut cases - are NOT being considered as candidates for deletion and no one is interested in deleting them. But, the other two - the ones that don't have much to do with Eastern Europe - are. In fact, if you check the talk page for "Mass Killings", this whole "request for clarification" arose after somebody there said " - and it is important to note that this "request" was made after the question was already answered by the arbcom here, here and here. Of course the answer provided wasn't the one that Four Deuces and Co. wanted, so now we are presented with this instance of Forum shopping. Stick with what the arb com already said - no need to start of the New Year with ArbCom schizophrenia.

• After a bit of discussion the relevant parties realized even without any EEML members (ex or otherwise) voting, they probably STILL would not suceeed in deleting the article (if they tried that would have made it the fourth AfD nomination in five months!). This isn't surprising since there've been at least two failed AfDs which saw no or very limited participation from anybody on the mailing list.

• So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else. As such, this is just an attempt at putting one's (or actually, several) thumbs on the scales before the AfD can commence (and hopefully that AfD can be flown under the radar so that nobody except the right people show up). Yes, this is disruptive and bad faithed which is why I'm being frank about what's going on here.

Bottom line:

1. Yes, Putinism and the Eastern Bloc emigration articles are covered by the topic bans. But no one ever thought otherwise.
2. No, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism are not covered by the topic bans, as already stated by Coren and articulated by Flo Night and others. Yes, the topic bans are "broadly construed" but obviously there are limits to what "broad" means in this instance, otherwise these would've been site blocks not topic bans. In particular, "broad" does not mean "theyz banned from MAH articlz!"
3. Yes, this is a bad faithed "request for clarification" as a) this question has already been asked and answered, b) it seeks to misrepresent the situation by mixing obvious cases with wrong cases in an attempt to 'sneak by' the ArbCom some articles with a view towards POV pushing on them and c) it aims to manipulate the consensus by anticipating the AfD process and through a pre-emptive exclusion of those who are expected to disagree.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Bit of clarity here, please.

radek (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve

Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do .

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Framing effect.radek (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider the question.radek (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to csloat

My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Misplaced Pages guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Since you are talking about Communist terrorism, here is the diff between my last edit and the current version. Obviously, a lot of materials about terrorism by the communist states and organizations have been removed, even though they were sourced to books by notable historians. Is it better now? That is what you are going to achieve with sanctions. And you will not even notice anything in many other articles because you do not edit Russian history.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that all specific articles mentioned by Steve fall under the topic ban restriction (and some of them are garbage), an arbitrary interpretation of the sanctions allows blocking the editors for almost anything. If that is what you want, then fine.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat

Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by Radek (talk · contribs) in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Misplaced Pages discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Misplaced Pages rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

response to responders

Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Misplaced Pages policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Misplaced Pages." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting more statements, and noting that two of the parties listed are currently serving bans. I would ask them to e-mail ArbCom, but a period of disengagement from Misplaced Pages may be better, and they can bring themselves up-to-date on how the topic bans work out in practice when their bans expire and other conditions associated with their bans are met. Of the other parties listed, five have yet to comment, as of the time of writing this comment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This may be premature. Can we have a list of any arbitration enforcement threads that have been filed since the case closed? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Recuse due to prior involvement. Shell 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned (and especially Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection—I cannot fathom an argument that those are not related to Eastern Europe). The purpose of prescribing a broad construction of the ban in the first place is to avoid situations like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Acknowledging Radek's comments, and affirming that the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection in the request did not affect my views on Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism. Both of those articles, as Fifelfoo notes, have substantial chunks devoted to Eastern Europe, and many other portions of both articles can be linked to eastern Europe as being in some ways offshoots of the cold war (though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken). There is a case to be made that the articles (or at least significant enough portions of them) are not eastern Europe-related. But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, and in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy, I find the latter case more persuasive. While I thank Radek for providing the link to Coren's earlier answer of this question (I was not hitherto aware of it, having somehow missed Martin's link), that answer was provided on the talk page of an individual arbitrator, and all I can say is that I disagree with Coren's answer there. As for the proposed "AFD-bans", those are outside of the scope of a request for clarification, and I don't see the need for ArbCom intervention on those subjects for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • A few scattered points in response to Radek: first, I can assure you that if you watch all arbitration pages, you will see me change my mind at least once before the end of February; I'm very unreluctant to do so. Second, I don't see how you can say that Communist terrorism has little Russia-related content: the single largest section deals almost entirely with Russian communists. Third, I acknowledge that both articles have substantial chunks unrelated (at least on the surface) to eastern Europe, but a broadly construed topic ban means that the editors subject to it should not be poking around the edges of the topic, which editing non-eastern Europe sections of an article having substantial eastern Europe content qualifies. Fourth, it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere, because that's created confusion. This page is where we clarify things. Fifth, the topic-banned editors appear to have been operating in good faith; we're not talking about sanctioning them, we're just talking about clarifying the ban's scope so parties know what will be considered sanctionable in the future. Fifth, after a review of the articles' histories and related discussions, I am as suspicious as you are about the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection. If they were included in an attempt to affect arbitrators' perceptions on the other two articles—and it looks very much as though they were—The Four Deuces is advised to knock it off. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• I broadly agree with Steve - these articles clearly fall within the broad scope specified within the case. In general, my advice would be that if you feel an article is pushing the limits of the ban definition, then it is probably included in the scope of that ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I should note that this is exactly what I meant by "they hover close", and that Steve Smith is correct that my own opinion is exactly that: my own opinion of the interpretation of the remedy and not a statement from the committee. Fritzpoll's advice seems sound: play it safe by staying away if there is a genuine question. — Coren  15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Broadly concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• The best way to handle topic bans is to think "Will anyone credibly think, no matter how mistaken, that editing this article will fall under the topic restriction?" And if the answer is not an immediate, unequivocal "No".. don't do it SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Steve. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree as well. These are unquestionably covered by the topic ban. Hersfold 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Aye, agree with Steve here. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues' comments. I would add that in voting on the remedies in the case, I favored substantially narrower topic bans than voted by the majority, but several of these articles would have been covered even under my proposed language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul at 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Biruitorul

Do the topic bans handed out here cover obvious vandalism? To give one example: three days ago, this guy, with four edits, vandalized four articles (vaunted BLPs no less). Vandalism has lain uncorrected in three of those. I, with 63,031 edits, over 99.8% of which have been constructive and positive contributions to the project (indeed, one of those articles was written by me), can do nothing about it. And I'm also the only one who seems to care. Doesn't the Committee find this state of affairs a bit odd? - Biruitorul 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg

Carcharoth laments "There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this", well there isn't. Most of EE is obscure to the majority of Wikipedians and they simply don't care to the point that sneaky vandalism goes undetected. There is only a small number who do care enough, but you topic banned most of them, the majority with 99.9% good contributions. And if something as simple as vandalism goes unattended, then certainly something more complex like content creation and expansion will be even more so neglected for 12 months while these editors serve out their topic bans. A 12 month ban on participating in AfDs or move discussions given the FoF on canvassing and a 12 month 0RR restriction to cover the co-ordinated edit warring would have been sufficient. The current broad topic bans are both punitive and damaging to the project, there were no FoF in regard to inappropriate content creation or vandalism. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

Any uncontroversial edits (reverting vandalism at the very least) should be exempt from topic bans. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not run a penal system, and it is a very well-established principle that rules (which I hope includes ArbCom decisions) can be ignored if they stop you from improving Misplaced Pages. This should be made clear by ArbCom and the community in all the appropriate places, to avoid the need for this sort of question to be asked.--Kotniski (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I fully agree with Martin's comment above. I hope this year's ArbCom will see, where last year's so often failed to see, that "remedies" ought to be targeted specifically at the problems identified.--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Most editing policies and restrictions inherently include an exception for obvious vandalism, blatant BLP violations, and clear cut copyright violations. I would be surprised and disappointed if edit warring rules, editing restrictions, or other boundaries resulted in sanctions for reverting such edits. Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• I recall an earlier clarification on a different case that seemed to contradict what Vassyana is saying, but I can't recall whether it applied to topic bans or site bans. Generally, keeping articles watchlisted that you have previously created and edited in a topic area you are later banned from can be a problem, especially if the articles are obscure. But here they weren't obscure. I fear this is more a case of people believing the edit summary ("name corection") made by the IP editor - most normal vandalism would have been reverted, and hence the problem would not arise. If you are the first to notice, you should correct vandalism on BLPs, but fundamentally, the Misplaced Pages system cannot work if such watchlisting relies on one editor only. There has to be a way to get others to revert vandalism like this, allowing topic bans to operate effectively. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Martin, if you can gather evidence that the broadness of the topic bans is having a deleterious effect on content, please do so, but that will require more than one or two examples. What would then happen would depend on what exactly the effect of the topic bans has been. Maybe ask for a three- or six-month review at some point, and present your evidence then? If clear vandalism and BLP edits are building up without reversion, revert them and come back sooner, but give some time for others to do the reversions. Maybe what is needed here is for topic-banned users to provide lists of articles for others to watchlist? Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Will not be commenting due to prior involvement with case. Shell 11:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Vassyana is correct, those are standard exceptions unless otherwise stated, but be smart about, save yourself the potential trouble and report to the appropriate forum. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with Rlevse in all respects. Steve Smith (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also agree with Rlevse. KnightLago (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rlevse sums it up nicely. SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Aye, as what Rlevse said. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support the above, just use caution. If it could reasonably be seen as a constructive edit, ask about it on a noticeboard. Hersfold 03:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• No reasonable administrator would block a user for reverting obvious vandalism, but caveat that obviousness is the eye of the beholder. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: EEML (3)

Initiated by Martin (talk) at 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 7

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• NA

Amendment 1

• The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed below solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article. Martintg may also create a category for unreferenced Estonia-related biographies of living persons, tag articles for inclusion in that category, and announce the category's existence at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Estonia.

Statement by Martintg

This request is an extension to Radek's previous request concerning the sourcing of Polish BLPs. There are a number of Estonia related BLPs also lacking references. Steve Smith suggested that if Radek's request passes I should identify specific BLP articles in need of sourcing. I have amalgamated the two amendments (BLP sourcing and category creation) into one since they are both related to the list of articles mentioned below.

Preliminary list of Estonia related unsourced BLPs that would be excluded from the topic ban for purposes of referencing

I've returned from vacation and have now gone through all the BLPs and the following require sourcing: Natalja Abramova, Allan Alaküla, Toomas Altnurme, Maire Aunaste, Toomas Frey, Piret Järvis, Ülle Kukk, Teet Kask, Ülo Kaevats, Kaur Kender, Vilma Kuusk, Malle Leht, Andres Lipstok, Leiki Loone, Sven Lõhmus, Ene Mihkelson, Helle Meri, Kristine Muldma, Sulev Mäeltsemees, Ester Mägi, Sulev Oll, Birgit Õigemeel, Reet Priiman, Tiit Pääsuke, Kuno Pajula, Aarne Ruben, Martti Soosaar, Peeter Torop, Endel Taniloo, Taimo Toomast, Indrek Toome, Hannes Võrno, Mart Ummelas

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Response to Risker: The way that I understand the wording of this proposal is that the onus is on me to step back from any article that may become contentious. Basically, if somebody reverts a source I put in an article for whatever reason, or brings up some other objection, the plan is to completely leave that article alone and let the other person(s) deal with it. In other words I take the proposal to specifically state that it is on me not to let myself be baited into battlegrounds or edit wars, if this is attempted. However, I don't think is likely to be a problem; the sourcing of the first 26 articles went smoothly and I see no reason for why this shouldn't continue.

Having said that I do want to note that I very much doubt that these articles will get sourced by some other means. Even after an announcement on Wiki Project Poland (per last amendment) not that much help has been forthcoming. So, very likely, absent my efforts most of those BLPs are going to end up just sitting there unsourced or end up deleted (and some of them consider very notable people).radek (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Noted. Please be patient and allow time for discussion and voting. Could be anything up to a week. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

1) Topic ban narrowed (Radeksz)

The topic ban applied to Radeksz (talk · contribs) is amended. Radeksz may edit articles in Category:Poland related unreferenced BLP as of February 8, 2010, solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Radeksz is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. The last round seems to have gone off without a hitch, and this really isn't an enormous category. Steve Smith (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

    Roger Davies 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I am concerned that we may quickly see the return of the battlefield mentality, if not in Radeksz then in some of the editors on the other side of this issue, which may lead Radeksz into difficult-to-manage situations. I hope that administrators will consider any behaviour that could be considered baiting of Radeksz to be serious violations of our user behaviour policies (such as WP:GAME) and the prior decisions of this Committee. Particular attention may need to be paid to removal of newly inserted reference sources, or any other signs that a BLP is becoming a battlefield. Risker (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Shell 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

2) Topic ban narrowed (Martintg)

The topic ban applied to Martintg (talk · contribs) is amended. Martintg may edit the articles listed here solely to add references and to make such incidental changes as may be necessary to bring the article into compliance with the sources used. In the event that any such edits become contentious, Martintg is expected to cease involvement in the relevant article.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Proposed. It worked well with Radek, and there seems little reason not to try it with Martin. Steve Smith (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

    Roger Davies 04:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6. KnightLago (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I have similar concerns about altering this topic ban as I do for altering Radeksz's topic ban. Risker (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Shell 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I recused on the case, so on second thoughts I'll recuse on this.  Roger Davies 05:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: EEML

Initiated by — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk at 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Piotrus

Amendment 1

• Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.
• See below for proposed modification and alternative proposal.

Statement by Malik Shabazz

User:Piotrus used to perform a number of uncontroversial housekeeping tasks for WikiProject Poland that did not involve content editing of articles related to Poland. For example, he monitored newly-created Poland-related articles and, where appropriate, added applicable clean-up tags (including nominating them for deletion when necessary), nominated them for DYK, and invited their creators to the WikiProject. (A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here.)

When Piotrus was blocked, User:Jniech volunteered to take on some of those responsibilities. Jniech made a good faith effort, but for a variety of reasons Jniech has not been able to keep up with the necessary tasks. Both Jniech and I have asked for assistance, but none of the other WikiProject Poland members have volunteered to step in. Consequently, these tasks have not been performed for several months.

I hereby request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may once again perform these housekeeping tasks and post messages to WikiProject Poland to inform other editors about such tasks. Piotrus would be strictly prohibited from editing the content of any Poland-related articles except for the types of uncontroversial maintenance edits mentioned above.

In the alternative, I request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may inform me of any new Poland-related articles that, in his opinion, should be tagged for clean-up (including deletion), or of any other WikiProject-related tasks.

Statement by Nihil novi

To the best of my knowledge, all that Malik Shabazz says above is true. Piotrus has played an essential role in the production and maintenance of articles pertaining to Poland and Poland's broader geographic and historic milieu. Had Piotrus never written an article himself — and he has doubtless been one of the most productive editors on these and other subjects — his role in the cleaning-up of existing articles would still have made him one of the most productive editors on the English Misplaced Pages. Malik Shabazz's proposal, if adopted, will strengthen the project in a very substantial and noticeable way. Nihil novi (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinek

As stated above, User:Piotrus was of great help for WikiProject Poland. It would be extremely beneficial for the project if he would be able to perform easy non-controversial tasks for the project. His cleanup abilities are needed. - Darwinek (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Skäpperöd

• Projects are one way to coordinate maintenance, but most editors maintain wikipedia articles without being enlisted by any project. They do so either regularily, by chance or by bot.
• WPPoland has 30+ active and 30+ semi-active members , including experienced users like Malik Shabazz, Nihil novi and Darwinek who commented above, but also other people with a high edit count.

If an editor feels some article needs an additional tag, banner, cat etc pp, WP:SOFIXIT applies.

Malik Shabazz based this request on his co-project member Jniech's mid-February request. Angus McLellan promptly offered advise on how to properly deal with the issues Jniech was uncertain about, while MS proposed to go to this board, and prepared this request in his user space afterwards. MS's assumtion that "A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here" is false. As any editor, Piotrus does not have any responsibilities here, except for playing by the (few) rules. The list MS linked are not Piotrus' responsibilities, but a list of optional, volunteer maintenance tasks that may be performed by anyone. MS's assumption that "these tasks have not been performed for several months" remains unproven, and it is neither shown that there is anything that really needs to be done and is not done. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Visor

As it has been said above, Piotrus took significant role to create and improve hundreds of Poland and European related articles. Many of them became articles with the highest Misplaced Pages standards what can be seen by numerous of DYKs, Featured, A-Class and Good articles. I totally agree with Malik Shabazz and I believe (I know) Piotrus' work on WP:Poland will be beneficial for Misplaced Pages. Visor (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jniech

WikiProject Poland has a number of members but it is the number willing to do the work that is important. A few of us tried to cover for Piotrus. It is our failure that resulted in this request as without Piotrus help the backlog of outstanding tasks is only going to increase.

Further in my mind adding a template or recommending an article for DYK is not really breaking Piotrus ban on editing article on central and eastern European topics.

Members of Misplaced Pages can help with many issues but there is the issue of maintaining consistency. Only someone with years of knowledge on Polish related articles can help with this.

It only hurts Misplaced Pages by not considering this request. Piotrus appears to have broken the rules and some form of punishment was warranted. Stopping Piotrus adding content and discussing articles on central and eastern European issues maybe fair but taking part in “uncontroversial housekeeping tasks” seems unnecessary. In olden days, prisons were for punishment. In these more enlighten days rehabilitation is the goal. Why not consider this? If Piotrus breaks the rules then increase the length of ban but stopping him doing house keeping others can’t be bothered doing seems wrong.

Those who doubt that there is a need only has to monitor the WikiProject Poland page to see increasing numbers of Poland-related articles by quality and importance which are not assessed and that is including those we are failing to tag Jniech (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Statement by M.K.

Given the long history of off-wiki games, disruptive coordination to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies, tag-teaming, stealth canvassing etc. any attempt to ease any sanctions should begin with a full acknowledgement of guilt by the sanctioned party. And by full acknowledgement I mean not "non-apology apologies" that we did have before, not wikilawering or beating around the bushes, but straightforward admition by the sanctioned party that it understands why it was sanctioned, and admits that its actions such as 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, proxying for blocked user and encouraging and advising other Misplaced Pages editors to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies were disruptive, harmed Misplaced Pages’s integrity and will never be repeated again. Without such statement any motion to ease these sanctions should not even be considered.

Finally, none of those “tasks” listed above are vital to the project and easily can be carried out by other members of the project. If Piotrus has too much free time, he can work in dozen other WP projects. Saying that, I perfectly understand that we will see countless other typical “amendments”, “calcifications” and “requests“ in the near future. M.K. (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy

I can only confirm that Piotrus housekeeping tasks related Poland-related articles are missed now. Besides, Piotrus used to do an outstanding job indirectly motivating other editors to improve the quality of the project articles, and this is missed too. It seems that the proposed amendment can only do good and I can see no harm in it. --Lysy 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Poeticbent

Time flies. The month of April is already getting close to an end. Piotrus is going to return to full time editing in several months, regardless of any amendments to EEML. I ask. Why not allow him to return to his area of expertise one step at a time, and, take on noncontroversial tasks in the process of recovery. The Project Poland has been virtually dormant since the New Years, with only rudimentary maintenance and peripheral activities taking place. Poland–related DYKs have all but vanished from the front page of Misplaced Pages since last year. Naturally, Piotrus is not going to make up for all the loses endured by the Project, but his own prior devotion to this portal would be a good place to gradually start rebuilding. -- Poeticbent talk 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jan eissfeldt

well, i can`t write a lot about the eeml-stuff because i haven`t followed the progress in detail and i`m sure that the arbcom was as carefully as always. i want to provide an other point: Piotrus is an experienced university outreach user - especially as main contributor of WP:SUP, where he runs his own sociology project every term - and expanded the perspectives of this part of the wikipedia. he is trusted there as well as on the real life aspects of this matter and so i would be pleased if it would be possible to give him the chance to run a SUP-project of his own again, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

I did not want to comment earlier as I wanted to avoid influencing the discussion. I feel that the experienced members of the WikiProject Poland who commented above summed the situation quite clearly and that they are aware of my past and present commitment to the project. To sum it up, shortly, I am fully prepared to resume my uncontroversial wikignoming activities by working within the WikiProject namespace as outlined in the proposed motion. Despite good faithed efforts by some editors, there are many tasks that have not been carried out, with the detrimental effect for the project (and Misplaced Pages in general - from low recruitment of new members to low levels of copyediting activity). I feel I can resume doing them uncontroversially as I have been doing for the past several years (for that WikiProject, and as I've been doing for others, such as WikiProject Sociology and the Schools and Universities WikiProject).

To Risker: regarding six months, please note note that there have been no issues involving my editing since the case was opened in September last year.

Thank you for your consideration, and I want once again to thank the WikiProject members for their continued faith in me. I will not let you down, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To Rlevse: please let me know if the following elaboration does not address your question.

Shortly: as I noted during the arbitration, I understand that asking for edits on a private foras or responding to such requests should be avoided. As you can see from my edits during the case and this year (that adds up to about half a year of active editing now), I edit in a peaceful manner that isn't raising any issues. I am not sure how I can give you something other than words, since the intended edits have not been done yet, for obvious reasons (and it is a bit hard to demonstrate the lack of controversial edits/issues, see, my proof of that is here: ). Perhaps the best proof of this is that no editor commenting on this motion so far has been able to present a single problematic post-artbitration start diff. You are welcome to review my recent edits in other en Wiki areas (or projects); I can also list some of the edits I'd like to propose for project member consideration here (but I want to make sure that would be ok with you, I don't want it to be seen as an attempt to evade the restriction). Also, as Malik noted, a list of things that should be done, isn't and that I intend to do is here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: there are no (more) floaters on my userpage. The ones on my talk page should allow access to the toolbox - just scroll down a little bit (and let me know if you still cannot access it). Re 1) yes, they were transwikid by User:Graham87 upon my request last week or so (it is my understanding transwiki is the proper way to preserve edit history for copyright and attribution) from my Polish Misplaced Pages sandbox (the link to which I send to ArbCom months ago, and this is the same place I developed my Lech Wałesa article from the previous passed motion). 2) I was cleaning my sandbox, which involved moving some content to new pages. The content on the page you are referring to is not new but quite old and was moved from here. 3) Yes, but ON POLISH WIKIPEDIA, on the aforementioned page. It was and is my understanding that this is acceptable, see also my following reply. 4) It is my understanding that the original motion included my en Misplaced Pages userspace, but not any space on projects other than en Misplaced Pages. I believe that Coren's motion makes it clear that this motions concerns only the WT:POLAND page.

Seeing as I am answering all of those questions, I do have a quick question of my own. Am I allowed / will I be after this motion to do the following: 1) invite editors by posting on their user talk pages to join the WP:POLAND project 2) answer editors asking me questions like this one that they should direct their questions to WT:POLAND and 3) (after the motion passes) tell them that I've replied to their question there? (As all of those involve edits in a different namespace than this motions concerns, i.e. user talk namespace) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Varsovian

I entirely agree with M.K. There are at least a dozen other WP projects which those who were very deservingly banned as a result of the EEML affair can engage themselves. I’d ask why we see this constant stream of ‘can I just do this thing? It’s completely uncontroversial’ requests but we know why: these people are expert at gaming the system. Banned means banned. Varsovian (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can Varsovian provide a single instance where these amendments were used to "game the system"? No? Then don't make empty and false accusations." No I can not. But I can provide examples of using a host of techniques to degrade the project which were used by the members of EEML. Which one would Radek like me to point out first? It would be highly amusing to be lectured by Radek about things which one should not do with WP, if it wasn't so sad that he clearly has learned nothing from the EEML experience. Varsovian (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

I've tried to avoid controversy and refrain from commenting but sometimes enough is enough. In response to Varsovian and M.K I'd like to point out that

1) Misplaced Pages is no place for personal vendettas. Actually, that kind of thing reflects badly on a person in general, here or elsewhere.

2) The existence of other projects is irrelevant. Other people involved with WP:Poland made this request - hence they must think Piotrus' work would be very helpful. I'm sure Piotrus could involve himself in WikiProject Small Purple Rodents or whatever but he'd probably be pretty bad at it. He has lots of experience in this area and that is where his help is needed.

3) If other projects need help, then perhaps some users could expand their time and energies there, in a constructive manner, rather than wiki stalking editors and wasting people's time.

4) These previous "can I just do this thing" amendments - I believe this is a reference to my two amendments. I would like to point out that both of these amendments passed off without a hitch, without controversy, without any harm to anyone, without breaking of any rules. At the same time they resulted in the sourcing of 150+ unsourced BLPs, a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Can Varsovian provide a single instance where these amendments were used to "game the system"? No? Then don't make empty and false accusations. That kind of thing reflects badly on a person, on Misplaced Pages and in general.

5) To add to 4) above, the only controversy is the empty controversy and battlegrounds that some editors are trying to foster here.

Statement by Russavia

Because of the heinous nature of Piotrus' violations of the spirit of Misplaced Pages policies and practices, and because of the non-existence of any acknowledgement of wrong-doing, I would prefer to see that he serve at least 6 months of his topic ban before any such requests are considered. And even when they are, they should most certainly not have anything to do with process discussion, or even nominating articles for AfD. There would also need to be a narrow section of articles that he would be allowed to edit for maintenance - e.g. anything relating to Poland and it's interactions with other countries should definitely be off limits for the full twelve months. --Russavia 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements before commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll repeat the essence of what I had discussed on my own talk page with Piotrus: I am receptive to allowing him to post to some well defined location about articles that currently fall under his topic ban, and see this as an opportunity for him to return gradually to contribution in that area. The suggestion of using the Wikiproject talk page seems sound to me as well.

  That said, I admit I'm very hesitant to allow even seemingly uncontroversial edits to the articles themselves at this time. Too often, "uncontroversial" is anything but and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Accordingly, I wouldn't support that level of relaxation this soon. — Coren  19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll post a proposed motion in that direction sometime today. — Coren  10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Continue to be recused. Shell 06:26, 22 April 2010 UTC)
• Generally agree with Coren here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Coren as well. KnightLago (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• For Piotrus: You were banned totally 3 months (ending a month ago) and topic banned 1 year; only 1/3 of that time has passed. I also recalled how hard you lobbied for those things not to happen. Bans aren't ended early because no one has filled on what the banned person used to do. Bans are ended early because the banned person has shown they've truly learned from what got them banned, realizes what caused it in the first place, and has shown they won't repeat those behaviors. All too often some banned person lobbies for an unban, gets it, and goes right back to their old ways. While I appreciate that some things in the Poland topic aren't getting done, I can also appreciate Risker's concerns. I'm read your statement above, but I need to see more, not just words. Can you elaborate? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Piotrus, your user page needs fixing so people can click on your contributions link. I had to access that log a different way because of the floating thing obscuring the sides of the page. Like Risker, I think waiting for the 6-month mark would have been better, but I will support the motion because I see the logic of a gradual return in some areas. Please be crystal-clear as to what you can and can't do, and if you request a further review at the 6-month mark, your activities between now and then will be taken into account. It is entirely possible that some restrictions will remain in place for the whole year of the initial topic ban. Before I support, I have a few questions arising from a brief look-through I did for your contributions over the past 4 months. (1) Can you confirm that the article space edits during the period of the 3-month ban were due to content edited elsewhere and imported here? (examples) - this appears to be some sort of glitch that needs fixing. (2) Could you explain the purpose of this page created on 26 April 2010? I'm not one to get picky about userspace edits, and this is clearly housekeeping, but can you understand that creating a page that looks like draft notes touching on Eastern European topics (it looks like that from what I've read of the page) might be considered borderline activity in the topic area? (3) Would you intend to continue article draft/notes activity in your userspace in the Eastern European or Polish topic area if this motion passes? (4) On the same subject, which other pages, other than the talk page of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Poland do you see this motion covering (e.g. subpages of the WikiProject?), and do you think the original motion from the case (here) included your userspace? (This is not a trick question, it is genuinely open to interpretation and better settled now rather than later.) Carcharoth (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply and explanations, Piotrus. The floating stuff on your user talk page (I meant user talk, not user page) does give me a small window to access the sidebar (where your contribs link is), but it is still not ideal. It's not strictly to do with arbitration, but if you could try and see whether that can be fixed it would be good - people shouldn't really have to scroll around and having floating stuff killing other links is not good, though whether it is my set up or the floating thing, I don't know. About this and other stuff to do with the imports, I've reviewed the proxy authorisation and I think it would be best if you asked the three editors listed there to deal with things like this for you, rather than you doing it yourself or making requests yourself (or you could ask for Graham87 to be added to those listed at the motion). It may seem like unneeded layers of communication, but it is important to keep matters like that at arm's length and to work through the three editors named in the motion. On the same topic, moving edit history between namespace and projects is technically correct, but it can cause confusion when people try and work out later what happened (when edits are moved from userspace or other projects to mainspace, it can give the impression that material was present in mainspace on a particular date, when in fact it wasn't - and the transwiki logs don't really seem to be very visible). About the sandbox edits, I see now that it was all housekeeping and moving stuff around - thanks for clearing that up. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • To answer your questions, I would say limited posting in user talk space may be OK, but I had envisaged you being more able to do administrative tasks for WikiProject Poland, rather than extensively discussing things. For example, if a deletion discussion was mentioned, you taking part in a thread at WT:POLAND discussing the article would be similar to taking part in the actual deletion discussion. And if people start !voting in deletion discussions saying "per Piotrus on WT:POLAND" that would be bad. I'm going to have to think about this some more. I'm also not happy with the "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles" bit of the motion - such discussions can take place on wikiproject talk pages if the discussion is general and about a group of article, but specific discussions about improving an article should really take place on the article talk page (so others can see it in future). It might be simpler to amend the topic ban to allow editing in all namespaces except article space, and possibly to include a prohibition from participation at AfD, and to trust you to avoid contentious discussions. Either that, or to strictly limit it to the WikiProject pages only (though this doesn't avoid the problem that sometimes discussions take place on WikiProject pages that should really be located somewhere else). I'll wait for more input before voting. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Carc, the reason this was proposed for WT:POLAND as opposed to the talk page is twofold: (a) it makes it centralized, and therefore easily monitorable, and (b) raising issues about an article needing attention on its talkpage is rather futile since it would not be seen by new editors. — Coren  11:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Sure, but do you see Piotrus's role following this loosening of the topic ban as simply flagging up issues and then sitting back and letting others deal with them, or do you see his role as including "discuss improvements", which is technically what would happen on the talk page once people had been alerted at the WikiProject? In practice, such discussions tend to overlap between WikiProject talk pages and article talk pages. There may, for instance, be editors who would prefer to post at the article talk page rather than participate in a discussion at WT:POLAND. We shouldn't encourage long discussions about improvements to specific articles when there are other venues better suited to that (article talk pages and deletion discussions, to name just two). I have no objection to WT:POLAND being used to flag up articles that need attention, or for general discussions there about groups of articles within that WikiProject's scope, and I have no objection to Piotrus carrying out administrative tasks on all and any WP:POLAND pages and subpages (including initial postings pointing out problems for others to fix), but I'm wary of discussions getting out of hand and also wary of allowing user talk page postings as if would be better for Piotrus to get others involved in that side of things (delivery notices and welcome notices and invitations to join, etc). For now, I will support, and trust Piotrus to back off in certain areas if things appear to be getting out of hand. We do also need to answer his questions about other namespaces, and be more explicit about other pages and subpages of WP:POLAND. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• To answer one of Piotrus's specific questions: my view is that if someone posts to your user talk about something in this topic area, you should avoid initiating a discussion there, and instead direct them to the talk page of WikiProject Poland where you should raise the issue for them if necessary and answer briefly if you have an answer for them. Again, this will encourage others to get involved, so the WikiProject is less reliant on you and others can step in to help out. Carcharoth (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion

The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus (talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Poland talk page.

There being 16 arbitrators, 6 of whom are inactive, one recused, the majority is 5.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. As a first step towards gradual return to editing. — Coren  18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Given Piotrus' second stmt and the large swell of community support he has, I'm going along with Coren here and am willing to see how this first step goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Provisional support, pending discussions above regarding other namespaces and other pages and subpages of WikiProject Poland, and urging Piotrus to be wary of engaging in long discussions on the WikiProject talk page that should properly take place elsewhere. If the discussion venue moves, he will have to show restraint and allow the discussions to continue on other pages without him, rather than allowing parallel discussions to develop. Carcharoth (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Willing to give it a shot. KnightLago (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Willing to give this a shot and see how it goes forward. SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd like to see at least six months pass before moving toward the gradual return to editing (mid-June at earliest), and I note that Piotrus has not commented or made this request, despite being notified of this request for amendment. I am not comfortable approving this change without hearing from him, or his plans for editing and contributing in this area. Risker (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Noting that I have read Piotrus' comments above. My general rule of thumb is that half the sanction period should be served before major changes; that would occur in June. I'm not seeing any reason that would compel me to believe that Piotrus is the only person who is capable to carry out the processes that are the basis of this request; they are tasks that any editor could carry out if s/he felt it was worthwhile. Without a compelling reason to make an exception in this case, I continue to oppose. Nonetheless, as this motion is passing, I will take this opportunity to note that this is a very limiting restriction and that Piotrus may make comments only on the Wikiproject page; it does not lift sanctions in other areas where he has professed an interest. Risker (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Kirill  01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

• Moved to abstain. I completely missed that Piotrus hasn't commented here. What's up with that? KnightLago (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• See my stmt in the arb section. Holding for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Supporting now. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by radek (talk) at 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 10

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A

Amendment 1

• topic ban
• This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (USer Radeksz) to edit articles in the Eastern European area again. As such it is an appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Radeksz

In the winddown of the case, several of the arbitrators, past and present, indicated that they would be amenable to an appeal and lifting of the topic ban after suitable time has passed. It's been almost 6 months since the case. Furthermore, appeals such as this one are often made and granted in similar cases.

Activity since the case

Since the conclusion of the case I have been active in other areas of Misplaced Pages, such as Mexican History and Economics , and I have tried to take scrupulous care to abide by my topic ban. I have avoided any controversy in the area of Eastern European topics, or any other topics for that matter. Also, through the two amendments that were passed which already narrowed my topic ban, here and here, I was able to source over 150, unreferenced Poland related BLP articles that might have been deleted otherwise. The lifting of the topic ban would allow me to improve the remaining Poland related BLPs (over 170 still left, as can be seen here) many of which are in need of expansion, tagging, and updating (many of them are several years out of date) in addition to sourcing.

Since this is likely to be brought up by someone else, I want to indicate that in one instance I did in fact apparantly violate my topic ban, by posting a comment at the AfD for the Ryszard Tylman article (I did not however vote in the AfD). Since the subject of the article is a Canadian I wasn't aware that the article fell within the scope of the topic ban and I removed my comment as soon as the matter was brought to AE.

Here's a list of some of the other things I've accomplished since December;

• I created three articles which were reviewed and attained Good Article status: Treaty of Ciudad Juarez (now nominated for FA ), Battle of Ciudad Juarez and Confederate war finance. I plan on continuing to work on these to bring them up to Featured Article Status. I also have another article currently going through the GA review process, which just made GA status, the Brander-Spencer model .

• I created about 23 DYK articles since December, mostly in the areas of Mexican History and Economics. A full list is here.

• I've been active in tagging and assesing articles within Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics as well as helping out in more minor roles on bringing the article on Price elasticity of demand to GA.

• I've helped bring the article Nobel Prize to GA status (I was very careful to avoid sections which deal with Eastern European recipients of the prize so as not to violate the topic ban).

• I've also *almost* hit 15,000 edits!

In carrying out this work, several times the topic ban limited my ability to fully improve/create some of these articles. For example, in my article on the Preston curve - a relationship between income and life expectancy - I avoided discussing the large drop in life expectancy in Eastern Europe in the early 1990's so as not to violate the topic ban - this was actually picked up on by an anon reader on the talk page of the article but I was unable to respond. In my other work on Economics related topics, I also was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michał Kalecki.

Plans for the future

If this amendment is succseful, I plan on creating and working on the following articles which are concerned with Economic History and Eastern Europe. I don't anticipate that any of them should prove controversial - of course, if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct:

• Domar serfdom model (did factor endowments (land-labor ratio) determine whether a pre-industrial economy ended up with slavery, serfdom or free labor?)
• Brenner debate (related to the above, what ended feudalism in Western Europe but caused its re-emergence in Eastern Europe?)
• Second feudalism (re both above)
• Economic history of Poland (started, on hold since topic ban went into effect)
• Piast monetary policy (of the Polish Piast dynasty; sometimes good, sometimes bad, just like Ben Bernanke today)

(among others)

I would also like to help out with the gnomish tasks over at WikiProject Poland to lighten the load on some of the editors who have picked up the burden. Furthermore I would very much like to resume my participation in the Misplaced Pages:Jewish Labour Bund Task Force project, which has become somewhat dormant since January - I believe I can revive it with new articles and activity.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, I plan on contiuning with the sourcing and improvement of Poland related BLPs. I would also like to expand/create several articles on some of the casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, since they are quite notable but lack adequate coverage on Misplaced Pages. In general, articles on "current events" in Poland, such as the May 2010 Central European floods, are always in need of knowledgeable editors and I can help a lot of with those.

Lifting of the topic ban will enable me to improve these and other articles, and it shouldn't be controversial. In addition I plan on continuing work on articles not related to Eastern Europe.

General statement

I would like to point out that both amendments which narrowed my topic ban went off without a hitch or controversy. I think this will continue if the topic ban is amended.

I left the mailing list which was the subject of the case in November 2009. I have not participated in any activities that were deemed objectionable by the 2009 ArbCom which led to the topic ban, since then.

Looking back on the case after 6 months I have to say that I have learned a lot since then. Basically, I still believe that the people who were on the mailing list, joined it with the best of intentions for Misplaced Pages and its policies. I do realize now however that at some point things were over the line and that, often out of frustration, members of the list, myself included, engaged in questionable activities for which I personally want to apologize.

I encourage everyone, former members of the list, as well as their "opponents" to undertake efforts which will reduce the battleground atmosphere in this topic area and lead to more collaborative editing. Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however, and I would like to say that I personally harbor no grudges against any other editor currently active on Misplaced Pages and am willing to work with anybody. I'm going to reset my "assume good faith" meter back to good faith and I hope others do likewise.

re to Skapperod

1. I did leave the list in Nov 2009. The precise date was the 21st of November, 2009. The oversighted edit in fact showed this exactly as it included the heading for my unsubscribe request. Since you went over that oversighted data with a fine comb, I am sure you are aware of this, so why are you misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?

2. I have no idea what the relevance of the Misplaced Pages Review "diff" is to this appeal or what it has to do with me. Somebody there said the admin Adjust Shift was a sock puppet. So? What does that have to do with any of this? With my topic ban? With Eastern Europe? Nothing. What exactly are you alleging is the problem here? You are connecting completely unrelated and innocuous events in a questionable effort to merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks.

3. At the Tylman-related AE, administrators Future Perfect, Sandstein and Tznkai (maybe Stifle too, I can't remember) all stated that they believed I was not aware the AfD fell under the topic ban, although I should've been more careful. An assessment with which I agree and share.

4. I did not violate the topic ban when I commented on Molobo's request. I was clarifying a misunderstanding with regard to blocking policy and WP:OFFER on the part of another editor. Hey, Rlevse was right there and I responded directly to him as well - surely he would've noticed if this had been a topic ban breach. And I'm sure you, or someone else would've made a AE report out of it if you had had ANY confidence that it was indeed a topic ban violation. You didn't. It wasn't. You knew it then, you know it now.

Add: I've copied the relevant discussion that is supposed to be a "topic ban violation" , into a subpage so that it can be easily examined here. Please look at it and compare it to the false claim being made. Note also the "You are quite right, Radeksz." and the "Thanks for pointing out my mistake!" comments made by PhantomSteve, an uninvolved editor, which shows pretty clearly that (aside from the fact that this had nothing to do with the topic ban) I was not being confrontational or controversial in this case at all. This is really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on.

I will reiterate my sincere hope that the editors active in this area abandon their battleground mentality and try to work constructively together.

re to Skapperod's further thoughts: Skapperod, you are again bringing stuff up from December - when the case wasn't concluded or any sanctions made. You are again bringing up stuff that's not from Misplaced Pages at all but from an external public website (which is read and occasionally commented on by some of the arbitrators - so they could've already read what I had to say there). And you are again completely misrepresenting what I said or did.radek (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Skäpperöd

I am not convinced, considering:

• the severity of the offense that led to the sanction.
• the untrue statement of Radeksz above that he left the list in Nov 2009: evidently, he was enlisted and active in Dec 2009 which he revealed himself while proxying.
• more off-wiki contact to listmembers while topic-banned targeting perceived opponents: Radeksz asked for this diff to discredit a former EEML-target on 5 Jan 2:16am at WR, received it on 5 Jan 2:31am at WR, and on 5 Jan 9:15am, the diff appeared on-wiki at co-EEML-member Molobo's talk page.
• The abovementioned diff was removed by Molobo (27 Jan) when he prepared an unblock request (29 Jan). The request made it to AN/I, where Radeksz commented on 23 February, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion.
• Radeksz also commented on the AfD concerning the article of co-EEML-member Tylman on 30 April, violating his widely-construed topic ban from EE-related process discussion. Given the close ties between Tylman and Radeksz, the latter's argument that Tylman's Canadian citizenship made him think the AfD was excepted from the ban is not convincing - Tylman's connection to Poland is simply too obvious, and evidently Radeksz was aware of that since Poland-related topics, not Canada, was the common interest they shared and focussed on in the EEML, and Tylman's Polish background was emphasized in the article the AfD was about.
• on 21 Jan, Radeksz removed his outburst with the edit summary "i miss the old times" to avoid the pending sanction.

I appreciate the above apology, but not its timing. I would have more trust in the apology if it was not made in the context of wanting the sanction lifted. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re @Radeksz

Re delisted: The diff shows that you continued the EEML and just changed the channel. It does not matter whether you use Digwuren's wpm or send circulars via other servers, what matters is that you maintain that virtual war room per se and the high traffic generated there, before and after November, resulting in coordinated actions on-wiki as demonstrated by the very action you performed resulting in that infamous proxy- and leak diff.

Re WR: In this context, it adds to my concern that a wiki-diff you gather at WR needs only a few hours to be posted by Molobo on-wiki. How could that happen without invoking off-wiki coordination?! And, since that diff consisted of mud to be slung at a former target, and since all of this happened while you were topic banned and Molobo was blocked, it has everything to do with a mentality the EEML sanctions, including this appealed one, were to remedy.

Concerning the topic ban violations, at least in the case of 30 April to 1 May it was obvious enough to result in a block. When Russavia left the obligatory AE notification on your talk, you did not accept that either and attacked him as a stalker.

Skäpperöd (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Igny and more thoughts/diffs

Of course battleground mentality is not shown openly on en.wiki while he wants to have his sanction lifted, in contrast to WR where Radek is more blunt, e.g.

• Arbcom are "not just plain ol' assholses, like the ED folks, but they're creeps, self-righteous creeps";
• also blame shifting on Lithuanian and Russian users).

The oversighted diff that brought about Offliner's sanction and the abovementioned pair of WR/wiki diffs show continued off-wiki coordination resulting in on-wiki edits. Radeksz also

• advocated unblocking of his co-listmember Molobo in the course of DonaldDuck's unblock request and on AN/I ,
• advocated in his co-listmember Tylman's AfD , attacking Varsovian as a "dick" in the same post,
• attacked Matthead as an asshole ,
• attacked Dr.Dan as a troll (following this one ),
• and attacked Russavia as a "stalker" violating the interaction ban .

The last appeal Radeksz filed, against a previous sanction , was prepared on the EEML (see archive), where Radeksz also announced to keep "low-profile" until the appeal was through.

Lifting already lenient sanctions is not really solving the problem of malicious mailing lists - the next one just got busted (Азербайджанский список рассылки). Skäpperöd (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny

Radek and I were opponents in several content disputes in EE area. However, I was against blunt topic bans during the EEML case and I fully support Radek's request to lift the ban on EE topics. After all, that area is where Radek is very knowledgeable and where his contributions would benefit the project a lot. I have looked over recent history of contributions by Radek and did not notice any of the "battleground mentality" (4 words to Skapperod: eye of the beholder). I would hope that everyone learned their lessons from the EEML case, and it certainly seems that way for Radek. (Igny (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Paul Siebert

I think, the only EEML's sine was that they were creating a visibility of a consensus between allegedly independent editors whereas in actuality there was a strong coordination between them. In other words, they were creating a false impression that several independent editors were acting, although in actuality it was just one collective editor. The EEML group's punishment was correct, however, that does not mean that the ideas they were promoting should be banned. Since EEML members' actions de facto converted them into one collective editor, they should be treated as such, and that would be a solution, at least temporary, of the issue. In other words, the issue can be resolved if only one EEML member will be allowed to edit EE related articles. For example, if Radek wants to edit the invasion of Poland article, he is free to do that, however, by doing that he made the article banned for other EEML members. Of course, other members can discuss his edits with him, however, they will not be able to participate in the talk page discussions, in RfC's etc. I propose to lift a topic ban for Radek and for all other EEML members provided that two or more EEML members are not allowed to edit one article simultaneously (or to simultaneously participate in talk page discussions). --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. It is necessary to note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Novickas

I see phrases used by R. above as not in keeping with a pledge to maintain high standards of conduct and minimize confrontation: 'misrepresenting the facts and in the process calling me a liar?', 'merely sling mud and hope that somehow it sticks', 'really really fishing for a crappy reason to hang an "oppose" on'. Addressing Russavia as 'my dear stalker' on April 30th doesn't inspire confidence either. He could of course refactor or otherwise address those. But to me, using that language here says he hasn't internalized a less confrontational approach to WP disputes. It can be done - there are editors here working in really troublesome topics who contribute to resolution - in part by speaking calmly and neutrally. But I don't see R. as doing that at this point.

I like Paul Siebert's suggestion - altho it seems rather novel for WP. It wouldn't solve the problem posed by R.'s language, which has a conflict-escalating aspect, but it would act to reduce the teaming concerns. Like Paul, I note that I also was an opponent of many EEML members. Novickas (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the support rationales. But I still worry that if R. returns to this area, and problems come up (they will), and other editors voice concerns, what if R again responds with 'my dear stalker'. You-all may, of course, feel that our skins should be thick enough to withstand those kinds of comments. I'd prefer to see first see some sort of commitment on R's part to moderate their language. Novickas (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those arbs supporting this motion - you are in effect saying it's OK that he used the words dick, troll, stalker, asshole, and quasi-Nazi after his topic ban. On the grounds that he made other valuable contributions. Now I don't think either Skap or I are asking for a groveling apology. There is a middle ground. That would be publicly acknowledging Skap's and my concerns in a respectful way. It's been done.

It would be nice if Coren clarified and expanded on 'any relapse is likely to be poorly received'. Do you, Coren, feel those weren't relapses; or that they were but they should be forgiven since enough time has passed since then; or that no evidence shows the kind of collusion he was topic banned for; or...? Novickas (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by dr.Loosmark

I cannot agree with the comments of the "opponent of many EEML members" Novickas and Skapparod too who seems to be blowing out of proportions old things, Skapparod's diffs seems to be from January!? To be totally honest I think it would be better if more really neutral editors would give input but ok that's not for me to say. Anyway I have carefully examined Radeksz's contributions to wikipedia since January and I don't see any problematic edits. Quite the contrary, I see he has really worked hard and made a huge number of quality contributions and there weren't any problems that I am aware of.  Dr. Loosmark  18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused from the EEML case. Shell 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• My first instinct is that we should lift the topic ban, but I wonder whether something more nuanced and narrow can be written in its place. As Paul Siebert says, the problem was not lone editing, but banding together with other EEML members. Perhaps lift the ban, but impose a restriction on interacting with other former EEML members in EE topics. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• This particular self-rightous creep is open to revisiting this sanction. One possibility is lifting the sanction for a trial period (say, a month) and seeing how things go. Another is to refer to the proposed narrower wording for all the topic-bans that I suggested on the proposed decision page at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 10 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Radeksz topic banned") is rescinded.

(There being 14 arbitrators, five of whom are either inactive or recused, the majority is 5) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Steve Smith (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

   I've been asked to explain my rationale, which is fair enough. The short version is that I think many of the EEML problems grew out of a bit of a mob mentality, and my experience with mobs is that once you get their members to engage as individuals, they're okay. Radek's plainly thinking for himself, has been well behaved during his sanction (including while editing on Poland-related stuff in response to the prior amendments to this case), and obviously has a lot to offer on Poland-related stuff, primarily on non-contentious Poland-related stuff. I'm not proposing this motion because I believe that the original sanction was wrong, but because I don't think it's serving much purpose at this point. Steve Smith (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

2. I prefer this to the status quo. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
3. I see good work being done since the time of the closing of the EEML case, and I believe a suitable period of time has passed. Risker (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
4. With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received. — Coren  20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Willing to try this (although it might be more clear if the motion said "terminated" rather than "rescinded"); see also my comments on the proposed decision page of the original case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
6. While I appreciate Skap's concerns and am almost swayed by them, I am going to support this per Risker and Steve. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Concur with Steve Smith. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Recused

1. Kirill  21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request to amend prior case: Eastern European mailing list

Initiated by Biruitorul at 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 19

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

Amendment 1

• topic ban
• This is a request to amend the EEML case in order to allow me (User Biruitorul) to edit and create articles in Category:Geography of Romania and Category:Geography of Moldova again. As such it is a partial appeal of the topic ban that was implemented in December as part of the case.

Statement by Biruitorul

Well, I've been stewing in my own juices now for six months since the EEML decision was handed down, and I feel it's time to open the windows a crack and let me resume some of my more worthwhile activities. No off-wiki coordination, no canvassing, no usage of hidden communication to create the appearance of a consensus: I get it now, believe me. Half a year of scrupulously having to avoid my favorite subject area has drummed these lessons into me. Truth be told, I haven't been too active here since December, but neither have I done any harm. The only possible blemish on my record is a non-event that led to a pretty disgusting decision. (Let's be serious here, you don't extend a valuable contributor's topic ban by five months because he's made a few harmless edits he thought he was free to make.)

What I'm proposing here is to be allowed to dip my toe in again, editing in the areas of Romanian and Moldovan geography, neither of which has been the subject of much controversy in the past, certainly not involving me. There is quite a bit I plan to do: to give one example, I plan to finish creating articles on the communes of Moldova, which I had nearly finished doing before being rudely interrupted by this overly broad topic ban. Let's see how this goes. If for some reason I can't handle it, throw the book at me. If, as I suspect, everything will run smoothly, then in a little while I'll have reason to appeal more of, or the entirety of, the topic ban. - Biruitorul 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lysy

Yes, absolutely. Both proposed categories are lacking a lot, so having an active editor there could only be of benefit. Besides, it would allow Biruitorul to prove that he/she can edit in a harmonious and proper way in his/her area of interest. Eastern European topics lack good, mature editors. --Lysy 13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Remedy 17 of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Biruitorul topic banned") is lifted.

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Of the sanctioned parties, Biruitorul's misbehaviour was among the mildest. He/she has acknowledged the misbehaviour, and has had not conduct issues of which I am aware since the case. Steve Smith (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
2. With appropriate cautions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Six months sounds like enough to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Steve. — Coren  14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Kirill  12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2.  Roger Davies 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This motion passes and will be archived in 48 hours. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)