→Incredibly lenient: new section |
→Proposal wrt Russavia: removing part of mine which is not helpful in this section |
||
Line 832: | Line 832: | ||
::::Was Russavia a member of the list? If not, this proposal should probably be discussed elsewhere. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
::::Was Russavia a member of the list? If not, this proposal should probably be discussed elsewhere. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::Russavia was not a member of the list, but is one of the lists most vocal detractors. Reaching out to people like him is an effective way of showing that list members can and are taking steps to reform from previous behavior. It could go elsewhere, but I think the list members (rightly) feel the need to ensure that the Arbs see their attempts. Plus, everyone is here with bated breath looking for updates. Trying to drag them elsewhere to discuss moving forward before this case officially closes would be like herding cats. [[Special:Contributions/198.161.174.222|198.161.174.222]] ([[User talk:198.161.174.222|talk]]) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
:::::Russavia was not a member of the list, but is one of the lists most vocal detractors. Reaching out to people like him is an effective way of showing that list members can and are taking steps to reform from previous behavior. It could go elsewhere, but I think the list members (rightly) feel the need to ensure that the Arbs see their attempts. Plus, everyone is here with bated breath looking for updates. Trying to drag them elsewhere to discuss moving forward before this case officially closes would be like herding cats. [[Special:Contributions/198.161.174.222|198.161.174.222]] ([[User talk:198.161.174.222|talk]]) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
Well ok, if it has anything to do with harrassment of myself, then I wouldn't be withdrawing those, as I have known I have been harrassed and stalked by co-ordination, but before the archive was leaked, I had no verifiable way of ''proving it'', but I think we all know that I was being severely harrassed by the brigade - 10% of emails don't relate to me for no reason. Also, one would notice, that when I have previously mentioned harrassment onwiki, and which can now be linked up to specific emails and onwiki actions, brigadiers would game onwiki telling me to stop being incivil, stop engaging in personal attacks and to retract false accusations. No, I will not retract accusations (now with evidence) that anyone with half a brain can see is true. If one would like me to have stopped engaging in such things, perhaps they shouldn't have been stalking, harrassing, gaming and teaming me onwiki in the first place. |
|||
In regards to the rest of the proposal, these are my thoughts. |
|||
There is currently [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Community_encouraged|a proposed remedy]] which encourages the community to revisit bans and blocks and the like. If that remedy should pass, [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Proposed_Remedy_12_and_the_sanctioned_editors_from_the_other_side|I have made it be known]] that I have no intention of using that remedy to have my topic ban lifted, eased, or otherwise, until such time as I have demonstrated that I am not a problematic editor. In doing this, I am abiding my the topic ban, and editing on topics outside of the scope of the ban. In the last week or so, I have expanded [[Flag of Bhutan]], [[Air Botswana]], [[Air Malawi]], [[Air Madagascar]] and created [[Albert Sylla]], and am working now on an expansion of [[Royal Tongan Airlines]]. In the near future I will also start rewriting and expanding [[1989 Australian pilots' dispute]] (any Australian will remember this, and the article does not do the event justice as it stands now). Yes, I would like to expand articles such as [[Vietnam Air Service Company]], [[Alyemda]], [[Air Koryo]], etc, but due to the fact these airlines operate/d Soviet/Russian-built aircraft, which would be covered by the topic ban. But as one can see, I am editing other things. |
There is currently [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Community_encouraged|a proposed remedy]] which encourages the community to revisit bans and blocks and the like. If that remedy should pass, [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Proposed_Remedy_12_and_the_sanctioned_editors_from_the_other_side|I have made it be known]] that I have no intention of using that remedy to have my topic ban lifted, eased, or otherwise, until such time as I have demonstrated that I am not a problematic editor. In doing this, I am abiding my the topic ban, and editing on topics outside of the scope of the ban. In the last week or so, I have expanded [[Flag of Bhutan]], [[Air Botswana]], [[Air Malawi]], [[Air Madagascar]] and created [[Albert Sylla]], and am working now on an expansion of [[Royal Tongan Airlines]]. In the near future I will also start rewriting and expanding [[1989 Australian pilots' dispute]] (any Australian will remember this, and the article does not do the event justice as it stands now). Yes, I would like to expand articles such as [[Vietnam Air Service Company]], [[Alyemda]], [[Air Koryo]], etc, but due to the fact these airlines operate/d Soviet/Russian-built aircraft, which would be covered by the topic ban. But as one can see, I am editing other things. |
Revision as of 22:43, 21 October 2009
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago (Talk) & Manning Bartlett (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .
I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg (chat) 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk-issued notices, warnings and enforcement
All editors are strongly advised to observe that proper conduct on these Arbcom will now be subject to severe enforcement. Special attention is brought to the interim ruling by Arbcom for this case concerning speculative and inflammatory comments.
From here onwards any infraction will receive a first and final warning. A second infraction will result in a permanent topic-ban for all Arbcom EEML pages (except when directly instructed to respond by an arbitrator). Any further infractions will result in a block. Such actions can be appealed to Arbcom. Manning (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Notices
- User:Molobo was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
- User:DonaldDuck was unblocked for the purposes of this arbitration case.
Warnings
- User:Biruitorul has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is favourably noted that User:Biruitorul has (via PM) since retracted the statement and apologised for his/her actions. Manning (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:DonaldDuck has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of an inflammatory post which served no purpose other than to criticise another editor. Manning (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thatcher has been issued with a first and final warning for misconduct on these case pages. This was the result of a post which contained inflammatory language. Manning (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Enforcement
Community service: Wikisource
The idea of community service has been raised #Constructive proposals. How about each participant be required to transcribe 500 original pages of text on Wikisource as a form of community service? see s:Special:IndexPages for a list of transcription projects which are already set up. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- An interesting idea. I am not familiar with wikisource, but looking at the index page you linked, would the transcription needed be indicated by the red parts of the bars? Is there a way to parse the index page by language? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm? How does this work exactly? I'm also not familiar with this.radek (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- A How-To would be nice indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- see s:Help:Page Status, s:Help:Side by side image view for proofreading and s:Help:Djvu (and other help pages). Red indicates that the page, with text, exists but it is at OCR quality. Where there is a white background, the page has not been created.
- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are nearly 600 pages that mention Poland; most of them will be OCR quality, however the text for some of them may already exist on the internet, and a copy&paste is all that is required. We can easily set up new transcription projects if required. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll check it out. I think you are on to something interesting here, John. There are a lot of wikignomish tasks on various WMF projects that can be quantified and are in need of attention. On Commons many images are in need of renaming, categorizing ([1], [2]), describing and translating, for example (just see this useful page for a list of tasks to assign). On Wikipedia there are scores of articles in need of project tagging and assessment. There are backlogs of articles tagged with cleanup tags. Perhaps we can try to compare and quantify them, and introduce a system of points. For example, an editor who would be usually sentenced to a 1 month ban could have it be put on suspension in exchange for a pledge that he will do a 1,000-points worth cleanup job within a given period of time. Similarly, he could be awarded points for uncontroversial content creation (community reviewed as DYK/GA/etc.), and deducted points if he is proved to be engaging in disruptive behavior. If accompanied by voluntary restrictions and mentorship this could turn a banned and likely resentful editor into a productive member of the community. A nice idea, John, indeed. PS. John, is there a transcription project for works in Polish language? I have seen many public domain books in Polish on Google Books, I'd happily help to transcribe some notable positions such as works by Zygmunt Gloger ([3]). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- archive.org has many of his works, and Polish Wikisource could use some help. Pick one, and I'll set it up for you. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Polish Wikisource already has some of his works at s:pl:Zygmunt_Gloger, however they are not backed by pagescans, so it would be a simple matter of copy&paste. --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków would be the best one to work on, as it has been scanned by a library without Google watermark on it.[4][5] John Vandenberg (chat) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to work on it. As Radek said, it is an interesting project that if I'd known about in the past, I'd have worked on already :) If we can manage to work this into a more general arbitration principle, for this case in particular and for other cases in general, that would be a great example of a productive arbitration case :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków would be the best one to work on, as it has been scanned by a library without Google watermark on it.[4][5] John Vandenberg (chat) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- s:pl:Indeks:Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków 1.djvu and s:pl:Indeks:Opis ziem zamieszkanych przez Polaków 2.djvu. --John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- s:pl:Specjalna:IndexPages for a list of existing Polish projects. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are over 3000 Polish books to be transcribed. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok - I'm a little bit confused (sorry - like I said, never done this before). Do you mean 'transcribe' or 'proofread' or both? And if it's proofread, the way it works is that I go to say this source [6], click on one of the yellow pages, like this one [7], read and proofread that the text matches up and then change it to green (not sure how yet)? Is that about right?radek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Proofreading and verifying come after transcribing. see the history of s:Page:Old-Time_Recipes_for_Home_Made_Wines_Cordials_and_Liqueurs.djvu/59 - the first edit is transcribing. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would proofreading and transcribing be also acceptable as part of the community service? Should this be done by two (or three) different editors? I can see how our teamwork can be of use here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused but for different reasons. The problem appears to be that a coherent group of editors has abused their status as editors (and an admin) and basically shown that they cannot be trusted to make edits and abide by the rules in good faith and without disruption. So the solution is to put even more faith and trust in their edits? I understand the impulse to give them something useful to do in an area where it is perceived that they will do less harm, but until they have shown that they can be trusted to abide by the rules, I'm completely unclear as to how this will help. csloat (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- On Wikisource it does not matter how much they collaborate; they will not be able to change the glyphs on the printed page. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it will not help, but it does not harm. It otherwise occupies their time, and makes them reconsider doing this again. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Content creation in non-controversial areas (in addition to the above Wikisource stuff) would assist some editors refocus on building the encyclopedia rather than on conflict, which can be addictive to some. 3 months of conflict free contribution would go further in rebuilding confidence rather than a 3 month ban where suspicion and doubt is simply frozen for the duration only to be resumed 3 months down the track when that person returns. --Martintg (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Such bans simply delay the problem for a while. We need innovative solutions to remedy it once and for all, and this looks like one of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Content creation in non-controversial areas (in addition to the above Wikisource stuff) would assist some editors refocus on building the encyclopedia rather than on conflict, which can be addictive to some. 3 months of conflict free contribution would go further in rebuilding confidence rather than a 3 month ban where suspicion and doubt is simply frozen for the duration only to be resumed 3 months down the track when that person returns. --Martintg (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it will not help, but it does not harm. It otherwise occupies their time, and makes them reconsider doing this again. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Like this [8]?radek (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Or this and this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea for most of them, for the ones who might not be that bad and just got wooed in by feelings of fellowship and charisma of the more senior users. If for no other reason, it will be good because it should make it easier for the community to forgive them and let them move on, while at the same time they show their commitment to the project's core aims. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
While it is nice to see so much enthusiasm now, please think about what you are trying to voluntarily subscribe to. 500 pages that is roughly 2MB of text, which is 35hours of work for an average typist. I assume that you are all highly qualified individuals earning some 20+ dollars per hour, so that is roughly 700$ worth of your time, probably more. Playing on Wikipedia battlefield might be fun for you, which you all do not mind to spend your free time on, but I want to see whether you change your mind after first 10 hours of actual tedious work. Are you sure that after 50 pages or so there will be no outcry that it is "too much work" and "too big of a punishment"?(Igny (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC))
- Igny, thanks for the warning. But I don't see doing that kind of work as any different then looking up sources and reffing articles here or going through an article line by line and rewriting to avoid copy vio (as I've done before) - it's just another way to contribute to the project. Note also that I'm just doing it to be helpful.radek (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, some of those sources are pretty interesting to read - how to make tasty liquor (I might actually try out one of those recipies), or about how Germans falsified Polish population statistics in the 19th century ;).radek (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- There was a blog sometime ago about how Wikipedia volunteer work can be similarly seen as worth many millions of dollars. Most of us here are are quite aware that we could be spending our time making $ instead of volunteering here. For some reasons, most of us do so nonetheless. 35h of work? Try to estimate how many hours I've dedicated to this project so far :) And no, Igny, "playing on Wikipedia battleground" is not fun for me. I'd much more gladly write another DYK/GA/FA or transcribe a book for Wikisource then deny I am beating my wife here :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think once the particulars are sorted (or tested out), it'd be a useful idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am ready to start serious wikisource work as soon as the committee gives me an indication that this is the right thing to do... for now, I've transcribed 6 pages at en wikisource and 4 on pl wikisource as the proof of concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to invite editors from both sides of the dispute to try to develop good relations by collaborating on wikisource. Some of us have already started doing that, but we need many more to join! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am ready to start serious wikisource work as soon as the committee gives me an indication that this is the right thing to do... for now, I've transcribed 6 pages at en wikisource and 4 on pl wikisource as the proof of concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- To Igny, I've spent 2x to 3x that $700 to buy sources being misrepresented on WP regarding Transnistria, the Holodomor, and other spheres of Russian interest because they were not even available at the New York Public Library. As for the proposal, I scanned and transcribed all the materials on LATVIANS.COM, with a good deal more in the wings that's not up yet. This is the first truly constructive suggestion I've seen so far out of all of this, I am glad to support this regardless (and also get back to History of Riga). VЄСRUМВА ♪ 01:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I would endorse this proposal, the only problem is that I have never been involved in Wikisource, and I do not know anything about it. Tymek (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems rather easy and fun. Check this out: [9]. Click on one of the red numbers, and try to copyedit the editable text (mostly it involves splitting/merging paragraphs and fixing typos). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose this idea. Sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. "Community service" is by nature punitive, and I don't see how it would prevent any disruption on WP. Offliner (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- If it helps to build the encyclopedia, why not? The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both the spirit and the letter of the rule. --Martintg (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- All punishment deters, and all deterrence contributes to prevention. The preventative/punitive meme is intellectually vacuous. In any case, unless this is incorporated in the remedies, it's purely an optional measure that allows these users to get back in the good books of the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you oppose the blocks than? I think community service is a laudable alternative to blocks, although it may be and probably should be combined with other restrictions (such as the ones I proposed to voluntarily adopt myself). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone had access, anywhere really, to preferably a pubic domain dictionary of some sort to any of the Eastern European countries which might be able to be scanned into Wikisource and maybe translated there, I think that would be a magnificent addition, as the translations might themselves be able to serve as the foundation for articles based on those works in the various wikipedias and other wikis. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Crime and Punishment
Two new projects on English Wikisource:
- s:Index:Crime and Punishment - Garnett - Neilson - 1917.djvu, translated by Constance Garnett with notes by William Allen Neilson; text available from s:Crime and Punishment
- s:Page:Continental Classics Volume XVIII - Mystery Tales.djvu/67 - 1909, translator unknown; text available from
- The Continental Classics, Volume XVIII., Mystery Tales by Various at Project Gutenberg
It would also be good to find a Polish translation which is public domain. There are at least two[10]
Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the list members would like to know what good this is going to do them if they do it. I'm kinda curious myself. What do you envision? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll second Deacon this time. I'd love to dedicate more time to wikibooks, but the distraction and stress generated by this case and threat of ban are somewhat demotivating. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why should they spend a little time improving the Wikisource edition of Crime and Punishment? I thought that it would be self-evident why they should do this particular work.
- Why do any Wikisource work? Because there is no interpretation involved, so they can put there private collaboration skills to good use. I have seen bias and edit wars on Wikibooks; I have not seen them on Wikisource. The only wiki-fights that are possible on Wikisource are about typography, copyright, authenticity, and the short description provided for each work.
- What is in it for them? Less stress for everyone. They could take a self-enforced break from the EE battles here on Wikipedia, and work together to build a collection of EE-related primary sources on Wikisource. Translating primary sources into English, French and Spanish allows other Wikipedians to write about these topics. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Last I heard, Crime and Punishment was written in Russian. While there are surely Polish translations, why is that relevant to enwiki or en.wikisource? Are you suggesting that Piotrus et al contribute to pl.wikisource as a remedy for transgressions on enwiki? It's ok if you are, but please be more clear about it (IMO it sounds a bit bogus). As for OCR corrections, I'm somewhat familiar with work going on in the area and the OCR for those scans (especially the older ones) is really not very good, and there are promising mechanized efforts under way or proposed to improve them. I do think translations contain some interpretation but it's ok as long as long as there is some reasonable consensus process or spot checking. One special case of valuable translations is important works whose originals are in the public domain but for which only non-free, copyrighted translations are available. In that case, translators can work from the orignals, without referring to other translations. Other, independent editors could then check the new translations against existing published (but copyrighted) translations, analogous to clean room design for software, and bring up any anomalies. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Not an original idea
While looking for an email about Wikisource, I came across the following similar proposal in an unread email by user:LA2, who has over 2200 edits on three Wikisource projects (de,en,sv).
“ | People who get carried away by their own feelings, should better
attend to tasks where their feelings matter less. If an otherwise productive user tends to get involved in POV/NPOV fights, perhaps they should try to proofread scanned books in Wikisource instead of writing articles on controversial topics in Wikipedia. All their energy can be better used when the only goal is to get the letters and words right, instead of getting the opinions right. Next time, instead of banning them from Wikipedia, see if you can recruit them to Wikisource. |
” |
— Lars Aronsson, foundation-l, February 6, 2009 |
Topic ban them all indefinitely in article space, but let them comment on the talk pages (i.e. no involvement in consensus process). They can appeal their topic ban when they feel that they have demonstrated a commitment to improving other topical areas. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The things is, I don't think Piotrus has made any truly controversial edits in any articles (some minor controversy - settled through talk page discussion) for at least 8 months. And most of his article space edits are basic grunt work like reffing, classifying, as well as non-controversial article creation (DYKs) and improvement drives for GA and FA. A total topic ban basically puts an end to this aspect of creative work. The community service on Wikisource as an alternative to a topic ban is a good compromise between the two extremes of topic ban and no sanction. And given that Piotrus' sole crime here seems to consists of assuming bad faith on some editors (the "criminal" protection for Battle of Konopta I guess can be seen as the reason for the desysopping - although that's extreme as well) it's an appropriate measure.
- I mean, I'm still waiting for a single example of an article in which Piotrus' actions in the past 8 months were inappropriate; is there an example of edit warring? An example of incivility? An example of BLP violations? Of POV pushing even? There isn't or at least one hasn't been provided by anyone.
- If the concern is over Piotrus assuming bad faith towards others (and I don't think he is anymore - just the opposite, he's reaching out to the "other side" more then anyone else involved in this case) and participating in battlegrounds (though again, which article exactly?) then the desysopping should be sufficient, along perhaps with a short ban from commenting in AE or AN/I discussions on particular editors.
- I still don't understand why a topic ban on articles is appropriate for someone that has not been involved in any article-content controversy for the past 8 months. We do try to make remedies preventative rather then punitive (though that's mostly a fiction we like to tell ourselves - as the proposed remedy for Piotrus demonstrates) - but here is nothing to prevent. Seriously, can someone point to an article and action of the sort that is supposed to be prevented?radek (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merit (or lack of it) of "community service" as an arb remedy, IMHO the wikisource transcription proposal (seems to mean OCR correction of scanned text) isn't a good way to use skilful editors' time. The scans are out there, the text is readable as-is, and there will be better transcriptions eventually through Distributed Proofreaders, integration of recaptcha data, and eventually running newer and more accurate OCR software on the same old scans (there are ongoing plans in this area). One alternative to the transcription proposal (if it doesn't run afoul of the OR policies) is for editors fluent in the relevant languages to obtain interesting non-English source materials (I can think of some to request) and translate them into English. That is a much better use of these editors' intellects than having them do stuff more suited to semi-mechanization. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Even with total scanning mechanization there's still a need for proofreading which needs to be done with human eyes. Though your other suggestion is also good.radek (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Distributed Proofreaders is a fine project, and I encourage people to try both WS and DP. I prefer WS, and I hope it will be able to start feeding etexts to PG soon - several people have already attempted this. I suspect many Wikipedians will find WS more familiar and enjoyable, but it is their choice. WS does include etexts from PG, however we do try to avoid setting up projects which are already in progress at DP. There are enough books in libraries to keep both projects chugging away for decades to come; duplication of effort doesn't help either project.
- See ; the OCR is already very high quality - probably about 10 errors that need to be addressed, usually ligatures or problems that software will not automatically fix for a number of years. After they are fixed, a bit of presentation polish is required, and the page is done. here is one I prepared earlier.
- For languages other than English, and old books with unusual fonts, OCR has a long way to go. Also, manuscripts can only be reliably transcribed by humans, and there is a lot of expertise involved in this. e.g. s:User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Howdy
- I do agree that translations would be a valuable community service, and that is a growing aspect of the Wikisource project.
- John Vandenberg (chat) 03:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- John, I disagree most strongly with this idea. Helping out Wikisource is not helping Wikipedia. Anyone sentenced to "community service" should do their time on Wikipedia. There are millions of articles which have nothing to do with the topics at the root of this dispute, a very large number of which could do with creating, wikifying, illustrating, categorising, expanding or sourcing. Picking a field far beyond the realms of this dispute (Category:Geography of Kerala, Category:History of Thailand, Category:African cinema, blah, blah) as the venue for the community service would help Wikipedia more than work on Wikisource. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please help develop those ideas here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- John, I disagree most strongly with this idea. Helping out Wikisource is not helping Wikipedia. Anyone sentenced to "community service" should do their time on Wikipedia. There are millions of articles which have nothing to do with the topics at the root of this dispute, a very large number of which could do with creating, wikifying, illustrating, categorising, expanding or sourcing. Picking a field far beyond the realms of this dispute (Category:Geography of Kerala, Category:History of Thailand, Category:African cinema, blah, blah) as the venue for the community service would help Wikipedia more than work on Wikisource. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Back to Amnesties and Admonitions are Insufficient
Like anyone else involved for some time on the Wikipedia project, I have made my share of friends and encountered others who would not consider me to be their friend. It goes with the territory. To deny that there is off-wiki communication truly would be "delusional". Of course there is. There is nothing wrong with such communication, but what has transpired here truly puts the project in jeopardy and would make a mockery of its rules and regulations if it is allowed to go unpunished (with a mere wimpy slap on the wrist). The above proposal reminds me of having to write, "I will not be a bad boy," a hundred times on the blackboard (sure beats getting a switch, or expelled). There is no need for me to recapitulate what has occurred here for the benefit of anyone, let alone the members of this ArbCom. The evidence is there, and those guilty should not be able to slough off their guilt, unique in its enormity, with the hope that "this too shall pass". During other attempts to remedy these types of transgressions, and the behavior of some of the participants of the mailing list at previous ArbComs and the like, the arbitrators were unsuccessful only because of the lack of fortitude necessary to correct such transgressions. But regarding these people, this is the "Mother-of All-of-Transgressions" on their part. I have had the misfortune of having read a great number of their correspondence, if one can call it that, as I was one of the earlier recipients of the list. It saddened me to read those particular emails in relation to myself, and their conspiring to have me banned or otherwise "neutralized". I think one of the major tactics was to "ignore" Dr. Dan. Never had a problem with that guys, and I too have done my best to ignore you as well. Until now that is, because while you lied about the cabal being a figment of one's imagination and burbled a lot of euphemistic nonsense about assuming good faith, that was was not the case. All I ask of those capable of remedying this clear violation of what this project is supposed to be about, not to blow this one too. It's not about supposed previous "contributions" to the project, or associations made at Wikimania or the like, it's about reality. This reality is very ugly and will haunt this project in the future if not remedied appropriately. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have they really planned to "ignore" Dr.Dan? Man that's a really diabolical plan, I hope the ArbCom advises them to stop ignoring you at once! Loosmark (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Loosmark, are you just trolling straw man nonsense, or did you really believe Dr Dan claimed to be bothered by cabal members planning to ignore him? If the latter, then reread his comments. If the former, then ... well, you deserve a good trout slapping. ;) Come on, your friends don't really need you to be acting like that atm. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Simple request 2
Umm, this one's related to my previous request - noting that no one on the list was "anti-Russian" but this one is even weirder and more inaccurate: encouraging each other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or Western European point of view.
Uhhh... weren't we just being accused of *representing* the Western point of view? What is this referring to? Where did we say "those damned Western Europeans!"? We used mainstream Eastern *and* Western European sources (sometimes in the face of objections). This one really has me scratching my head.radek (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps a reference to your conflicts with Germans ... But I don't think that you guys will ever be accused of arguing a "Western point of view". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well in the dispute with Skapperod over expulsions I used ... German sources! And for that specific accusation - I believe it's on this very page in several places.radek (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly, you used Molobo as a source and Polish websites Molobo posted on the mailing list, one of them contained a translation of a German scholar which you used selectively resulting in the article being protected because of BLP. (Use of other information from the same source was instantly reverted by you [11], btw). Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uh, no, I did not use Molobo as a source. What, was he published somewhere that I'm not aware of? I found a bunch of German language sources and since I don't speak German I asked Molobo for help with translation (while struggling with my own Babel fish translation).
- Also, please don't misrepresent the fact that you were trying to hide the extreme far right nature and Holocaust-denialism of Heinz Nawratil and that BLP noticeboard completely agreed with me on this. And I reverted your edit simply because you were misrepresenting the source.radek (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly, you used Molobo as a source and Polish websites Molobo posted on the mailing list, one of them contained a translation of a German scholar which you used selectively resulting in the article being protected because of BLP. (Use of other information from the same source was instantly reverted by you [11], btw). Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the statement is not specifically about the sources, but about cultural standpoints. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well in the dispute with Skapperod over expulsions I used ... German sources! And for that specific accusation - I believe it's on this very page in several places.radek (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Coren has already responded here. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Err, I finally understood the question: I just realized I had rewritten this so often I had ended up reversing the sense I intended! Imma go fix this now! — Coren (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!radek (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The way it's formulated now editors like Skapperod and Matthead end up with 'Russian or against the prevalent Western European point of view' position. I don't think it's accurate.
Also, the ML members did not always defend 'prevalent Western European point of view' as could be perceived from current wording (Human rights in Estonia and the Amnesty International report about them come to my mind). Alæxis¿question? 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I also wonder about the oversimplification regarding Russian POV. I'd suggest rephrasing it to indicate that the list members dealt with "perceived undue weight POV"; it doesn't really matter where it came from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thoughts
Being totally unfamiliar with the detailed facts of this case, I would nonetheless like to offer a few impressions:
- We don't (or shouldn't) do retributive punishment on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be applying sanctions because of what people have done in the past, but because of what they might otherwise do in the future (and the good things they will incidentally be prevented from doing ought to come into the equation too).
- In subject areas where strong points of view are prevalent (such as those of different nationalities) the normal editing model breaks down (I'm sure ArbCom doesn't need me to tell them that). Ordinary well-meaning editors tend to be shouted out and lose patience, leaving the POV-pushers to fight it out. There is no effective system for ensuring good content in these cases; the best we can hope for is a truce between sides that isn't biased too far in one direction or the other (but still probably won't be well-written or particularly factual). This is a fault of the system, not of individual editors. Enough cases like this have come to ArbCom by now that surely we can be thinking of ways to repair the system, not continually papering over the cracks by imposing punitive sanctions on individuals and describing them (perversely) as "remedies"?
- Given the system we have, if one group of POV-pushers is allowed to work their stuff, then it's no surprise that editors with opposing POVs work to counter them, even to the extent of coordinating their actions. It might even seem negligent of them not to, given that the system offers no alternative course of action.
I edit in the "Eastern" (Central) European area too, and am quite frequently annoyed by POVers of various nationalities editing to an agenda to the detriment of the encyclopedia (such as by removing places' former names and information about their having belonged to other countries in the past). I haven't been involved in any of the major content disputes that this case seems to be about. But my impression of User:Piotrus has always been extremely positive - unlike some Polish editors, he genuinely strives to improve the content of the encyclopedia and keep POVs out rather than in. He has also made vast and extremely valuable contributions to WP, and continues to do so. I would have hoped that the amnesty (which, following from the above numbered points, I clearly support) would be applied to him first and foremost. Effectively it is proposed (if I understand correctly) that he be excluded from his area of interest at WP for 15 months, which will undoubtedly harm the project significantly, for no visible gain. I don't know the other potential sanctionees so can't offer an opinion there, but would ask the Committee to reconsider the case of Piotrus. If we're in a retributive mood, is the desysopping not sufficient as a punishment?--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I want to second this statement and say that I have always had a good working relationship with User:Piotrus. This whole proceeding dismays me. It's what drives away good editors. --evrik (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Pasting together two parts of your statement: Does the presence of one competent editor justify the absence of those editors who turned away from EE battles managed by this editor? Which evil is lesser? Who will care to improve Franciszek Smuglewicz, for example, if even such benign (and well-researched) topic is a slow-burning minefield? NVO (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're alleging here, or what your point is about this article. I doubt that "battles were managed" by any one editor.--Kotniski (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's the problem with Smuglewicz, other than some anon disruption (solution: request semi-protection)? If there are interested editors here, please keep in mind my offer - I will gladly help you or anybody else improve this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lets see. I figure I can respond to each of those points individually.
- 1. This is not retribution, this is responce to ongoing disruption. What people have done in the past represents what they are likely to do in the future. Poitrus has had previous brushes with the law and each time it gets more damning. This mailing list represents long term commitment to actions the commitee is against and therefore their responce must be commensurate with it.
- 2. The 'System', as flawed as it is, did not make them do anything. They chose their actions, recognised its negative nature, and actively hid it from view. If you want the system improved then you should help improve it, not actively subvert it while waving a flag that says 'I only did it cus the system sucks'.
- 3. So its negligent to not edit war if someone else is doing it? You really think that ones gonna fly? Ever?
If the comittee believes what was in the FoF's are true, then no only has Poitrus actively persued multiple avenues of longterm disruption on wikipedia, but he has also used his position to assist others to do so as well. He was warned in previous cases it would come to this, and now it has. If he is such a good contributor, then he can be a good one in other parts of wikipedia where he can do so without worries of evil russian cabals.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps log in so we know who you are? (Seems courteous if you're going to make potentially defamatory accusations against named editors.) But it seems you - and the Arb who wrote the proposed decisions - are trying to make Piotrus a scapegoat for everything that's been going on. Even through my limited involvement I am quite aware that there is nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, and there always will be if we think that singling out individual editors for punishment counts as a "remedy".--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The case is not closed yet; nowhere near it. If you have evidence in favor of anyone involved, you still have time to present it. "Why do you wonder at me? I gave an onion to a beggar, so I, too, am here. And many here have given only an onion each — only one little onion.... What are all our deeds?" NVO (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't logged in yet, and I really have no intention of doing so. Any potentially defamatory accusations I have made are based on currently voted on FoF's, noting that the accusations only stand if the FoF's are taken as true. As for Piotrus being a scapegoat, the current voting list makes it out more that they are focusing on who they believe is the ringleaders as opposed to hitting the list with a carpet bombing of bannination. Anyone who agrees with that assessment will call it that, anyone who disagrees with it will call it scapegoating. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. As for solving the nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, I am sure Arbcom will be happy to hear your thoughts on how to solve the issue that does not involve either singling out individial editors for punishment and calling it a "remedy" or promoting editwarring as a method to combat nationalist agenda's198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- If we could focus our discussion on that subject, then maybe they would hear all of our thoughts on it, and offer some of their own. Then we might achieve something useful. (But I think it would need a powerful discussion mediator - and all-round change of mindset - to make that happen.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully support the need for some mediation-like post-arbcom proceeding. Remembering past grievances is not helping anyone, we have to move forward (or we will end up here again in few months). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- If we could focus our discussion on that subject, then maybe they would hear all of our thoughts on it, and offer some of their own. Then we might achieve something useful. (But I think it would need a powerful discussion mediator - and all-round change of mindset - to make that happen.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't logged in yet, and I really have no intention of doing so. Any potentially defamatory accusations I have made are based on currently voted on FoF's, noting that the accusations only stand if the FoF's are taken as true. As for Piotrus being a scapegoat, the current voting list makes it out more that they are focusing on who they believe is the ringleaders as opposed to hitting the list with a carpet bombing of bannination. Anyone who agrees with that assessment will call it that, anyone who disagrees with it will call it scapegoating. Po-tay-toe, Po-tah-toe. As for solving the nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, I am sure Arbcom will be happy to hear your thoughts on how to solve the issue that does not involve either singling out individial editors for punishment and calling it a "remedy" or promoting editwarring as a method to combat nationalist agenda's198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The case is not closed yet; nowhere near it. If you have evidence in favor of anyone involved, you still have time to present it. "Why do you wonder at me? I gave an onion to a beggar, so I, too, am here. And many here have given only an onion each — only one little onion.... What are all our deeds?" NVO (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps log in so we know who you are? (Seems courteous if you're going to make potentially defamatory accusations against named editors.) But it seems you - and the Arb who wrote the proposed decisions - are trying to make Piotrus a scapegoat for everything that's been going on. Even through my limited involvement I am quite aware that there is nationalist-motivated disruption going on from all sides, and there always will be if we think that singling out individual editors for punishment counts as a "remedy".--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are precisely this. And I have made it known to the Committee. It is fine and dandy for members of the mailing list coming up with alternative remedies, and rolling out all sorts of character witnesses from wikiproject who are not involved. But the problem is, is that not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong, not a single list member has acknowledged that they have harrassed editors (even though evidence shows this clearly), and not a single list member has yet agreed with a single finding of fact. No, it is a complete denial. In my world, this is how children behave, and children who do such things are sent to their room until such time as they are willing to acknowledge what they did, and apologise. Only then should any of them be allowed to play with the grown ups. And the members of this list are no different. Why not encourage your colleagues to acknowledge what they have done...for this is the first step on the road to regaining an ounce of respect from the community. --Russavia Dialogue 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly encourage everyone who has participated in this warring on whatever side to acknowledge and apologize for their deeds; but more noble and productive still would be for all sides to leave off the mutual accusations and help work out together what needs to be done to stop this type of situation repeating. --Kotniski (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- "not a single member has yet to acknowledge that they did a single thing wrong". Sigh. For evidence of acknowledging of past mistakes, apologies and constructive proposals seek no further than here (and links that lead on from there), for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(Irrelevant comments removed by clerk)
Statement by Petri Krohn
Petri Krohn asked me to post this comment here:
Unrelated contents
5) Most of the mailing list traffic is not material to this case. It consists primarily of friendly banter and discussion such as would normally be found on users' talk pages, or of discussion unrelated to Wikipedia. [12]
From what I see, about 90% is discussion of ways to disrupt Wikipedia. Much of this is off-line coordination of edits. The rest is about constructing software tools to disrupt Wikipedia or harass editors. Some is about attacking real life people or using Wikipedia to attack them.
Very few messages and even fewer threads are pure political commentary. I now ask you, which is the longest thread without conspiracy?
--Dojarca (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can only concur with Petri's assessment of his disputing of the nature of the FoF. Rather it appears to be quite the opposite, little of the list was friendly banter, whereas the majority was nefarious in nature. I would urge Committee members to reject the characterisation as suggested in the proposed FoF, and come up with one which is more to the reality of what we have all read in the archives. --Russavia Dialogue 13:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have not read the list, but think the committee just has a larger threshold than you for 'nefarious'. Idle banter about possibly doing various things don't rise to the level of nefarious unless someone actually does something. Perhaps you should read it as saying 'Most of the mailing list traffic cannot be tied to specific acts of on-wiki distruption and therefore is being treated as idle chatter that is unactionable'. So even if a couple of them were chatting about how they wanted to attack someone (which you would concider nefarious), unless that talk can be tied to a specific action then it was just that, friendly banter between people of like minds. I'm sure you don't like it, and I'm sure you really don't like it being called friendly, but it was friendly for the people who were supposed to read it. And that was not you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're wrong. In this case [13] the ArbCom banned Petri Krohn for a year even without looking at diffs (which were provided by the Cabal members with false descriptions). Petri Krohn by the time did not edit anything related to Estonia for severtal months and even did not know about the ongoing arbitration. He never attacked anybody and never disrupted Wikipedia. This was after Martintg complained that the proposed remedies were "assymetric" (in fact the case was opened after Digwuren traded GA-promitions in IRC with another editor). In the end Digwuren and Petri Krohn who was not guilty of anything (and even was uninvolved but very much hated by the group) were punished equally just as Martintg proposed.--Dojarca (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have not read the list, but think the committee just has a larger threshold than you for 'nefarious'. Idle banter about possibly doing various things don't rise to the level of nefarious unless someone actually does something. Perhaps you should read it as saying 'Most of the mailing list traffic cannot be tied to specific acts of on-wiki distruption and therefore is being treated as idle chatter that is unactionable'. So even if a couple of them were chatting about how they wanted to attack someone (which you would concider nefarious), unless that talk can be tied to a specific action then it was just that, friendly banter between people of like minds. I'm sure you don't like it, and I'm sure you really don't like it being called friendly, but it was friendly for the people who were supposed to read it. And that was not you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I fail to see either your point or what this example even has to do with the discussion. Are you saying because you have one example of conspiricy that every word of every email is part of that conspiracy? Are you prepared to prove the the entirity of the mailing list revolved exclusively around screwing over Petri Krohn? All I'm saying is that its reasonable to assume that even if they were hatching plots on the mailing list, most of it would just be blather, pipe dreams, and pillow talk. Saying Petri got one pulled over on him doesn't rebutt that in any way, shape, or form. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you read the mailing list, you can easily find the announcement of the attempt to banish him from Wikipedia by vote, which finally led to his ban by voting where the majority of voters were the cabal members. Anyway I was just responding to your thesis of supposedly large ArbCom's treshhold for taking harsh action.--Dojarca (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I fail to see either your point or what this example even has to do with the discussion. Are you saying because you have one example of conspiricy that every word of every email is part of that conspiracy? Are you prepared to prove the the entirity of the mailing list revolved exclusively around screwing over Petri Krohn? All I'm saying is that its reasonable to assume that even if they were hatching plots on the mailing list, most of it would just be blather, pipe dreams, and pillow talk. Saying Petri got one pulled over on him doesn't rebutt that in any way, shape, or form. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Petri Krohn was banned by the Arbcom well before the maillist was even created. Can we drop the weird time warping conspiracy theories? --Martintg (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. First time for a year by the ArbCom. As I said two comments before. After your, Martintg, appeal to the ArbCom that the proposed remedies were "assymetrical" and suggested to ban Petri who was completely uninvolved with the case.--Dojarca (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The relevance of this 2007 ArbCom case is? Krohn was banned on the basis of these FoFs, which included making generalized accusations that editors of a particular national or ethnic group were engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies. --Martintg (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble with that one is that we know that this coordination has being going on since 2007. See my evidence. The mailing list may not have started then, but proves that there was a coordinated effort to get some people banned from Wikipedia. Anonimu was named in that discussion. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Paul, the evidence you posted, this single diff where Digwuren discusses and compares Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism is convincing proof that maillist co-ordination existed for years. Simply brilliant detective work. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read my entire comment? I of course referred to the whole thread. Here in Digwuren's own words:" Piotrus might not know the details of mineral composition of eastern Latvian soil, or the detailed history of interwar Estonian spies in Germany, but he knows Ghirlandajo's tricks, and he also knows Soviet history. Building on this shared knowledge, we could pool our resources. On Wikipedia, an actively expressed consensus is more powerful than a silent agreement, and this is a force that can be harnessed to counter WP:TE so loved by worshippes of a certain moustached Georgian." ([14]) - yes, I bolded certain points myself. Is it not obvious that this is what happened? We even have one participant being proud that he created "actively expressed consensus" between Poles and Ukrainians. Come on, why didn't you start your own Wiki, while you were at it?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Paul, the evidence you posted, this single diff where Digwuren discusses and compares Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism is convincing proof that maillist co-ordination existed for years. Simply brilliant detective work. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. First time for a year by the ArbCom. As I said two comments before. After your, Martintg, appeal to the ArbCom that the proposed remedies were "assymetrical" and suggested to ban Petri who was completely uninvolved with the case.--Dojarca (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Petri Krohn was banned by the Arbcom well before the maillist was even created. Can we drop the weird time warping conspiracy theories? --Martintg (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- See this Polish unhelpful coordinated editing - well known. M.K. (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the participants in 2007 ArbCom case that led to Petri Krohn's ban were really Polish socks. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- What M.K. is saying is: "we told you so". And unfortunately, he is 100% right. Clearly suspicious support gathering among Polish Wikipedians (under the heading "Piotrus advocates the use of IM", Tymek gets mentioned, echoes of HG Wells and "The Shape of Things to Come") was, under the good auspices of Ursul pacalit de vulpe, turned into a Polish-Romanian alliance to counter editors seen as pro-russian, pro-lithuanian or pro-german. This old and long since archived discussion on Dc76's talk page is the beginning of the third step. It not only involves more than two nationalities or self-felt identities but an attempt to create artificial consensus, reached off-wiki. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Check the Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#On Wikipedia and the Cabal, third paragraph. Cause and consequence, folks. The mailing list was created as a last resort to deal with disruption that was continuing after several arbcoms failed to put an end to it. The system failed time and again to bring an end to the plague of disruption that affected EE topics. Is it that surprising that after years some editors decided to work outside the system? In hindsight, however, I agree that we should have not done that and instead tried to work with the system even more, by pursuing alternatives like major mediation, dedicated wikiproject/noticeboard and such - which is what I am now advocating here. We need a radically new solution to deal with this mess, or we will be back here - in 2010, 2011, 2012... and banning a few people will not help, as both sides (if we can talk of just two) have demonstrated in the past to have a steady supply of leaders and man-at-arms. Some leave, some are banned, new ones step into their empty shoes. The only way to end this battleground once and for all is to get the sides talking to one another again and assuming good faith. Nothing else will work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Doskonale. Unfortunately, self-fulfilling prophecy has worked both ways. You know very well that at the beginning of my editing here I tried to work together with you and your friends (for neutral parties who have trouble believing that, and I understand you: [15], and the Dutch version of that article). There is no way I would then ever have supported the actions taken by some of the obviously desperate "Russian" editors but now I can see clearly how I was worked into a plaything myself. And I see that you and your people are now, in this very discussion, doing the exactly same thing to User:Pantherskin who should normally be on your side on most of your battlegrounds, but he will not blindly follow you into the kitchen, so ... No, you are not the Borg, and I refuse to be assimilated. Now, you ARE obviously basically a good guy and a (horresco referens) intellectual: how does it feel to have people like Digwuren, Martintg, Sander Säde and Miacek (who links to his blog from his Wikipedia page) on your side, rather than csloat, Pantherskin and Irpen? Please write that wonderful book you could write about Polish history (for third parties: this is NOT sarcasm, on the contrary), drop your adminship and stop participating in secret mailing lists, Gadu Gadu and other off wiki to create an actively expressed consensus. Other Polish editors could then refer to your book on Wikipedia. Csloat is not really disrupting the Wikipedia, life is a beach and poka my zyjemy. Do widzenia. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Check the Wikipedia:Words of wisdom#On Wikipedia and the Cabal, third paragraph. Cause and consequence, folks. The mailing list was created as a last resort to deal with disruption that was continuing after several arbcoms failed to put an end to it. The system failed time and again to bring an end to the plague of disruption that affected EE topics. Is it that surprising that after years some editors decided to work outside the system? In hindsight, however, I agree that we should have not done that and instead tried to work with the system even more, by pursuing alternatives like major mediation, dedicated wikiproject/noticeboard and such - which is what I am now advocating here. We need a radically new solution to deal with this mess, or we will be back here - in 2010, 2011, 2012... and banning a few people will not help, as both sides (if we can talk of just two) have demonstrated in the past to have a steady supply of leaders and man-at-arms. Some leave, some are banned, new ones step into their empty shoes. The only way to end this battleground once and for all is to get the sides talking to one another again and assuming good faith. Nothing else will work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- See this Polish unhelpful coordinated editing - well known. M.K. (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- "I was just responding to your thesis of supposedly large ArbCom's treshhold for taking harsh action." - Dojarca. Ah, I see now. Well, without commenting on how they chose to weight the evidence of the previous case, my point about raising the evidence bar to a higher level on THIS case is related to the unsundry way the evidence was presented to them. They are accepting the mailing list as factual, but are refraining from acting on everything in the list unless backed up by on-wiki evidence. Many people are upset that things on the list that they would concider horrible are being left unanswered for, but unless they want to have everyone and their dog send them haxxored mailing lists they need to keep the level of acceptance to things they can corroborate. For some, especially the ones on the list, its bad enough that they are looking at the list AT ALL let alone concidering handing out bans for something that may or may not even be true. I don't know why they chose to do what they did to Petri, or wether he did or did not deserve it. What I do know is that the mailing list ALONE is not enough damn them. If they said "lets get so-and-so banned today!" and nothing happend on-wiki, then its not a conspiracy, its people sitting around talking. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Any instance of of mailing list coordination has on-wiki consequences. There is plenty of on-wiki evidence both with apparent connection with the list and standing alone. There were numerous ArbCom cases in the past where massive evidence of disruptive on-wiki behavior of the cabal members was shown and most of them resulted in amnesties. This case is unique in that it shows their internal kitchen.--Dojarca (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- While true statements, lets not get too far from the topic here. The past Arb cases and the amnesties have little to do with wether or not the mailing list NOW containg more socialising or more plotting. I'm not saying there isn't evidence of disruption, nor am I claiming their innocence. All I am saying is that I doubt Petri's assesment of the mailing list being 90% disruption, and that Corens assesment that most of it is just people talking is a more reasonable conclusion. I am further stating that its likely the difference of opinion on that matter stems from a greater willingness on Corens part to dismiss things that cannot be directly corroberated into disruption as just talk and a greater willingness of the lists 'enemies' to latch onto things that were just talk and call them disruption. Where does the real line lie? I'm not sure.
- Any instance of of mailing list coordination has on-wiki consequences. There is plenty of on-wiki evidence both with apparent connection with the list and standing alone. There were numerous ArbCom cases in the past where massive evidence of disruptive on-wiki behavior of the cabal members was shown and most of them resulted in amnesties. This case is unique in that it shows their internal kitchen.--Dojarca (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not saying there weren't diamonds in that mine... but most of it was just dirt.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- As you did not read the mailing list, so do not judge about what you've not seen.--Dojarca (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do judge what I have seen. I have seen the noted opinion of a third party who has read the list and I have seen the the opinion of an involved party who has read the list. I find the third parties opinion to be more reasonable while admitting I have not literally seen it myself and providing a reason for that decision. Do you care to provide a reason why I should change my mind other than 'we caught them doing other things so the entire thing must be evil'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- As you did not read the mailing list, so do not judge about what you've not seen.--Dojarca (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not saying there weren't diamonds in that mine... but most of it was just dirt.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Shrug, Dojarca thinks discussing Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18/Multilingual_contests is evidence of seeking support of government bodies in disrupting of Wikipedia --Martintg (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
On the accusations of "artificial consensus"
"(od)" Back to the notion mentioned above of creating "artificial consensus off-wiki". Anyone with the archive, assuming it is mostly legitimate, will see significant differences of opinion expressed quite, shall we say, emphatically. Furthermore, I can categorically state that no one agreed to anything on-wiki that:
- they did not support and
- would not have come across based on their own industriousness.
The events of the current year have not unfolded any differently, editors have not edited any differently, than the previous four, long before the current purveyors of editorial belligerence and attack pages (Offliner, PasswordUsername, and the new activist Russavia) arrived.
Viridtas' conspiracy theory, for example, on how I came to vote "against him" (rather difficult, since I only found out who he was after he attacked me) at a RfC has nothing to do with how I got there: having met an editor (Mosedschurte) on a completely different article (outside ones I had been following) who I felt made good points, and looking to see what other articles he had worked on in order to get a bead on his editorial perspective—and human rights legislation being an area of personal interests for reasons painfully explained to Viriditas and then Hiberniantears (based on PasswordUsername's attacks).
As I don't believe anyone has said this to this point, what these proceedings have inevitably become, by design, based on:
- how it was obtained, I'm sorry, it was not leaked through an act of conscience
- who was given the purported archive and
- how and to whom it was subsequently circulated
- particularly that it was then circulated to the entire Internet with personal information revealed and with no guarantee it was untampered with
is painting the aforementioned purveyors of attacks and belligerence as victims and hopefully eliminate their opposition. The cohorts of editors: Petri, Paul, and many others, who have come out of the woodwork who have pushed their POV in the past and have been thwarted by one or other member(s) of the mailing list (based on fair and accurate representation of reputable sources) over the years, to attend and participate in the eagerly anticipated suerte de matar speaks for itself. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Coren is trying to do right thing
Coren considers people at the both sides as misguided participants of this project rather than hardened criminals who must be exterminated. This is a noble approach. Digwuren and Piotrus appear in sanctions as ringleaders and Martingt as a scapegoat. Indeed, it was Digwuren who created and administered the list and therefore initiated the entire thing. It is also true that only involvement of Piotrus made the entire enterprise legitimate in the eyes of people in the list, not so much through administrator's status of Piotrus as through his authority as an excellent content creator and a friend. Well, maybe he was not such a good friend, since he did not warn others of potential dangers of participating in the list. And maybe he manipulated his friends? Or maybe people wanted to be manipulated and Piotrus simply has excellent leadership skills? Whatever it was, But Piotrus is undeniably the most prolific and neutral content creator in the mailing list. It may be fine to place him on probation and some set of voluntary/involuntary restrictions, but not allowing him editing articles on Poland-related subjects does not serve any purpose.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems I should apologize to anybody whom I might have drawn, purposely or accidentally, into that list, without fully explaining and/or realizing myself the consequences. In hindsight, I should have never supported discussions that could (and some that did) result in real edits; those should have been kept, as much as possible, on Wiki. Now that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe, I expect that all such discussions are moved there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might also like to apologise to the community at large, and to those who you harrassed also. Some priorities and some responsibility taking is long overdue, don't you think? And this doesn't just go for you, but every single one of you who were on the list. --Russavia Dialogue 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have issued my series of apologies already. And whom have I harassed? Diffs please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus -- everyone has read this Piotrus, and yes you blatantly lied on that thread, and actually had the nerve to pull the line that it was everyone else who was libelling/slandering/harrassing other editors on your mailing list. The Arbcom may want to avoid this issue, but I will argue until I blue in the face that they recognise there was a massive harrassment of editors (not only myself) by your mailing list; the rest of the community basically already recognises it. --Russavia Dialogue 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Starting one ANI thread which doesn't even mention your name = my long term and nefarious campaign to harass you. Yes, I wonder why Arbcom is avoiding making this a cornerstone of this case... EOT for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Russavia, please see my talk page for Offliner's harassment, Viriditas' harassment, et al. Not to mention PasswordUsername's contributions in that department as well. Then there is your invective all over the place. Which, apparently, has been rewarded at least to some degree.
- When you were first topic banned and you asked about some of your content under development (e.g., Russia-Australia relations), I was going to suggest I correct a few bits regarding Whitlam's recognition of Soviet sovereignty over the Baltics and that an admin post your article. I was clearly mistaken that there is any ground here for cooperation.
- Please show me where I need to apologize to anyone for "harassing" them. Your incessantly vituperative and combative attitude (shared by Offliner, PasswordUsername, and others) is a prime motivator for why I might wish to discuss topics with other editors in a venue offering peace and tranquility. I attribute the phenomenon of a mailing list not to my "depraved" (per another observer) behavior, but to yours, et al. Your use of these proceedings to berate others, and the apparent indulgence for you to continue to do so, rather disinclines me to apologize to anyone for anything. And so to you and to those who indulge you, you can collectively thank yourselves that I will be deleting the "apology" part of my "going forward" response to these proceedings. I am sure such action will be denounced by yourself and others as proof of Vecrumba's bad faith and recalcitrance. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Vecrumba, works in my userspace are my works, and I will post them in my own time, when I am satisfied that it is complete. Thanks for offering that anyway, but it is not complete, and it can wait until March 2010 when I am able to edit on enwiki again in that area. --Russavia Dialogue 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, your posts on the mailing list provide ample evidence for Russavias claim that you were engaged in harrassment. That you are still denying this makes it rather clear a topic ban is not punitive but preventive. All that even ignoring that your so called series of apologies is in fact a rather meagre collection of excuses (just look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop/Archive#Proposal_by_Piotrus_-_voluntary_restrictions) and counter-accussations. And btw, I am not one of those who would normally support Russavia or any of the other rightly banned "pro-Russian" editors. Pantherskin (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Vecrumba rather proves my point. Makes me really, really confident that things will change in the Eastern Europe topic area. Pantherskin (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop with the thought police arguments. What I wrote on a private list may offend Russavia now - but it was private and never meant to offend him if he hasn't started reading somebody's else private correspondence. If I and you were talking face to face or exchanging emails in which I'd say something uncivil about Russavia, this is not harassing him. WP:HARASSMENT clearly states that it is concerned with on-wiki edits - and such are not present in evidence. EOT for me, till evidence is given that contains some on-wiki diffs. PS. I have no intention of discussing issues such as whether I am still beating my wife. PPS. On the subject of apology, where are the apologies from people reading private correspondence that was not addressed to them? EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Vecrumba rather proves my point. Makes me really, really confident that things will change in the Eastern Europe topic area. Pantherskin (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus -- everyone has read this Piotrus, and yes you blatantly lied on that thread, and actually had the nerve to pull the line that it was everyone else who was libelling/slandering/harrassing other editors on your mailing list. The Arbcom may want to avoid this issue, but I will argue until I blue in the face that they recognise there was a massive harrassment of editors (not only myself) by your mailing list; the rest of the community basically already recognises it. --Russavia Dialogue 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have issued my series of apologies already. And whom have I harassed? Diffs please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might also like to apologise to the community at large, and to those who you harrassed also. Some priorities and some responsibility taking is long overdue, don't you think? And this doesn't just go for you, but every single one of you who were on the list. --Russavia Dialogue 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing people in private correspondence is not harassment, as someone else said somewhere above, discussing pipe dreams, engaging in pillow talk and daydreaming is just that, idle discussion. Whether it consumed 10% of the emails or 100%, it does not matter. What counts is what was translated into on-wiki action, and the only evidence of harassment that Russavia cites is the ANI report discussing his alleged account sharing, which was a legitimate concern that needed to be aired in my view. Whether it is because he is attempting to over compensate for his own conviction for harassing Biophys last year or it is some kind of persecution complex that is driving Russavia to claim he is being harassed, I don't know. But I do know that Piotr did not harass him. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will let Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus and associated evidence speak for itself. You do not have an ounce of credibility on this issue Piotrus; none of your fellow list members do either. And I am afraid to say, that I don't have an ounce of respect nor good faith for a single one of you, so long as you all continue to deny what is clear to everyone else and is written in black and white. Echoing Panterskin, perhaps the 3 month vacation and a 12 month topic ban from the area will give you enough time to reconsider just what you have been responsible for. Now that is EOT. --Russavia Dialogue 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your "Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus" contains no diffs to on-wiki harassment. Piotr has already asked you several times already on this page to provide diffs. None have been provided thus far. --Martintg (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have provided an entire thread of harrassment, which is tied up with emails from the list archive. It's there in black and white. Anyway, I see the harrassment is already covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination so it is being recognised in a proposed finding of fact. The only question remains whether editors are going to continue to deny absolutely everything? Only then can respect and good faith be truly restored and the community in general can move forward. --Russavia Dialogue 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs? Yes, you provided an entire thread claiming harrassment, but you have not provided any diffs to support those claims. If you are offended by reading emails about yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence in the first place. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thats really chutzpa. Russavia provides a thread linking your and others posts the emailing list with diffs on Wikipedia and you come hear and just claim that there are no diffs, no proof, whatsoever. You know as well as me that this is not about you and mailing list members badging about their perceived opponents on Wikipedia, it is about you (yes you, specifically you according to the evidence presented) and other following up, here on Wikipedia. That you (and Piotrus) are denying even the fact that Russavia presented evidence which include diffs (sic!), let alone are willing to acknowledge the wrong you and other mailing list members did and the disruption you caused., all this only allows the conclusion that nothing better will come out of this. Seriously disgusted, Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Diffs? Yes, you provided an entire thread claiming harrassment, but you have not provided any diffs to support those claims. If you are offended by reading emails about yourself, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence in the first place. --Martintg (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have provided an entire thread of harrassment, which is tied up with emails from the list archive. It's there in black and white. Anyway, I see the harrassment is already covered at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination so it is being recognised in a proposed finding of fact. The only question remains whether editors are going to continue to deny absolutely everything? Only then can respect and good faith be truly restored and the community in general can move forward. --Russavia Dialogue 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Your "Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus" contains no diffs to on-wiki harassment. Piotr has already asked you several times already on this page to provide diffs. None have been provided thus far. --Martintg (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will let Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_denial_by_Piotrus and associated evidence speak for itself. You do not have an ounce of credibility on this issue Piotrus; none of your fellow list members do either. And I am afraid to say, that I don't have an ounce of respect nor good faith for a single one of you, so long as you all continue to deny what is clear to everyone else and is written in black and white. Echoing Panterskin, perhaps the 3 month vacation and a 12 month topic ban from the area will give you enough time to reconsider just what you have been responsible for. Now that is EOT. --Russavia Dialogue 19:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Discussing people in private correspondence is not harassment, as someone else said somewhere above, discussing pipe dreams, engaging in pillow talk and daydreaming is just that, idle discussion. Whether it consumed 10% of the emails or 100%, it does not matter. What counts is what was translated into on-wiki action, and the only evidence of harassment that Russavia cites is the ANI report discussing his alleged account sharing, which was a legitimate concern that needed to be aired in my view. Whether it is because he is attempting to over compensate for his own conviction for harassing Biophys last year or it is some kind of persecution complex that is driving Russavia to claim he is being harassed, I don't know. But I do know that Piotr did not harass him. --Martintg (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most people on the both sides should appreciate the generous offer by Coren and just move ahead with content creation, as time allows. But I believe that Piotrus is precisely the person who is best equipped to move the effort in the right direction of creating good content. If he did something wrong (and apparently he did), let him do some good community service to fix/improve whatever needs to be improved.Biophys (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) <<Sigh>> more lecturing. As for proving points, Pantherskin's rush to judgement knowing nothing about me is the real point. For Pantherskin, who pretends he knows anything about me, and to those wish to believe defamatory evidence about me that I stick labels on people I don't like, please feel free to read this interview here. Cedrins, by the way, is probably the best-versed WP editor on the Baltics I know, and by no means a nationalist apologist, and driven away from WP by the incessant attacks of those pushing Russian interests. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- You talk an awful lot about opponents and attacks and extremist editors. Of course you are on the right side, what makes it ok to treat Wikipedia as a battlefield, right? Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Due to the depth of feeling about this issue I have for the most part given considerable leeway on discussions. However this particular thread is now veering into an incivil dispute. This will STOP now. Any further discussion in this thread or on this page which does not directly relate to discussion of the proposed decision will be removed without notice or explanation. Voluntary striking of your own incivil comments would not be a bad idea. Manning (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeking support of government bodies in disruption of Wikipedia
I have added a new section to my evidence, showing that the cabal members attempted to establish contacts with Estonian government and involve them in the mailing list activity. [16]. This has been pointed out by Petri Krohn.--Dojarca (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm, Suva was not even a member of the mailing list, see List membership. So it would have been kinda hard for him to post there, methinks. And once again, what on-wiki action occurred, or just thought crime again? We are not in Soviet Union anymore, Toto. Do realize already that even private discussions involving murder of Jimbo Wales and replacing him with a sockpuppet on a stick is not actionable unless something actually happened on-wiki. --Sander Säde 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Uhm uhm. Since Suva did in fact intervene in the 2007 discussion on the Romanian talk page. So, unless we were to know that he never subscribed to the or a mailing list from the moment it was started up, you cannot say for sure. Of course, this claim is silly (counterproductive too), so that Suva point is moot.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's referring to the fact - this was before I was on the list so I just looked in the archive - that according to the Wikipedia Signpost [17], the Estonian Wiki held a contest for writing Norway related articles, which was supported by the Norwegian Embassy in Estonia. And then somebody suggested that ... brace yourself ... this is going to be awful ... if it was a movie it'd be rated PG-13 so hide your kids ... look at your own risk ... not for the meek ... it's trully an evil cabal at work .... somebody suggested it'd be more useful if those articles were written for the English Wikipedia!!!!!!!!! (This is the "involving Estonian embassy in mailing list activity" that Dojarca is referring to ... oh boy)radek (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
... ... uh ... you ... you might want to fix the heading of this section. If you read the "e" in the last word as a soft Russian "ie" it's sort of ... unintentionally humorous. At least I think it's unintentional.radek (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh! I completely missed the heading. I like this, may we have "Wikiperv", too? --Sander Säde 08:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- It may or may not be relevant that some list members (such as Sander Säde here) edit warred heavily to remove all criticism (by Amnesty International and other sources) from the article of Estonia's secret police, Kaitsepolitsei—an organization which has been called "the political police" of Estonia. [18] Offliner (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(irrelevant discussion removed by clerk)
Don't forget to add my attempt to collude with Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it should fit somewhere in that kitchen sink :D For details see here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Constructive vs. Destructive Proposals
I want to extend on something that has already been said, in particular in Kotnisky’s comment – and that is that the I hope that the ArbCom, in addition to being fair and dispensing “justice”, also considers the impact of the Proposed Decisions on the quality of the Wikipedia project.
Specifically I want to address the proposed 3 month block and the 12 months topic ban for Piotrus which for all practical purposes amounts to a 15 overall month block since Eastern European and Polish articles is pretty much all that he edits (a lot!). In judging the appropriateness of this, the committee should look at how Destructive such a long block will be to the project, and how alternate remedies are going to be Constructive for Wikipedia as a whole.
From all the evidence that’s been presented, it seems that there was only one instance where Piotrus “abused” his admin powers (note that he never unblocked Biophys). He protected the Battle of Konotop article after being alerted to an edit war on the article through the list. But that article in fact SHOULD HAVE been protected and WOULD HAVE been protected had somebody posted a request to Protection/Noticeboard. This can be seen as an inappropriate action by a “involved administrator” but it is about as mild of a transgression as one can imagine with respect to “administrator power abuse”. Especially since Piotrus protected the “other side’s” version!!
Destructive approach
De-sysopping and a 15month block seems like an extremely disproportionate response to such a minor mistake.
And what would the effect of the 15 month block be? Well, without meaning to be dramatic, first, WikiProjectPoland would probably collapse. Piotrus has already asked for anyone else to step up and take care of it while the case is ongoing – but no takers, and it’s doubtful anyone will be willing to fill in this huge gap. And I want to emphasize that this project does not involve any current controversies but mostly a lot of simple but mundane work.
Piotrus’ absence from Wikipedia, given his usual high productivity, will also result in quite a number of articles that will not be written. From what I can tell Piotrus averages about 300 edits in mainspace (all uncontroversial) and about 6 DYKs per month –for the duration of the block that’s about 4500 useful edits and ‘’90’’ DYKs that are not going to be made. And to that you got to add several GAs and a few FAs that are not going to be written either.
I think that makes it obvious how pointless and destructive such a block would be. What benefit is there to this project from loosing all these contributions?
What would the potential benefits of such a block be? Well, Piotrus is not involved in any controversies or edit warring right now nor has he been in the recent past (the few instances that can be called controversies seem to have been worked out through regular talk page discussion) so the answer is … pretty much none. I guess it would “send a message” (although as Kotnisky points out – that’s not how ArbCom decisions should be made) and may partially mollify some of those screaming for blood (but that one should definitely NOT be how ArbCom decisions are made).
Constructive proposals (2)
On the other hand a Constructive proposal would be something like what John Vandenberg made with regard to Wikisource. This would create additional benefits to the project and would be inline with the kind of positive work that Piotrus carries out all the time. Combined with the voluntary restrictions which Piotrus has already proposed here [.] it seems like that would more than adequately deal with any potential problems. Even those who are of the opinion that Piotrus “deserves to be punished” should be able to see that it makes no sense to cut off one’s nose to spite the face.
The arbitors should take the above into account and consider the impact on the project of the proposed punitive and disproportionate ban and block.
--I am not going to respond further in the thread that is likely to develop and will ignore all the usual flames, personal attacks and false accusations that I’m sure will follow. I encourage others to likewise ignore these kind of provocations here.—
radek (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
For what its worth, I think the bans and topic bans should run concurrent, not consecutive. It is unusual for arbcom to hand out anything past a year and I see no reason to change that now. As for losing Poitrus' use as a volunteer, I think it should be taken as a constructive proposal that he focus his good side towards other things (i.e. the topic ban). Yes, project poland will suffer, but wikipedia will be fine. No ban, topic or otherwise, has destroyed wikipedia yet. Assuming he is the great contributor he is, he will improve other areas greatly in need of his eye and I don't see the problem with that. If he can escape the controversy and the mud-slinging, so much the better. The same goes for anyone else topic banned. If you are here to improve wikipedia, then do it and do it anywhere you can. Don't try to dictate terms with it, cus it can live without you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- How can one improve Wikipiedia on topics one is not familiar with? Can a plumber fix an electrical panel? Piotrus is an expert on Polish history and Polish related articles and I don't know any other Polish editor with so much knowledge on the subject and dedication to this project. Just so you know...--Jacurek (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. The standard argument about how indispensable someone is to Wikipedia always make me think of s:The Last Department.--BirgitteSB 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- He seems an intelligent man to me, and I think it would be a service to himself if he researched other topics with such dedication. In fact, wikipedia prefers people who know LESS about a subject to research it and post about it because experts bring O.R. baggage with them while amatures are forced to use sources to back them up. This next bit sounds so cheery and upbeat it makes me want to gag, but he really should use this as an oppertunity to get away from the crap and brush up on something else so as to make himself and wikipedia a better place. Post about fine wines, learn about french cooking, invest yourself in the culture of ming dynasty china, research the construction techniques of Irish castles... all of these things can be done to make yourself a better and more knowledgeable person while helping wikipedia without the stress and mud-slinging. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well 198 and Birgitte, you guys are not flaming but are calmly discussing things (thanks!) so I will actually respond. Yes, of course Wikipedia will survive with Piotrus banned. But the question is whether or not the Wikipedia of 15 months from now will be better or worse than it could have been had Piotrus not been banned, but instead put on parole, allowed to adopt the voluntary restrictions he proposed and made to devote some time to the above mentioned "community service". And the answer to that is that if Piotrus is banned, the Wikipedia of January 2011 will be a much inferior Wikipedia to the one that could've been. Why loose this opportunity? Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
And I want to reiterate; the worst thing that Piotrus did was to semi-protect an article that should have been semi-protected anyway (and he protected the "opposite" version). Piotrus is not involved in any edit wars or controversies and "mud-slinging".
Lastly please remember that ArbCom decisions are NOT meant to be punitive. The impact on the project and its quality however is something that is usually taken into account by the ArbCom.
Thanks for the constructive (yuk yuk) comments guys.radek (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The worst thing Piotrus did was to reinforce the idea that the coordination and battleground mentality was appropriate and encouraged this while maintaining adminship. I don't know what things might be like after the bans any more than I know what they might be like during the voluntary restrictions he proposes. I do know that things can not just go on as they were. I look at Arbcom as an experiment by trial and error to try to make make things better. Not punishment. If I thought any remedies existed that would be particularly effective at stopping only the inappropriate behavior, I would be promoting them. Arbcom obviously took a narrow view of this case; too narrow to really change the larger situation. I would probably like to see more explicit Findings of Facts built on the FoF's from the previous EE Arbcoms which better tracked the history of problematic behavior with regard to everyone involved in the topic area. I don't have a strong opinion either way of the remedies (besides desysoping). I do think this Arbcom decision could to a better job of laying the groundwork for the next EE Arbcom. But maybe next time they will just liberally ban everyone who reappears making detailed investigation unnecessary. If anything really bothers me in the current decision it is the uncertainty of whether some involved in getting amnesty might have gotten amnesty in the past. I wish they would explicitly name who they are giving amnesty to in these things for future reference. Mostly I am ambivalent about it. It seems to be neither the end of the world nor a magic bullet for the EE topic area.--BirgitteSB 02:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Birgitte, actually Piotrus has consistently tried to get editors to voluntarily follow 1RR, reprimanded them not to edit war but instead to focus on content creation and in many cases actually argued for lesser restrictions to be put on folks like Russavia. If anything he has tried very hard to make EE topics less of a battleground - and I think this is reflected in his proposals which seek to promote mediation as well as dialogue between various parties. And these proposals are exactly the kind of remedies that would do a "better job of laying the groundwork for the next EE Arbcom" or in fact, avoid a need for another one in the future.radek (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
{irrelevant comments removed by clerk)
- Piotrus is admitted by everyone to be an excellent editor. I think he does particularly well when he is not working on controversial subjects. He and the encyclopedia would benefit greatly from a year or so of his working on topics not connected with Eastern Europe. I don't see the point of blocking him: what is it supposed to remedy? What is it supposed to prevent? Everything brought up here that needs censure is relating to Eastern Europe, and a good case could be made that having him working elsewhere would improve the prospects of cooperation in that area (I am less familiar with the work of other editors on this topic, but I suspect that this could be said of quite a few of them, of a political and national inclinations.) The topic ban is a good idea--and it needs to be extended enough to make a significant difference, not just postpone the conflicts--I think a year is about the minimum. I think such a ban is much simpler than the complicated arrangements he has proposed. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- DGG, I think Piotrus' proposals are "complicated" because he is trying to be exhaustive and because he is willing to try many different things - since, honestly, no one really knows what kind of arrangement is going to work in this topic area.
- I seriously doubt that Piotrus' absence from EE topics will improve cooperation here - if anything the opposite; do you really think that having Wikipedia go through the "GDansk/Gdanzig Wars" (or proxies of these) or "What was Copernicus' *true* ethnicity Wars" again, as it may very well happen if some unscrupulous persons try to take advantage of this, is going to benefit the project? Even if nothing dramatic like that happens you will have a lot more smaller fires break out, and loose a moderating voice in this topic area - particularly in the Estonia/Soviet disputes in which Piotrus was not very much involved except in calming people down.
- And of course, this still doesn't address the loss of quality articles that would result.
- More generally, sure, one can "stabilize" a particular topic area by banning everyone involved in it, or banning the most active and productive editor in it - but then, who will be left to write the actual encyclopedia? Would this kind of "stabilization" really be worth it, given the great drop in content quality that would result? And a few seconds of thought should make anyone realize that even this "stabilization" is going to be very temporary as various sides replenish their ranks with new, inexperienced and more uncompromising NEW editors.radek (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Note to arbitrators, with special thanks to Coren. It is increasingly disconcerting to see editors, who wouldn’t give a damn for the honest and balanced wiki coverage of the histories and misfortunes of all the Eastern European nations represented in this case, crying wolf about the deeds of Wikipedians who do care. Personally, I don’t see Piotrus as deserving of the proposed punishment. His own proposed restrictions are quite sufficient, considering how extensive they already are. Please take this into consideration. --Poeticbent talk 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, please remove this comment. It appears to be divisive, distracts from the subject at hand, and attempts to bait editors into responding with angry replies. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note - The criteria for inclusion on this discussion page is (a) relevance and (b) no personal attacks. While I agree that this comment *could* be deemed as deliberately provocative, it is otherwise acceptable in regard to the two criteria mentioned.
Why amnesty for web brigade only?
This is something that the Arbs should consider, if they are considering in passing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Amnesty. Why is it that it is being suggested the web brigade get an amnesty for their despicable behaviour, yet those editors who are victims of this despicable behaviour don't have any such remedy or decision for things which could be reasonably assumed to be a result of actions by the web brigade. And I say this as there is absolute denial on the part of the web brigadiers that they did a single thing wrong, and are continuing the line that no-one has presented evidence of any wrongdoing on their part. All we see so far is web brigadiers rushing around on these pages looking for lesser sanctions for team members, and not an ounce of regret, remorse or taking of responsibility. This demonstrates at least to me that these are not the actions of editors who are looking forward, but rather the actions of editors looking to weasel their way out of a situation that they put themselves in thru no doing of anyone but themselves. It is incredulous to me that an amnesty would be considered for such people, but not extending an amnesty to their victims and their self-proclaimed enemies. Anything but a complete amnesty for all editors would be a traversty, and unbecoming of the Committee if they truly are impartial. Hence, the committee should reject the PD relating to this amnesty, or make it more encompassing to include victims of this unremorseful, unregrettful web brigade. Myself, I would prefer that the committee reject it outright, as it is not making editors take responsibility for their actions; past, present, and perhaps more importantly, in the future. --Russavia Dialogue 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because they did the Right Thing by defending the Point of View of Civilized Nations but slightly inaccurate, but you doing bad thing because you protect the evil Russians.--Dojarca (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys, it appears that both camps are taking the draft decision, as it stands now, for granted. It's not. Not even close. Coren wrote it, signed it, but no other arb has spoken publicly. Don't hurry things up, they're brewing. Let the perpetrators excel in their art, just watch them dance, and stay cool (did I already say it?). NVO (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- The weaseling is a correct word for a situation like this. Offering amnesty is a way ArbCom is trying to weasel itself out of an extremely inconvenient situation like this. The arbitrators probably considered different ways to handle this, and any solution would quickly draw criticism from the the affected parties. A harsh punishment like a ban for expressing thoughts freely in an off-wiki channel, or total amnesty for what is perceived as sabotaging Wikipedia? Either way it is going to be heavily criticized, and in some cases it could be criticized (as too harsh/ too lenient) by both sides. Actually the offer of amnesty is precisely what I would expect in return of pleading guilty to the minor charge of non-systemic disruptions of Wikipedia. I consider it possible that some members or most of them did plead guilty to the ArbCom in private messages to accommodate a quick and easy solution in form of an amnesty. But if that is true, ArbCom should insist that members offer a carefully worded public apology to the community, but that may be hard to do in an uncommitted form. And you are right that drafting this decision could be a way for ArbCom to test waters and check what feedback it might get. (Igny (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
- It is easy to issue apoologies especially if there are no remedies proposed. They already issued apologies many times at any arbitration dealing with Eastern Europe, and promised not to do anything wrong. It is their standard weapon to avoid remedies (but they do not apologize if it is not necessary of course, if arbcom gives them what they want without any apologies). Anyway I do not have such high estimation of the Committee as you do to suspect the proposed decision is a psychological trick to test the participants. All previous ArbCom history shows the opposite. You're trying to explain the Committee's actions presuming it's neutrality. That's why your hypothesis that this is only a trick or that the Cabal mermbers apologised secretly. In fact the ArbCom's actions cannot be explained supposing their neutrality, otherwise we would not see here such blatant violations of all Wikipedia's rules starting in 2005.--Dojarca (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The committe is hoping people will independantly review that bans/punishments of the victims/enemies of the list to verify they are correct on their face (see remedy 12). So in a way, amnesty IS being extended to them. Further, take a step back and stop acting like its the end of the world that these people aren't being dragged into town square and beaten to death for their horrible crimes against humanity. There is NO requirement for them to apologise to anyone, there is NO requirement for them 'plead guilty' to anything, and there is no requirement that says they have to accept what you say as fact dispite how much you scream its a smoking gun. Arbcom is not here for justice, and especially not here to placate you.198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Irrelevant discussion deleted by clerk)
- Well my point was that if the email list members were offered an amnesty for a private apology/guilty plea to ArbCom, they do have to give a public apology to the community as the whole, otherwise there will always be someone who would not accept such a solution. But I find it hard to write the public apology without admitting at least some guilt. (Igny (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
- I partly agree with Russavia. Yes, it would be good if Arbcom looked at the evidence with regard to another side (Russavia, Offliner, LokiiT, PasswordUsername and some others) and explicitly stated if they did anything wrong. With regard to other questions, no, I never contacted Arbcom by email, excluding one response to an arbcom member because he asked me a question (long time ago).
Yes, it's really important what people can learn. That's why I started my Evidence section from the apology.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I partly agree with Russavia. Yes, it would be good if Arbcom looked at the evidence with regard to another side (Russavia, Offliner, LokiiT, PasswordUsername and some others) and explicitly stated if they did anything wrong. With regard to other questions, no, I never contacted Arbcom by email, excluding one response to an arbcom member because he asked me a question (long time ago).
It does look ridiculous. Only a few mailing list members will be punished and relatively lightly? Others like Biophys will get away with nothing? Biophys was pretty much proven to be a disruptive user who shamelessly edit wars and pushes his POV. He himself even expected heavy punishment.[19] I can see it now, when this case is over Biophys once again will come out of his "retirement" and continue to do what he has always done (same for the others on the mailing list). -YMB29 (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You concider three month bans followed by a full year topic ban 'light'? Also, if punishment is what your looking for then your barking up the wrong tree. Punishment is not what Arbcom is here for, solving the problem is. Noting that even if you have a low opinion of their ability to solve the problem that doesn't make punishment any more of a requirement. And yes, punishment can be a solution via deterrent, but good leaders offer open hands as well as closed fists. Laying the smackdown whenever anyone steps out of line is part of the system gaming the mailing list is accused of trying to exploit. Arbcom wants to be above that.198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, he is quite right on Biophys. I cannot really agree with his "same for the others", but that does not matter here. Have a look at YMB29's talk page and Biophys' presence there. This for instance [20] claims YMB29 cannot be unblocked because "what happened in June has no bearing on what happened in September" (that seems also to have been the rationale for blocking him). But the very existence of the mailing list means that what happened in June does have bearing on September, since with the mailing list more than one person could stand sentinel at that article (proving there is "intangible" value too to off wiki cooperation), and YMB29 was only one person. Being in constant edit war with YMB29, Biophys even tried to bend the rules by telling YMB29 that he was also under edit restrictions and you can rest assured Biophys has been here long enough and been in enough disputes to know perfectly that that was not the case. The point is that some on arbcom may think that if Biophys and Digwuren retire, why should they be punished, let the system take care of itself, as they say. But history tells us that such people return to the project to disrupt it. Even people who were never "punished" or "admonished" but disappear because they have had enough of the constant strife, come back (not to disrupt it, I hope). By the way, again my apologies to you for being a bit rough in the discussion that was deleted.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The punishment does seem light considering how much violations and disruptions were caused, the histories of the users involved, and the response that was expected by the community (including the mailing list members themselves).
- And how is not handing out punishment to most solving the problem? Again, it will only encourage them to continue what they did. -YMB29 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Request to clerks
Could you please keep discussion here at least on topic of the section titles, if not the Proposed Decision. The Evidence and Workshop talk pages would be more appropriate. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- As per my note above, I have given all of the leeway I am prepared to give and strict topic enforcement in now in operation. If a comment is not directly related to the subject heading then it will be subject to either refactoring or removal. Thread drift is not being tolerated either - if you have a specific point to raise (which had also better be related to the general topic of "Proposed Decision") then create a new subject heading.
- If things are a concern and a clerk does not appear to be around, please alert the clerks-l list clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Manning (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
On Proposed Remedy 12 and the sanctioned editors from the other side
Proposed remedy 12 strikes me as a well-intentioned but also overly optimistic proposal. The idea of leaving it to the community to carry out an objective review is admirable, but I fear that any review will degenerate into an unproductive free-for-all. Mailing list editors (and those who hold similar editorial views) will likely argue that the sanctions were correct and that any baiting doesn't justify whatever response may have been provoked. Hard-line administrators will also reject any justification position, likely supported by those administrators who view themselves as virtually incapable of error. Supporters of those sanctioned will argue that the baiting was extrordinary and highly coordinated, and will probably make all sorts of allusions to how bad the content of the archive is. Uninvolved editors and administrators will either stay as far away as possible, or will hope to help - but will have to wade through the entrenched views and won't have seen the relevant evidence (on the archive) in any case. If you want to allow the community to look at these sanctions and believe that a useful review is possible, please please please at least put a back-up in place. Delegate to the BASC a right to review any sanction at the request of the sanctioned editor. That way, a decision can be made by people who have read the archive and so are in a position to assess the severity and context of any baiting. BASC would also not have the "noise" of barracking from the onlookers and those with vested interests. I believe it would be unfair to the sanctioned editors to not make 100% clear that an objective review of their sanctions is assured. EdChem (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- EdChem, as the case of my own topic ban could clearly be covered by such a remedy, I am not going to be using that remedy as a reason to revisit the topic ban of myself. I would rather my topic ban be revisited as a result of 2 or 3 admins giving their opinion that the topic ban was unwarranted, or too harsh, or whatever the case may be, and then it can be taken to community review, or whatever. I would think such a scenario would help to alleviate the unproductive free-for-all that one fears, and probably knows would occur. In the meantime, I am editing other subjects outside of my topic ban of anything relating to Russia or Russians, and the Soviet Union and its successor states (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, etc), and have been working on articles such as Druk Air and Flag of Bhutan (on front page as DYK now). However, I have hit a snag in that my 5x expansion of Air Botswana at User:Russavia/Botswana may not be eligible for DYK, as I have to omit an aspect of the privatisation process of a Russian businessman rumoured to have been interested in taking a stake via his German airline (he owns the German airline). But that is the type of thing that I think I will be leaving to 2 or 3 admins to address on my behalf at any review. Do you think that such a "certification" by other admins before taking to review could work? --Russavia Dialogue 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't see your response earlier, Russavia. Could it work? Sure - but it may not. My point was that the unbiased review BASC could offer should be a fall back position in the interests of fairness. If the community processes can't disentangle the results of the mailing list participants baiting and barracking (for example), ArbCom should - and they should make 100% clear in the decision that they will. EdChem (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Passwordsharing
Tymek (talk · contribs) has willingly shared the password to his account,...
Let me ask a stupid question: Why? What was the sense of sharing his password? The mailing list members are all well established users, so there is (should be) no reason to use any other account but their own. So again: WHY? I can only imagine two possible answers a) other users should be enabled to use one more vote in any voting or dispute or b) blocked or banned users should be enabled to use a different "unsuspicious" account. It's in fact the invitation to use the account as a sock. There is a policy for such behaviour WP:NOSHARE and WP:sock puppetry#Blocking and both policies have a clear consequence: a) "Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked" and b) "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator". Well, here it's not the usage of a sock, but the incitement to do so, however just saying: don't do this again and take care to find a new password is really ... generous. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Herkus, this is a good question and the answer seems to be "out of momentary stupidity" (sorry, Tymek, it's true). And this is why Tymek is being admonished. It's also why people on the list told him not to do it, that it was a dumb thing to do, and why nobody on the list actually utilized his password/account.radek (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- mmh, a lot of things happen "out of momentary stupidity", however WP:NOSHARE doesn't say.."if the account is effectively used", it's sufficient to share a password, the incitement is as condemnable as the offense. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess here's where the whole preventative versus punitive jazz comes in. The policy you cite refers to blocking as the immediate administrative measure designed simply to stop the situation. Indeed, Tymek was blocked, right in the beginning of this affair when it transpired his account was compromised. And as is customary in such cases, he was unblocked a few days later when he had secured the account again. But I agree the apparent intention would have been to allow sockpuppetry – from the wording of the mailing list post, he is offering that people should use his account "if any of you need my help". The "help" could only realistically be a show of support in some debate, vote or revert war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not familiar with the whole story, I just don't think "don't do this again" is an adequate reaction. I'll leave it to the admins.(P.S.: How can we be sure, nobody used the account as a sock?) HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- We can't, probably, but IIRC the account was checkusered and apparently no edits from other than his normal IP(s) were detected, except for the use of the e-mail function by the person who leaked the archive. Also, Tymek made his announcement on the list in the context of saying he'd be away for holidays, and the account then in fact remained silent during the time he had said he'd be away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- And as I said before, feel free to run a checkuser on myself. I also proposed already that everyone listed as a party in this case (plus a few of those who thought it pertinent to show up and comment) should be checkusered - I'm pretty confident that if any socks are detected they're not going to be those of the list members. Nobody from the "other side" has had any inclination to support this proposal.radek (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've been here since 2005, and it's safe bet that you know how this place works. This means that you also know that per Wikipedia:CheckUser, on the English Wikipedia, such requests are typically declined. So, why do you keep repeating this proposal? Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because this is an ArbCom case, not a typical situation. So, why do you not support the proposal?radek (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Where did I express my support or opposition, and 2) you are inferring that I am a sock puppet. Thanks for that, this is precisely the level of discourse I have come to expect from you and the EE mailing list group. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't - that's why I'm asking why you're not supporting it? And no, I am not "inferring" (I think you mean "implying") that you are a sock puppet. In fact I'll come out and say that I'm pretty certain you're not. I'll also come out and say that I think your whole sole purpose here has been to "get" certain people by accusing them and ... implying ... certain things about them - which is why I'm saying - checkuser all around. You also might be worried because in your heart of hearts you know that if anybody's been sock puppeting here, it ain't anybody on the list.radek (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- And here you've done it again. You've distracted away from the topic of the proposed decision by proposing something that has zero likelihood of occurring and yet, you continue to propose it after this has been pointed out to you. Tell me, Radeksz, what would checkusers "all around" prove if the logs of suspected sock puppets are no longer available to CU's? Of course, you know that as well, which is why you proposed a red herring in the first place. Nice try. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the bad faith. I actually don't think that check user all around would not prove nothing. I think it would prove the opposite of what you and others have been falsely accusing people of. But you're right, at this point, this is becoming irrelevant.radek (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- And here you've done it again. You've distracted away from the topic of the proposed decision by proposing something that has zero likelihood of occurring and yet, you continue to propose it after this has been pointed out to you. Tell me, Radeksz, what would checkusers "all around" prove if the logs of suspected sock puppets are no longer available to CU's? Of course, you know that as well, which is why you proposed a red herring in the first place. Nice try. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't - that's why I'm asking why you're not supporting it? And no, I am not "inferring" (I think you mean "implying") that you are a sock puppet. In fact I'll come out and say that I'm pretty certain you're not. I'll also come out and say that I think your whole sole purpose here has been to "get" certain people by accusing them and ... implying ... certain things about them - which is why I'm saying - checkuser all around. You also might be worried because in your heart of hearts you know that if anybody's been sock puppeting here, it ain't anybody on the list.radek (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Where did I express my support or opposition, and 2) you are inferring that I am a sock puppet. Thanks for that, this is precisely the level of discourse I have come to expect from you and the EE mailing list group. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because this is an ArbCom case, not a typical situation. So, why do you not support the proposal?radek (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Nobody from the "other side" has had any inclination to support this proposal." I actually announced that I was prepared to give my full name, address and local e-mail address and family history and any links to any government to arbcom. Stating that my real address and e-mail address should remain secret outside arbcom. (Yes, I am prepared to mention all the other things on my user page) And I am prepared to authorize a local administrator of Wikipedia to check my birth certificate to see that I am telling the truth. Unfortunately, the administrator here decided to delete that part of the discussion, but it is still in the history. The problem with this email list is of course that it is hard to keep assuming good faith: someone bursts in to have material deleted and then less than a day later, someone makes unnecessary assumptions based on the absence of that material. Cannot you guys see that from now on AGF will always be a problem? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Paul, what are you talking about? The proposal is for a CU all round to see if anyone has used Tymek's account, what has your name, address and local e-mail address and family history and any links to any government got to do with anything? --Martintg (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Voluntary CUs will always be denied. Correctly so, since people will only propose them when they are sure that the IPs will be different, because they went to an internet cafe or whatever. Giving one's real email adress may actually be more interesting. By the way, Radek has answered on my talk page and he does see the connection between the two proposals. When he made that assumption above, he had not yet noticed which side I was on, or whether I was on any side.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Paul, what are you talking about? The proposal is for a CU all round to see if anyone has used Tymek's account, what has your name, address and local e-mail address and family history and any links to any government got to do with anything? --Martintg (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've been here since 2005, and it's safe bet that you know how this place works. This means that you also know that per Wikipedia:CheckUser, on the English Wikipedia, such requests are typically declined. So, why do you keep repeating this proposal? Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not familiar with the whole story, I just don't think "don't do this again" is an adequate reaction. I'll leave it to the admins.(P.S.: How can we be sure, nobody used the account as a sock?) HerkusMonte (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess here's where the whole preventative versus punitive jazz comes in. The policy you cite refers to blocking as the immediate administrative measure designed simply to stop the situation. Indeed, Tymek was blocked, right in the beginning of this affair when it transpired his account was compromised. And as is customary in such cases, he was unblocked a few days later when he had secured the account again. But I agree the apparent intention would have been to allow sockpuppetry – from the wording of the mailing list post, he is offering that people should use his account "if any of you need my help". The "help" could only realistically be a show of support in some debate, vote or revert war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- mmh, a lot of things happen "out of momentary stupidity", however WP:NOSHARE doesn't say.."if the account is effectively used", it's sufficient to share a password, the incitement is as condemnable as the offense. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - Voluntary CU's are not actually forbidden by policy. However AFAIK historically they have always been declined (please correct me if I am wrong). The Arbcom certainly has the authority to order a CU should they believe it is relevant to this case, however that is (by definition) no longer a "Voluntary CU". To my knowledge no CU on Tymek's account has been requested thus far (however please note that I am certainly not privy to all of Arbcom's activities). Manning (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerks, please
The FoF "Disruption", which deals with Martintg, is currently in a sub-heading under the section dealing with "Tymek". Could you fix the heading hierarchy please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry - I couldn't immediately make sense of this. Some links would be appreciated. Manning (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice there were several headings "Disruption". I was talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Disruption_3, currently section 3.2.10.2. It's a sub-section filed under the wrong parent section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- [Noting here as this is the first header relating to the clerks that I could find, and not in response to the above thread:] I consider myself recused as a clerk for matters relating to this arbitration case. AGK 10:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The current solution is a part of the problem
On reflection, this whole remedy system of blocks and bans is actually exacerbating the battleground environment. The multitude of conflicting narratives within the EE space means that this area is prone to conflict, there is no escaping that, and the prospect of gaining the upper hand via blocks and bans is actually working as an incentive to battle. Just to illustrate what a powerful incentive it is, check out this user page with a bottle of Russian Vodka with the link to this case, toasting Skål! in celebration of his "win" at the likely demise of his Polish opponents. Look at the number of AE, ANI and 3RR reports from the all sides, and ofcourse, ArbCom is the ultimate battle ground where all sides can slug it out. We need a new paradigm if progress is to be made. Piotr has some deep experience and insight into the issues, his proposals on possible remedies to break this cycle is worth serious consideration. --Martintg (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, and agreed. My final attempt to untangle this mess is below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Your use of the terms "win" and "his Polish opponents" just shows that you still think that the battleground mentality intrinsic to your mailing list group must necessarily apply equally to who you labeled your enemy. I never chose to be in your battle. I never chose certain editors to be my opponents. Theses editors chose so by categorizing other editors as either potential members of their group, potentially useful idiots or opponents, training and radicalizing themselves on off-wiki platforms, and coordinating drive-by reverts, baiting and other attacks. Not me. And for me, an editors (alleged) nationality never played a role. I wonder how many AE, ANI and 3RR reports would have never happened in the first place without this group and Piotrus' "deep experience and insight into the issues". Certainly not this one, which was the result of Piotrus, Tymek, Radek and Poeticbent reverting content they had no clue about and proxying content of their blocked friend just to harm someone - me. And I second Moreschi's assessment. I am sceptical that having the group draft their own parole and amnesty conditions is the way to go here. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to be complaining that you violated 3RR and ... got away with it (after you launched a massive POV rewrite of several articles on Polish cities to make them into "German town" - and as it happens I do happen to have some clue about Polish cities, thank you very much). And seriously, your use of the Russian vodka bottle along with a toast is ... what exactly? Surely not indicative of battleground mentality intrinsic to your behavior? If you are serious about not "choosing" to be in battle or "choosing" your opponents then please show it by making a constructive proposal rather then the same ol' same ol' "ban my content dispute opponents!" song. Hell, I'll help you - if you want help - with articles on history of Pomerania in the early modern period (medieval is probably another story). Or universities in Alabama. Or think of some other topic that is not likely to result in obvious clashes. Seriously, this is an opportunity to step up and show the community that you mean it (applies to others here as well). Come up with a constructive proposal.radek (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder how many AE, ANI and 3RR reports would have never happened in the first place without this group
And I wonder if we would still have Nawratil or Schieder as reliable sources, Oberlander as quiting with Nazis by 1938 or Conze as reliable historians. I wonder how many AE, ANI and 3RR would there be if people didn't use Nazi sources on Wikipedia from 1934, didn't blank Polish history, didn't disregard 3 times reafirmed consensus on Reliable Sources. You seriously believ that if not for the list, everything would be seen as ok with your edits such as the one where you inserted a book from Nazi Germany as source for Polish-German history ? I might remind you that many of the people you are in dispute with-such as Feeketeve or Woogie were never part of the list.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
On five years of EE conflict, and how to avoid another five
I have had a lot of time to think about recent and not so recent events, and I've distilled my thoughts into the following analysis. I tried to compress my 5+ years of EE experience and several DR proceedings into it, I hope you find it useful.
This is I think the 4th major EE arbcom that I recall, but I know there were some smaller ones as well. The big ones seem to reoccur regularly around fall. There is an English proverb that seems quite applicable here: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." (see also [21])
The enemy here is not "the other side" (and generalization into two sides is a major oversimplification anyway). The enemy here is "us" - all the editors who became involved in EE areas and became radicalized over time. Sure, some are worse than others, but nobody here is a paragon of shining virtue.
What needs to be done to end this vicious cycle of EE arbcoms every year? I for one have enough of them. Yet by myself I cannot end them. Even if I leave the project, nothing will change.
However many sides are out there, they have all proven over they years that they can replenish their ranks. Both leaders and man-at-arms can be banned or leave - but others will step in their shoes and the "battleground" will continue. Those who left only serve the new generations as martyrs - "remember X and Y who were chased off by the others!".
Hence any arbcom remedy that is as crude as a block/ban is futile. Few months will be just a delay, indef means a martyr whose role will be taken up by another, or an infestation of socks. Plus desire to block an opponent one cannot deal with in terms of content creation leads to baiting and wikilawyering mentality, often contributing to the cycle that ends up at arbcom.
Amnesties, warnings, admonishments and their ilk are futile as well. Those warned will think they got off easily and can resume their actions, probably in a more sikrit and organized way. For every person who is scared off, another will step in, and the scared off (reformed) editor will be seen as semi-matryr/coward, and peer pressure will be put on him to rejoin his brethren.
Is there no hope? Not quite. I do think that a new type of solution needs to be implemented, one more complex than "block them all" or "do nothing". Major pieces of the solution puzzle have already been suggested - and this is not the first time they were. In fact, Irpen Alex suggested something akin to what I am suggesting last time... shame his idea was never taken up (I should've supported it more strongly then... if I did... sigh).
What I suggest this time is a several-pronged approach to deradicalize editors:
John's community service idea is also good.
Mediation and collaborative content creation (which should be the goal of it) should reestablish trust between editors, make them see that the other guy is also an editor who wants to help. Mediation should also be combined with mentorship. There should be enough mediators in MedCabal and MedCommittee to step up to deal with a bunch of editors if the Committee asks them (2-3 mediators should be able handle such a large case), and finding a few mentors/coaches (many who could oversee multiple editors) should also be doable.
Noticeboard should eliminate the need for "call to arms" in partisan forums.
Restrictions should penalize editors and limit the chance of further problems. Somebody cannot help but to revert too much? 1RR. Incivil? Civility parole. Looses cool when dealing with editor X? Interaction ban. Looses cool on article Y? Article ban. And so on. Crucially those restrictions should last until mentor/coach/mediator thinks the editors they are overseeing have shown enough good faith and restrain to be allowed to regain their former freedoms. If abused, it should be easy (no red tape) to reinstate restrictions or block them. The editors should know they are watched and will be watched by the community for a long time (there should however be also a watch for those who attempt to bait them, and such editors should be put under severe restrictions as well).
Community service should create a way to penalize editors while teaching them about the project (telling them "this is not what you may want to do but it is what project needs") without turning them away from the project ("you are blocked - we don't want you here") and making them felt betrayed by "the system". Of course it means that blocks and community service should not be combined (editors who refuse to do community service should be blocked, but why not give them a chance to do something constructive first?).
And those who refuse to acknowledge they need to join mediation/take up restrictions/mentorship/community service and so on may end up getting banned. Some people cannot be reformed.
Such restrictions should not only target one side, they should affect all editors involved in the EE issues. To determine who should be affected, lists of editors should be submitted by all parties (but they should not affect editors who were on the administrative fringes of the business, just those involved in content disputes).
This approach has multiple benefits, primarily:
- deradicalized editors can ensure by themselves that the battleground will not reappear, and can later coach and mentor newcomers, turning them not into future warriors, but good editors. Thus the troublemakers are turned into gatekeepers
- experienced editors will not burn out/be forced to leave, but will continue creating content (and this is the primary goal of Wikipedia, after all)
- users who fail to improve under that scheme ("extremists") will still end up banned, but the moderates will be reformed (instead of allowed to radicalize into extremists or chased away)
- obvious but: the EE battleground will finally end
To summarize: blocks/bans and amnesties were tried and failed. If we don't want to see this dramu repeat itself in 2010, 11, 12 and so on, with slowly changing caste but the same set of issues, wasting everyone's time over and over, we need a new paradigm to break the cycle and to deradicalize editors.
The current case can end up as just another EE arbcom, one of many both in the past and future - or as a landmark case that broke that vicious cycle and introduced new innovative methods of dealing with such problems.
Such approach is indeed our best, last hope.
For a more theoretical and hyperlinked version of this see my mini-essay on "Model of mass radicalization and conflict generation".
For your consideration. Please be constructive in your replies, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't this essentially what you have written half a dozen times on various other threads and parts of the case pages? Anyway, without wanting to sound repetitive, the problem as it stands, is that each of the previous Arbitrations have already set out proposals and remedies which would get rid of the battleground conditions in this area of editing, and I note that you have been party to most of them, and had findings of fact mentioning you directly. I argue that the web brigade totally gamed the system and used WP:DIGWUREN as their own tool to eliminate other editors with whom they didn't agree. No-one forced you to participate in the web brigade; no editor, no imaginary USSR cabal, no government, no nothing, made you do this, you did this of your own volition. And you were more than a willing participant. Instead of noting previous Arbcoms, and the outcomes of those Arbcoms, you completely ignored them. Why is now supposed to be any different? Call me cynical, but it is because you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and proven yourself to disregard previous attempts to lessen the b/s in this area of editing, and have only worked to further the b/s. You, yourself wrote, Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. Why should this apply only to those editors which the web brigade were targetting, but not yourself?
- The best hope that this area of editing has is to remove those who have done such things for a period of time, and let other editors sort it out, and then those other editors can come back to the area and show whether they have learnt anything. In regards to proposed remedies against yourself as are currently written, I don't see them as punitive, but rather preventative, given your own previous Arbcom history, and what is obviously your ignoring of those Arbcoms. Yes, proposals such as those proposed by Jayvdb are good, in that they will keep editors away from this project, but such proposals shouldn't be considered as a remedy for actions performed here on enwiki, but rather an option to help editors to change their ways, in order to help them to return to editing. --Russavia Dialogue 22:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(irrelevant comments deleted by clerk)
- Perhaps you should for once not concentrate on "us" but on yourself. If the patient has been having this problem for years, perhaps the doctor should start wondering whether the treatment he is applying is a good one? You have been active as an admin in this "domain" for years now, and of all the people who also write articles you are the oldest survivor. I am going to shock you now: my reference to the Borg was not accidental, I really believe that over the years you have assimilated a lot of contributors here, and turned them into effective warriors. Because the other side could not stay behind - it being the very raison d'être of Wikipedia that one person's POV does not really matter because it will be cancelled out by another contributor's POV - effectively Wikipedia's coverage of Eastern Europe turned into the battleground that it now is. The indirect net result of your treatment of the patient has been that good content creators of Polish material have been scared away from Wikipedia. With the further indirect result that people can now confidently claim that your presence is indispensable, not of course on the grounds that they would then lose their great mentor, but on the grounds that Polish Wikipedia articles would suffer. Sorry, but as I already hinted before: Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła - you are not really indispensable. I suppose you are too young to consider this, but I am not: old age pensioners' rest homes are full of people whom their colleagues considered indispensable. Try it out.
- Do I think you should be blocked? Probably not, because it would not really achieve anything. Reduced to 1RR for a very long time? Certainly. Stripped of adminship for a very long time? Certainly. Topic-blocked, so that you may not interfere in any discussions or articles on East European matter not involving Poland (I am sure Lithuanian editors will not like this one, but perhaps they can construct a compromise that would stop you from intervening in Polish-Lithuanian disputes, like zeroRR or something). Probably.
- Unfortunately, the rest and that is the main part, you will have to do yourself. Stop your involvement in secret off wiki activity directed at influencing the working of Wikipedia (I have no problem with open forums). As for the rest of the mailing list participants, we only hope that the decision will make it clear that secret off wiki collaboration to create artificial consensus and to insinuate anyone who opposes that consensus as fringe (I am not going to repeat all the possible insinuations) is not on and WILL get you punished. If that is not made crystal clear, it will not take much time before other people use this venue. Since you still seem not to see that that is a problem (do not forget the intangible benefits of a mailing list, like reducing the need to sentinel an article in person) I do not expect you to complain about that, but only when the supasikrit Lithuanian Mailing List contacts the supasikrit Russian mailing List. Another self-fulfilling prophesy. Do widzenia.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the subject of Piotrus being indispensable, please look at this comment. We have not found anybody to take up most of what Piotrus does in a single project. Indispensable? Likely not. Very hard to replace? Look at the amount of replies, as there is your answer. Or perhaps WikiProject Poland is not needed any more. Tymek (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not proposing that he should be banned or blocked and part of the reason is that if he continues to think he is indispensable in leading the Polish battle against disruption on Wikipedia, sadly, it will not even matter whether he gets blocked or banned beacuse he will just go on to the next level (yes, I know this makes it sound like Wikipeda is a role-playing game, but unfortunately it is starting to be). If that is what is going to happen, then sorry, but if you want disruption to end, you will have to at least topic ban the entire lot of them, and forget about unbanning any of their victims. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the subject of Piotrus being indispensable, please look at this comment. We have not found anybody to take up most of what Piotrus does in a single project. Indispensable? Likely not. Very hard to replace? Look at the amount of replies, as there is your answer. Or perhaps WikiProject Poland is not needed any more. Tymek (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this page
Clerk note - previously I have attempted to refactor comments in order to preserve what is actually on topic. I have only so many hours in my day however, and my patience is exhausted. Hence now entire threads are getting erased.
I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer, but here goes another attempt.
The purpose of discussion on this page is to assist the arbitrators in developing the proposed decision for this case. All discussion must be relevant to that topic. Long discussions about the purpose of Wikipedia, quotes from Russian songs and general thrashing about add nothing and hence interfere with the job of the arbitrators. Hence I delete it.
So: ALL discussion that is not clearly relevant to the topic of the proposed decision will get erased without so much as a courtesy note. I hope that is a clear enough reiteration.
Hence before you write your latest brilliant expose of "why the other side is wrong", stop and ask yourself, "Is this clearly relevant to the proposed decision?". If not, save yourself some effort, as I will only delete it.
I also reserve the right to delete otherwise relevant material that has been littered with criticism of other users. Stay on topic. Manning (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Manning, my original contribution regarding the "Purpose of Wikipedia" is directly relevant to the Proposed Decision, since most Arbcom cases I have ever seen has such a principle, for example here, and it is lacking in this case. I think this is very important and I ask you to please restore my original contribution. Thanks --Martintg (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note - Marting: I am not entirely convinced your discussion is relevant. However as you are a proposed target of sanctions, it might be inappropriate of me to deny you the chance to completely present your case. Hence I will reinstate your post as a courtesy, but I will not permit further discussion, as I do not regard the thread as entirely relevant. Manning (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Radeksz and Biophys should be prevented from further disruption
I urge the arbitrators to take mesures against at least Radeksz and Biophys as the most active EEML members. They continue their coordinated reverts even during this arbitration [22] which shows that remedies agaist Martitg and Digwuren are not enough. Note also Piotrus presenting himself as an "uninvolved editor" in the RfC already after this case opened.--Dojarca (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note - Your "urging" of the arbitrators is noted and the arbitrators will (no doubt) refer to the extensive evidence already provided in order to make their decisions about who (if anyone) is to receive formal sanction. Just to be clear, the arbitrators are also monitoring the activities on these pages and will draw their own conclusions. No further discussion of this particular topic is needed. Manning (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia
Clerk note - This discussion was originally deleted as being irrelevant. I remain unconvinced of its relevance, however Marting is a potential subject of sanctions in this case and he argued that he has the right to present his case (an argument I find - for the moment - persuasive). Hence I have reinstated the discussion for the benefit of the Arbitrators. Further discussion will be erased or refactored if it fails to be directly relevant to the "Proposed Decision" subject. Manning (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(Original post)
There does not appear to be a "Purpose of Wikipedia" principle in the Proposed Decision. So what is the purpose of Wikipedia? The question is directly related to the role of the ArbCom, whose primary purpose is the protection of Wikipedia. What is Wikipedia? Of course we know it is an encyclopedia, but is is also a social network. The question is: what is the relationship between the two aspects. I guess the answer depends upon whether one is an idealist or a pragmatist. "Idealist" and "pragmatist" is probably not the best terms to describe these outlooks, but I'll use it for convenience. An idealist would see the social network, along with its system of rules, as central to the creation of quality content. A pragmatist would see the creation of content as the central purpose, with the system of rules as subordinate to that goal and the social network aspect is secondary to it.
A pragmatist would examine whether or not this list has had any adverse impact on the quality of the content. They would look at whether the list actually gave any advantage or was it in fact a hindrance to the perceived goals of the list members. This could be done by comparing the rates of Admin notice board outcomes pre and post maillist. AfD participation could be examined to see if a general trend of list members participating in topics outside their area of interest developed (we already have a comparison of the outcome of two AfDs held on the same article, the first while the existence of the maillist was unknown and a second AfD when the existence of the list was made known during the debate). If something was discussed on the list but nothing subsequently happened on-wiki, then that discussion is just irrelevant circle-jerking pillow talk.
To an idealist, on the other hand, a maillist is a direct threat to this social network and its body of implicit and explicit rules. The mere existence of the list is sufficient proof of disruption, regardless of whether there was any material affect on the content itself. Even if it was objectively shown that content was actually improved and on-wiki drama reduced, that does not matter, the existence of the list is an affront to the creed of the social network.
Now some believe that certain forms of private social intercourse is wrong and any perpetrator should be given the most severe sanction in order to suppress and discourage others from engaging in this type of behavior. But it is human nature to communicate. As an analogue, some societies have imposed the most severe penalties for certain forms of sexual intercourse, as a warning to others not to engage in that behavior, lest the social fabric be undermined. However these exemplary sanctions do not suppress social or sexual intercourse, it only drives it further underground. The paradigm of eliminating the person to eliminate problem will not work in the longer term.
That is of course not to say that a functioning social network is unimportant to the creation of content, we all need to be able to work together. Trust is key here. The main damage that I see this list caused was damage to trust. Now banning someone will not repair that trust, but what will restore trust is giving that person an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to furtherance of the goals of Wikipedia (which I trust is to create quality content), for example through mediation, collaborative content creation and voluntary community service, as required.
If the ultimate goal is to discourage private maillists, rather than drive it further underground by imposing heavy sanctions, the progressive view is that the exposure of the list with its embarrassment and loss of reputation is more than sufficient a social sanction. A combination of the acknowledgment of the objective fact that the list was demonstrably ineffectual to influence the outcome of anything anyway (if that was the intent) due to the robustness of wiki-processes, tied with the encouragement to set up a more transparent forum to discuss EE wiki-issues, would do far more to encourage those other unknown maillists to come out of the closet, so to speak. --Martintg (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I believe your definition of pragmatist is too narrow. A pramatist would take more than specific AFD's into account when weighing the lists possible disruptions, specifically I think the coordinating of posting would offend a pragmatist as much as coordinating of AFD votes. The addition of an admin to the accusation makes it even more offensive. A pragmatist would see this as an attempt by the social network to use its rules to undermine the quality of the content to fit the social networks goals.
- I also believe that Arbcom IS following what you call the 'progressive view'. Many on the list are being given another chance, much to the consternation of others on this page. It is still, however, a multi-faceted responce in that who they believe are the 'ringleaders' are being sanctioned. This will (hopefully) have the effect showing that secretive lists will be dealt with commensurate with the disruption they cause, while avoiding pushing others too far 'underground' by not clear-cutting the list members with indiscriminate bans. For some the embarrassment IS enough, but others have exhausted the patience of the community (as represented by Arbcom) and will receive stronger sanction. I almost take it as an affermation of the correctness of their actions that neither side thinks the Remedies are correct. In predictable fashion, one side says its too harsh, the other says its not enough. That sound like its just right to me.
- Oh, and I'm pretty sure the thing about the 'purpose of wikipedia' was just an overlooked convention by the drafter. Yes, most cases open with it. However there is no law stating it must be there. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course WP is an encyclopaedia, as it is one of the pillars of WP:FIVE. But it is WP:NOT a social network; it is rather an environment of collegial editing, and there is a difference here. The brigade mailing list could be construed as a sort of social network, except it stepped over the line in a big way by moving away from being a social network into one which has only gone to further destroy collegial editing on this project, and particularly in an area of which there is contention. And this was done in such a way that it ignored WP standards of conduct and policies. No-one forced list members to join the list; everyone was on the list by their own free will, and it is obvious by reading the archives that list members knew that this was no normal "social network" and that there were goals which needed to be achieved. This is so egregious, that it moves beyond the pale of simply being one which would warrant "community service" (carrot), to one which involves requiring real remedies (stick). And this is especially moreso evident due to the majority of brigade members being involved in several Arb cases in this area of editing in the past, and even moreso due to there still being no self-recognition of list members doing a thing wrong or shouldering an ounce of responsibility. --Russavia Dialogue 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- 198.161.174.222, thanks for your thoughts. Evidently Coren considers me a "ringleader" and that have I exhausted the patience of the community (via ArbCom) such that I should receive a stronger sanction. I hope that other committee members don't share that view. It should be noted that it was found that I had not violated policy in the Eastern European disputes case. The list was created after that case, partly in response to it I suppose. In hind sight the lack of a charter meant that different participants brought their own assumptions to what the list was meant to be, and thus some inappropriate things may have said or suggested; however list members did show restraint to these suggestions. Also I think another flaw was the fact that it wasn't transparent or publicly viewable, I'm sure there have been studies in psychology about lack of accountability in groups leading to a drift in purpose. There is a need for a kind of Wikipedia Review from an EE perspective, and a more public forum has apparently now been created, as the list had clearly failed to live up to that purpose. --Martintg (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note - Marting: as promised, I have given you the opportunity to present your statement and discuss the idea of an additional proposal. However I do not see further discussion of the general "What is Wikipedia" or "What is a legitimate off-wiki discussion forum" topic as relevant, hence I am closing this thread. Feel free to continue the discussion outside of the Arbcom pages.Manning (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Purpose of Wikipedia principle (2)
In an earlier section of this page I also raised the question of a Purpose of Wikipedia principle for the proposed decision. Neither of the responses addressed the point I had raised, and I believe my point was both valid and relevant.
So, I would like to raise it again, and I would really like someone to explain to me why the principles as stated begin with Consensus. In the earlier section, I wrote: if the mailing list has influenced the formation of consensus, disrupted wikipedia processes, and attacked / harrassed / baited editors (all of which are alleged in various parts of the evidence), surely the ultimate motive was to influence the content of the encyclopedia. The logic of begining the principles with consensus escapes me, in that achieving consensus is desirable as a means towards high-quality unbiased content; consensus is not an end in itself.
In other words, surely the fundamental problem flowing from the mailing list participants was not the disruption of consensus formation but rather was the disruption to advancing the purpose of the encyclopedia - namely, content development. That being the case, a statement regarding the importance of consensus is a logical consequence flowing from the purpose of Wikipedia, and the logical structure of the decision should reflect this fact. Please, if my reasoning is flawed, please explain what I am missing. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a very interesting question. I can certainly understand your confusion. My personal observation in this regard is as follows:
- Consensus is one of the the fundamental foundational principles of Wikipedia.
- Therefore, consensus is equated with good content on Wikipedia.
- This is because the fundamental idea of Wikipedia is that the development of a large enough consensus over time will inevitably lead to high-quality content.
- Thus, the interruption or disruption of consensus-building, or the false projection of consensus is equivalent to vandalizing the article page, as it inevitably and directly leads to lower-quality content according to the Wikipedia model.
Just my thoughts... —Finn Casey * * * 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- But what is a "false projection of consensus"? I'd say that meatpuppetry or sockuppetry - voting/discussing simply because one was asked to - would be the answer. But what if editors are not meatpuppets and actually considering the issue before posting/voting? If I send you a wiki @ and ask you join a discussion related Student of Fortune, will I be destroying consensus by not asking you publicly? What if I contact, privately, an off-wiki group discussing Student of Fortune and ask them to join the Wikipedia? The assumption that our email list was disruptive is based on the unproven assumption that its members were meatpuppets and yes man, an assumption to which I strongly object. A good counterproof is the fact that never ever have majority of the group members turned out to support a given point; only in few cases a few members did so and they usually joined with well thought out posts and comments. Further, there is evidence to show that on occasion members of our group disagreed, publicly, with one another. I think this should illustrate well that the accusation of "false projection of consensus" is invalid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Purpose of Wikipedia is important - and simple: to create encyclopedic content. Hence my support for remedies that will allow editors to continue doing so while restricting them from possibly disruptive actions and encouraging them do rebuild trust and good faith with others. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I truly can understand your position. When I first reviewed this case, I was ready to call for heads to roll (metaphorically speaking, of course). And while I am still of the opinion that errors in judgement were made, I am impressed by your apologetic and reasonable demeanor.
Still, I wonder whether a topic ban would really be so terrible — I am sure that an intelligent and competent editor such as you could edit constructively on many other subjects.—Finn Casey * * * 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your toned reply. Let me try to explain why I am arguing against a wide topic ban (please note that I proposed in my voluntary restrictions to avoid subjects related to "modern Russian politics", a major area of contention in this case I have little interest in). A topic ban as currently being discussed would exclude me from all Eastern Europe articles and associated discussions for 15 months. This would entail:
- loss of many tasks I preform for WikiProject Poland and have done so for years (nobody has stepped forward to take up any of them)
- I will not be able to support the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe and its newly established noticeboard which I created to address some issues raised in this arbcom
- Vast majority of content I create and edits I do in EE subjects are uncontroversial (look at my user page, check my random edits from any period) - and I am still waiting for a single diff of a disruptive edit of mine to an article in FoF. In the past month I created several DYKs (see bottom of my userpage), many stubs, copyedited various articles and nowhere was I engaged in any controversy (not to mention disruption). And my last month is not that different from my previous months. If I restrict myself from editing the controversy prone modern Russian politics articles and from certain discpute resolution proceedings in which my input may not be helpful, what's the reason to prevent me from creating stubs on artcles I have planned (see my userpage, red box on the left), GAing Juliusz Słowacki, re-featuring Stanisław Koniecpolski (I'll have limited time access to the books I need for that in December only) or addressing current FARC comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising (1794)/archive1 or GAC comments at Talk:Suwałki_Agreement#GA_Review? In an average year (I've been active in this project for over 5 years) I create 2-3 FAs, twice that many GAs, over 50 DYKs, and I do many other uncontroversial and arguably beneficial EE edits. What good will result from me not being able to carry on those uncontroversial tasks?
- There is also the assumption that I would be as productive contributor to other areas of Wikipedia as I am in Poland-related subjects. This assumption is false: I find Poland-related subjects most interesting, and I very much doubt I could redirect my activity towards other areas (and there is a question of what exactly is related to EE: is the article bridging two of my fields of interest - Poland and sociology - sociology in Poland - violating the topic ban? Probably. Could I expand the article on the most famous Polish sociologist, Florian Znaniecki? I guess not, even through such subjects are as uncontroversial and unlike to create conflict as one can imagine). I assume most editors are here to do edit what they find fun, and if hey cannot do it, they leave (that said, I support the idea of community service as an addition to regular editing of certain editors, including myself). In the end, topic bans are designed to remove editors who cannot stop edit warring and doing disruptive / controversial edits in a given articles. I would prefer to that a different editing restriction is chosen with regards of myself (see Wikipedia:TOPICBAN#Types_of_restrictions and see my proposed voluntary restrictions), ones that would allow me to continue my uncontroversial editing (GAing of Słowacki, reFAing Koniecpolski, and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your toned reply. Let me try to explain why I am arguing against a wide topic ban (please note that I proposed in my voluntary restrictions to avoid subjects related to "modern Russian politics", a major area of contention in this case I have little interest in). A topic ban as currently being discussed would exclude me from all Eastern Europe articles and associated discussions for 15 months. This would entail:
- I am quite persuaded by Piotrus' comments that a ban from all EE related topics may be overly broad. I can really see his point that there are many uncontroversial tasks from which he should not be barred. And I agree that since this is a volunteer project, attempting to prescribe what areas an editor should edit in may be futile. I am becoming convinced that perhaps the fifteen month broadly construed ban may be, from a neutral vantage point, counterproductive. It may be better to consider the more focused alternative that Piotrus has proposed. Nonetheless, I remain disappointed that an experienced editor would not see that some of the things said on the mailing list would be disturbing and upsetting to many neutral editors. —Finn Casey * * * 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Clerks: Thank you for your diligent efforts. This comment is directly relating to the topic of the effectivness of one of the proposed remedies. Therefore it appears to me to be appropriate.)
- Piotrus, you mention on your userpage a list of subjects that interest you. There is plenty of other stuff you can write on. You have misused your admin tools in a dispute in the EE topic also. You also participated in a number of arbitration cases, from which you knew that the operation of the mailing list in the way it was would be disruptive, and you acted towards increasing the battleground conditions in this entire area. One need only look at the AN/I evidence I presented - you post a thread on AN/I in order for editors to further harrass me, you lie about who approached you, and then you call on the web brigade to try and deflect the harrassment. This is classic furthering of the battleground, and it is all related to EE topic areas. And that is just one example. Others have posted more, and the archive is full of such things. As I say, you have other interests, you may just have to edit on those topics for a while...much like I am presently doing. --Russavia Dialogue 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, I consider your topic ban too broad and unfair as well. All of us should take a step back from some controversial modern Russian politics articles, but why should you not be allowed to write about Russian embassies and diplomacy or why should I not be allowed to write on Polish history and literature - this is hard to understand. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus, you mention on your userpage a list of subjects that interest you. There is plenty of other stuff you can write on. You have misused your admin tools in a dispute in the EE topic also. You also participated in a number of arbitration cases, from which you knew that the operation of the mailing list in the way it was would be disruptive, and you acted towards increasing the battleground conditions in this entire area. One need only look at the AN/I evidence I presented - you post a thread on AN/I in order for editors to further harrass me, you lie about who approached you, and then you call on the web brigade to try and deflect the harrassment. This is classic furthering of the battleground, and it is all related to EE topic areas. And that is just one example. Others have posted more, and the archive is full of such things. As I say, you have other interests, you may just have to edit on those topics for a while...much like I am presently doing. --Russavia Dialogue 21:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - enough with the off-topic "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots". Formal warnings are not far away at this rate. Manning (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Finn, thanks for actually responding to my question, though I still think the logical thread is strange. Arbitrators, I remain disappointed that none of you feel willing to offer any comment. I am also disappointed - though not especially surprised - that the comments following Finn's rapidly abandoned any pretence of relevance to the question. EdChem (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A remedy that seems obvious, but is missing
I should think that an obvious step here would be to topic ban the participants of the mailng list from all Eastern European articles, broadly construed. Zapping a couple of the people who were most deeply involved is a good start, but it does nothing to deal with the very large number of people on the list who've also been causing trouble. An amnesty really sends the wrong message here. Jtrainor (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse. Giano (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come on, that's too harsh. There are editors among ML members who could be accused only of knowing what was happening and doing nothing about it. But since apparently one of them eventually disclosed all this stuff even this accusation shouldn't be made imho. Alæxis¿question? 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Failure to report a crime about which one knows - is a crime, and this was an indisputable crime, we are not talking about an odd sock, or an extra vote on FAC, or a little incivility; this was a highly organised mass crime, a crime that deliberatly and willfully influenced the whole encyclopedia, and more importantly its reputation and credibility. Firm, even harsh, precedents need to be set, so that the next case, and there will be one, can be more easily adjudicated. This is a wiki-crime that is new to Arbcom, hard precedents are required, or to put it bluntly, it needs nipping in the bud. Giano (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the sincerity and enthusiasm of all parties. I do wish to note though, that using the term "crime" may be a bit inflammatory. A crime is typically an act punishable by law, and no actions by any party appear to meet this threshold. There certainly do appear to be serious violations of Wikipedia policies, and some parties must therefore be censured on Wikipedia. However, terms such as "highly organized mass crime" seem a bit over-the-top when used regarding a volunteer encyclopedia-writing project. Further, it is my understanding that there are no agreed-upon mandatory reporting provisions for administrators, much less ordinary editors. Thus, there was hardly any precedent for requiring editors to report violations. Editors are volunteers, and proposing to censure them for crimes of omission seems unnecessary. That may be part of the rationale behind the amnesty. —Finn Casey * * * 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the subject of crimes: reading somebody else private correspondence is illegal and thus a crime (details). I will not beat a dead horse regarding possibly illegal way that correspondence was obtain in the first place (hacking) as there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove this theory at this point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are, in fact, beating the dead horse. "Hacking" is a ridiculous red herring and we need to stop bringing it up; arbcom has already made clear that they consider it irrelevant. If you think a "crime" has been committed, report it to the FBI or something -- arbcom is just not the appropriate place for that conversation. csloat (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Failure to report a crime about which one knows - is a crime, and this was an indisputable crime, we are not talking about an odd sock, or an extra vote on FAC, or a little incivility; this was a highly organised mass crime, a crime that deliberatly and willfully influenced the whole encyclopedia, and more importantly its reputation and credibility. Firm, even harsh, precedents need to be set, so that the next case, and there will be one, can be more easily adjudicated. This is a wiki-crime that is new to Arbcom, hard precedents are required, or to put it bluntly, it needs nipping in the bud. Giano (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Come on, that's too harsh. There are editors among ML members who could be accused only of knowing what was happening and doing nothing about it. But since apparently one of them eventually disclosed all this stuff even this accusation shouldn't be made imho. Alæxis¿question? 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- My point is that the 'crime' (as you put it) has been eventually reported. Alæxis¿question? 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if you're a "prolific content creator" and your userpage resembles a trophy case, even the most egregious policy violations can be overlooked or given a slap on the wrist at most. I can only come to this conclusion, having witnessed the ease with which year-long blocks or even perma-bans have been handed out to the less "indispensable" editors. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not really... a "soft" ban is perhaps the most hypocritical punishment (dear Socrates, we don't do lethal injections now, would you mind drinking your stuff voluntarily?) ... and as past cases shoes, it is seldom enforced. Perhaps a forty-eigth month hard block for the soldiers will suffice. NVO (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone who says that my proposed remedy is too harsh hasn't paid attention to all the problems caused by the denizens of the list. And it's not enough for the problem to be reported-- something must be done about it. An amnesty does nothing to prevent these users from simply continuing right on with what they've been doing. A topic ban, on the other hand, removes them root and branch-- they'd have to sock to get around it, and the ones silly enough to do so will presently get caught and dealt with permanently.
Jtrainor (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Such scenario was discussed-it would mean basically eliminating most active editors in FA's DYK's and content creation within Central and Eastern European topics, while leaving many users with heavy POV active. This would create in effect obvious issues.
As to problems-hmm, the list proved rather more place to talk then any actuall action that wouldn't happen anyway. Could you point any problem that the list members created that wouldn't happen without the list discussions ? A wide range bange would be problematic-many list members provide much content and valuable additions to Wikipedia. Also it wouldn't change the problematic nature of those disputes that happen time and time again the area concerned-a more productive solution would be enforcing 1RR rule and strict enforcement of RS and Civility. In previous cases where beginnings of such restrictions were introduced the quality of discussion and beheaviour started to improve.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - More erasure of irrelevant material. As I have said *multiple* times, if discussion veers away from the topic of a specific proposal or it veers onto discussing the conduct of another editor for whatever reason, I get out my eraser. Manning (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- (am I supposed to add stuff above or below a clerk note? o_O) Anyways, the useful contributions of these folks are irrelevant. They've still caused a lot of trouble and I see no reason why something shouldn't be done about them.
- Someone's contributions are never a reason to ignore bad behaviour. I cite the Betacommand precedent-- perhaps an extreme case of "well, we'll give him another chance because he's useful", but it easily shows where such things can lead. Jtrainor (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- JTrainor, if you have evidence of my bad behavior, please participate at Evidence. Sweeping statements such as "Anyways, the useful contributions of these folks are irrelevant. They've still caused a lot of trouble and I see no reason why something shouldn't be done about them." don't do anything to advance the dialog here. 1RR and removing arbitration as a means to control content (6 month trial) and less attempts for proactive administration—which in my view have been disastrous and have contributed to an escalation of belligerence (not to mention that the current EE conflict over history and the current situation particularly regarding Estonia, per the position and rhetoric of the Russian administration, is not solvable)—would go a long way to restoring the uneasy calm which existed prior to the arrivals of Offliner, PasswordUsername, and Russavia abandoning his more constructive activities for overt POV pushing. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 06:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you participated in the list in any fashion, you're guilty, as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned. Either directly, or for allowing this crap to happen without reporting it. It is a fact that many of the list members have been involved in ongoing disruption, meatpuppetry, et cetera. Topic banning them from the area wherein they caused trouble is a logical choice to improve things. Jtrainor (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Whiel your comment certainly seems reasonable and appropriate on the face of it, those familiar with the editors on the list will see that many of the listed Polish editors have actually had a significantly moderating influence on much more extreme Polish editors. By outright banning all the people on the list, we will be creating conditions in which the extremiists, who weren't on the list, will be running wild. This is the equivalent of, say, eliminating the entire police department for systemic taking of bribes or the occasional false imprisonment (or failure to report such by those not directly doing it) as a way to "cut down on crime" when the result of such action will be no more police and thus much more crime due to the total absence of police. It's a complex, delicate situation - how do you punish those who did something wrong and ought to have sanctions, without causing more overall harm to the project? Who will replace the banned moderate editors or pick up the slack when some intervention is needed with the Polish extremists? The solution should somehow be more nuanced than merely a blanket ban on all editors involved on this mailing list.Faustian (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you participated in the list in any fashion, you're guilty, as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned. Either directly, or for allowing this crap to happen without reporting it. It is a fact that many of the list members have been involved in ongoing disruption, meatpuppetry, et cetera. Topic banning them from the area wherein they caused trouble is a logical choice to improve things. Jtrainor (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Missing fof and remedy: Molobo's block evasion and meatpuppetry
Molobo, while blocked for using a sock to evade editing restrictions, continued contributing to wikipedia via meatpuppets Jacurek, Piotrus, Radeksz and Tymek. This needs to be addressed in a fof and a respective remedy. Given Molobo's block log and continuous disobedience to sanctions, one would reasonably expect the remedy to be a permaban.
If it is Arbcom's intention to include this case with the general amnesty for EEML members, there should nevertheless be a fof, and a stated rationale for the exceptional treatment in the remedy section. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note - Skäpperöd, although this largely just repeats evidence already given, I'll begrudgingly let it stand, despite the fact that it definitely has the smell of flamebait about it. I am certain that Arbcom have already looked at Molobo's role closely.
- Molobo/MyMoloboAccount: I don't actually feel a rebuttal is necessary here as nothing new has been stated. If you do make one, keep it calm, highly specific and free of ad hominem elements. Manning (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Mistakes in the Piotrus FOF section?
In this section [23], are there some mistakes in the listing of the relevant emails from the supposed archives?
On 9) Coren lists [20090916-0602] and [20090915-0610]. In the archive I got through Future Perfect there's no email under [20090916-0602]. All I can find on the 16th is Piotrus saying that somebody should be reported for edit warring and that people should observe 1RR. There doesn't appear to be a email under [20090915-0610] either. Is this referring to [20090915-1802] where Piotrus says that he put semi-protection on the Battle of Konotop to stop IP edit warring, rather than reverting himself? (Again, this seems like the perfectly appropriate action - even if it isn't Piotrus protected the "other side's" version)
On 10) Coren lists [20090206-2304] twice - is there a reason for this? There's also no [20090206-2304] in the archive I got through Future Perfect either. Is this supposed to be the one which suggests that Deacon should be de-sysopped?
I'm guessing that [20090216-0055] is actually [20090215-0055] in which Piotrus just says that he has critizied Jehochman in the past (?).
Is there a different archive out there than the one that Future Perfect made available to me, or are these mistakes?radek (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- On the subject of FoFs, it would be nice to see on wiki diffs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Gah. The handling of the timestamps and the quantity of cut and paste needed is error prone and, indeed, errors may have slipped in. I'll cross check my references with my notes and the archive and make needed fixes later today. — Coren (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd particularly appreciate clarification (diffs) regarding Fof10, in particular: "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution". Which articles have I disrupted with my edits? Where have I participated in dispute resolution in bad faith? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- IF you assisted, advised or coordinated list members in disruption or bad faith off-wiki AND they followed through on said advice on-wiki then it is not unreasonable to expect that you would be held accountable for those peoples actions as though you yourself committed them. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Alternate remedies
If the Committee is not already aware of this, I would like to draw their attention to the recently opened RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Plague, which contains a discussion of voluntary Community Service as an alternate remedy. --Martintg (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may draw the Committee's attention to the RfC, but this is why numerous editors objected to this RfC to begin with, as we know it is going to be, and is being, used as an avenue for lobbying for editors outside of this case. Am I the only one who believes it is completely inappropriate for editors to be doing this. --Russavia Dialogue 11:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unhelpful to the RFC, and inappropriate for this case. I don't doubt your intentions, Marting, but really, what made you think this post was a good idea? Rd232 talk 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The Committee may consider its attention firmly undrawn from an RfC that cannot and should not have any practical relevance for this case. Only discussion on this page, right here, should be taken into account. Rd232 talk 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that those alternative remedies are worth considering. Classic remedies like bans and amnesties don't seem to be solving anything. We need a new way of doing things to fix this problem. See my longer comment on that above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers for posting this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Remedies concerning Piotrus
I have mixed feelings about this case. The archive in possession of ArbCom begins in January 2009, but prior to that I was at the receiving end of what appeared to me to be coordinated editing by some members of the mailing list. A part of me would like to see ArbCom "throw the book" at the list members, especially Piotrus, who has always seemed to be their leader.
In February 2009, after nearly two years of editing articles related to Polish-Jewish history, I decided to join WikiProject Poland. As a member, I came to see a different side of Piotrus. Yes, he seems like the leader of the Polish editors on Wikipedia (speaking in broad generalizations), but that's he's the mainstay of the WikiProject. I won't bother listing all the things he does for the WikiProject; he's done a good job here. In addition to Piotrus's work at WikiProject Poland, he is a prolific creator of articles about Poland, the vast majority of which are completely uncontroversial.
Of course nobody here is irreplaceable. As an administrator, Piotrus should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than other editors, and ArbCom may decide that a short ban is appropriate. But I think a topic ban on Piotrus's return—especially one that would run consecutive to his editing ban—would be a tremendous loss to the project. In order to allow Piotrus to continue his work on uncontroversial articles, and his valuable work at WikiProject Poland, I would like to ask that ArbCom consider a 1RR restriction (perhaps 1RR per week) instead of a topic ban. Thank you for your consideration. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- %100 agree with Malik, topic ban would be tremendous loss for WikiProject Poland. ArbCom please consider 1RR per week or whatever but not a topic ban.--Jacurek (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1RR restriction for engaging in meatpuppetry, harrassment, misusing admin tools, and generally bringing WP into disrepute by treating it as a battleground? Yes, Piotrus was an admin, and should know better. However, he is also a participant in several cases for arbitration relating to this area, and he should have known that he was doing the wrong thing by joining this list, particularly as it is evident by reading the archive that treating WP as a battleground in order to enforce the group's POV, and hence a remedy of 1RR is not in my opinion a remedy which takes into account past history of the editor in the controversial areas of this subject. If the remedies as written pass, Piotrus will be able to continue working on uncontroversial articles. He writes on his user page "My interests concentrate around history (including counterfactual history), political sciences, communication, technological singularity, sociology, economics, and finally, as perhaps a bit more trivial a hobby, all things related to good science fiction." He will be able to pick a topic, and edit on it. --Russavia Dialogue 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Rusavia, no offense, but I think that you are just more concern with making sure that Piotrus gets banned here. Let's put "all weapons" aside and be honest now. Piotrus is the most dedicated Polish editor here and WikiProject Poland will suffer a lot if Piotrus gets a ban. Honestly, I'm not saying that because I know Piotrus or anything like that. Any Polish editor will tell you the same thing. It will be VERY hard to find an editor so valuable and so dedicated as Piotrus. I don't even know who would be so "nuts" to spend so much time (FOR FREE!) just to improve Wikipedia. I personally would not, never. But Piotrus is. He contributed very positively to this project and this should be taken into account while judging his misconduct. Thanks for reading Rusavia, hope you understand.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Jacurek, I am more concerned with getting Piotrus (and all list members) to face what they have done, accept responsibility and apologise, just as I have had to do, even though I was seriously harrassed by your web brigade, I still shoulder my responsibility. So far, there has been none of that from the entire web brigade, only blaming everyone else. And sorry, but Piotrus has been disruptive (as have all list members, who seem to be getting a free pass), and he himself said Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. There is no evidence of him having learnt any lesson as yet, as there only seems to be weaselling as much as possible against any accepting of responsibility. Also, we as editors are not here for any WikiProject, but rather as the project as a whole. WikiProject Poland will "survive", and there is nothing stopping any of the users who are getting a free pass, and other editors, to take on some of those things...think of it as your community service. Anyway, all of these "Free Piotrus" threads are getting quite tiresome; all we are missing is a Bob Dylan song for the cause célèbre. --Russavia Dialogue 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- This pointedly includes a restriction on me commenting on you. If you think I've harassed you (with my ANI post that didn't mention you...) and such - fine, your perception is important to me, so here's my proposed guarantee that you'll not have to worry about me again. Now tell me: what problem do yo have with my wanting to spend this and the next month GAing Juliusz Słowacki? Why do you want to see me banned from contributing to Poland-related article so much? PS. And I do enjoy those "Free Piotrus" threads, it's nice to see not everyone thinks I am Enemy of the State #1 :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually Jacurek, I am more concerned with getting Piotrus (and all list members) to face what they have done, accept responsibility and apologise, just as I have had to do, even though I was seriously harrassed by your web brigade, I still shoulder my responsibility. So far, there has been none of that from the entire web brigade, only blaming everyone else. And sorry, but Piotrus has been disruptive (as have all list members, who seem to be getting a free pass), and he himself said Disruptive users should be taught a lesson. There is no evidence of him having learnt any lesson as yet, as there only seems to be weaselling as much as possible against any accepting of responsibility. Also, we as editors are not here for any WikiProject, but rather as the project as a whole. WikiProject Poland will "survive", and there is nothing stopping any of the users who are getting a free pass, and other editors, to take on some of those things...think of it as your community service. Anyway, all of these "Free Piotrus" threads are getting quite tiresome; all we are missing is a Bob Dylan song for the cause célèbre. --Russavia Dialogue 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Rusavia, no offense, but I think that you are just more concern with making sure that Piotrus gets banned here. Let's put "all weapons" aside and be honest now. Piotrus is the most dedicated Polish editor here and WikiProject Poland will suffer a lot if Piotrus gets a ban. Honestly, I'm not saying that because I know Piotrus or anything like that. Any Polish editor will tell you the same thing. It will be VERY hard to find an editor so valuable and so dedicated as Piotrus. I don't even know who would be so "nuts" to spend so much time (FOR FREE!) just to improve Wikipedia. I personally would not, never. But Piotrus is. He contributed very positively to this project and this should be taken into account while judging his misconduct. Thanks for reading Rusavia, hope you understand.--Jacurek (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1RR restriction for engaging in meatpuppetry, harrassment, misusing admin tools, and generally bringing WP into disrepute by treating it as a battleground? Yes, Piotrus was an admin, and should know better. However, he is also a participant in several cases for arbitration relating to this area, and he should have known that he was doing the wrong thing by joining this list, particularly as it is evident by reading the archive that treating WP as a battleground in order to enforce the group's POV, and hence a remedy of 1RR is not in my opinion a remedy which takes into account past history of the editor in the controversial areas of this subject. If the remedies as written pass, Piotrus will be able to continue working on uncontroversial articles. He writes on his user page "My interests concentrate around history (including counterfactual history), political sciences, communication, technological singularity, sociology, economics, and finally, as perhaps a bit more trivial a hobby, all things related to good science fiction." He will be able to pick a topic, and edit on it. --Russavia Dialogue 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Irrelevant comments removed by clerk. DonaldDuck has been issued a conduct warning. All editors in the above thread are advised to tread carefully. As soon I feel the discussion has crossed the line from relevant discussion of the Arbcom case to simple criticism of another editor, action will ensue. Manning (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Malik. The topic ban is unnecessary and does not serve any useful purpose. I feel very bad about this, because many members of the group did not behave any better than Piotrus, but he was selected for the most serious punishment, mostly because he has more enemies and because he was an administrator.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Piotrus is a prolific editor, and this has always been taken into account whenever he was in trouble. Regarding 1RR: 1RR is favorable to us because we have the numbers; Piotrus already implied the strategy of keeping individual reverts low and rather request additional reverts per mail and IM. 1RR does not work with tag teams. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Piotrus promises that he will not edit any controversial articles you are editing (and there are very few such articles), would that be all right?Biophys (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- So your solution is to have the person who conspired to violate the rules voluntarily agree not to conspire to violate the rules again only on the articles where Skapperod also edited? Interesting solution; I wonder how that would work out with crimes in the real world? Shall we ask bank robbers to voluntarily agree not to rob the same bank again rather than imposing prison sentences? What is really disconcerting is that people are discussing amnesty for editors who have not only massively abused the rules but who have not even acknowledged that what they did was wrong and who are basically arguing here for the right to continue to abuse the rules in the future. csloat (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Real life criminals are isolated from society because they represent danger for the society. Isolating Piotrus from EE articles assumes he represents danger for these pages. Not so. Few to none editors made so many positive contributions in this area as Piotrus. Topic ban is simply a wrong remedy. The real problem of Piotrus: he cares too much about the content. It was him who reminded to other members of the list (see emails, I will rephrase): "People, why are you so eager to discuss and flame war? Make good content contributions please because nothing else matters". Telling him: "please edit anything except something you know a lot about" means effectively excluding him from the project.Biophys (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- All the listmembers have shown they are a danger to Wikipedia processes. This isn't about whether they contributed decent words to any particular article. It's about making a mockery of the entire process itself. And you're right - topic ban may be the wrong remedy, as the problems will just move toward other topics; a hard ban of 48 months for all listmembers, as suggested by another user, would make a lot more sense. csloat (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Real life criminals are isolated from society because they represent danger for the society. Isolating Piotrus from EE articles assumes he represents danger for these pages. Not so. Few to none editors made so many positive contributions in this area as Piotrus. Topic ban is simply a wrong remedy. The real problem of Piotrus: he cares too much about the content. It was him who reminded to other members of the list (see emails, I will rephrase): "People, why are you so eager to discuss and flame war? Make good content contributions please because nothing else matters". Telling him: "please edit anything except something you know a lot about" means effectively excluding him from the project.Biophys (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- So your solution is to have the person who conspired to violate the rules voluntarily agree not to conspire to violate the rules again only on the articles where Skapperod also edited? Interesting solution; I wonder how that would work out with crimes in the real world? Shall we ask bank robbers to voluntarily agree not to rob the same bank again rather than imposing prison sentences? What is really disconcerting is that people are discussing amnesty for editors who have not only massively abused the rules but who have not even acknowledged that what they did was wrong and who are basically arguing here for the right to continue to abuse the rules in the future. csloat (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- If Piotrus promises that he will not edit any controversial articles you are editing (and there are very few such articles), would that be all right?Biophys (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that Piotrus is a prolific editor, and this has always been taken into account whenever he was in trouble. Regarding 1RR: 1RR is favorable to us because we have the numbers; Piotrus already implied the strategy of keeping individual reverts low and rather request additional reverts per mail and IM. 1RR does not work with tag teams. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- As an editor well removed from the locus of dispute, I wish to note my support for this proposal too - especially given the admin bit is no longer in question, as he has resigned it. I took him on fairly solidly earlier last year and he was very civil in addressing my concerns and we actually had a pretty reasonable conversation after it. This is genuinely rare amongst those with whom I have been in strong disagreement outside my own project (WP Australia) and a credit to him in my opinion - I had falsely accused him of something as it turned out and after viewing all available evidence had to retract it, and I've been pilloried for much less by others.
- Apart from the incidents considered here, I have seen little evidence in the time since that he has engaged in problematic behaviours. I know all too well that it is possible to get caught up in a "battleground mentality" in controversial spaces and end up with alliances and enemies and so on, especially when there's a group of like-minded editors involved. (Been there, done that - as I'm sure have many other Wikipedians in good standing at some point in their Wikicareer.) Take the group out of the picture and the individual is a quite reasonable and intelligent person capable of doing lots of good here with his knowledge, understanding and skills in the subjects in which he edits. I'm also pleased to see his constructive comments and proposals on this page to try and find a way out of the ongoing EE conflict. Orderinchaos 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to read everything here in detail. I would add that Piotrius (though by no means totally nuetral) is among the more moderate of the Polish editors. My fear is that, due to a topic ban, without his moderating influence some of the more radical/extremist Polish editors will be more likely to run wild. This would be counterproductive to the project. Any decisions should consider this factor IMHO.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, the decision should not consider this factor, true or false. The decision is not about whether there are worse editors out there. The decision is about the processes by which things are done at Wikipedia and a group of editors' collaboration to circumvent (and, indeed, make a mockery of) those processes. The idea that we should put up with a serial abuser of the rules who hasn't even been willing to acknowledge that he has violated them simply because there are other editors out there who are POV-pushers is absurd -- if those others are breaking the rules too let us open cases about them too. csloat (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to read everything here in detail. I would add that Piotrius (though by no means totally nuetral) is among the more moderate of the Polish editors. My fear is that, due to a topic ban, without his moderating influence some of the more radical/extremist Polish editors will be more likely to run wild. This would be counterproductive to the project. Any decisions should consider this factor IMHO.Faustian (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Community encouraged (2)
Since references to the "author of content" are being brandished so often as an argument to not ban or block Piotrus (I have given a different reason for that), perhaps arbcom will also take that into account when re-appraising the blocks of several of the victims of the mailing list (and the unholy alliance that preceded it and existed since 2007). Petri Krohn also was an author of content and actually came to this EE battlefield as a Fin more favourable to the "non-Russian" side. He was one of the last strong defenders of the existence of a Siberian Wikipedia (I once even remarked that with him as its sole sysop, the project could have been saved but of course at the cost of 99% of its contents). He has in the past mediated (no, not covertly, but on talk pages) in edit wars between "Swedish" and "Russian" contirbutors to articles on Russo-Swedish wars. It was the vicious attacks by what was recently revealed as the main ingredient of the mailing list that got him on "the other side" and eventually banned for his exasperation. Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) has made alot of good articles connected with train and subway stations (though in his case, some oversight may be in order to insure that he no longer interprets every criticism from someone he recognizes as "the other side" as an orchestrated attack.
Second point. As for the others that have been mentioned, there is no way Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) or M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs) were victims of the alliance. They should not be given a chance to redeem themselves, which is what I hope will be offered to the others. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If working on wikisource or translations or whatever has been proposed for the mailing list members is good enough for them, I hope arbcom will also envisage it as a manner for the victims of these mailing list members' actions to redeem themselves. If they are really incorrigible POV pushers and nothing else, they will not even consider doing that work. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Kuban Kazak was not a victim of anyone. He was a viciously chauvinist troll, and it's one of my regrets I didn't ban him myself before arbcom had to waste a case over him. Moreschi (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure how any "mailing list" forced Kuban Kazak to fake references to articles he edited and post Stalin pictures on his user page, as well as make threats to hang elected leaders and beat up Wikipedia editors. The idea that the "other side" are all victims is ridiculous. (As far as I remember, the "Siberian Wikipedia" was a huge hoax so I'm not sure defending it is to be commended). --Folantin (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Arbcom should clarify its position on this (see discussion at this page above). If arbitrators have concerns about any specific block, they should vote and say so. Then such block should be re-evaluated at the ANI. But if they are not sure, the block should not be re-evaluated unless the blocking administrator suggests that new evaluation was needed after looking at this case.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus
As Piotrus has been desysopped already, should remedies not be expressed in terms of confirmation of the desysop? Stifle (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - The desysop was a temporary injunction only. Manning (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Committee should modify previous ruling on Piotrus_2 case
Committee in the Piotrus_2 case (later renamed to Eastern European disputes) delivered verdict that There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case. However, due to new evidences such ruling is indeed misleading. New evidences clearly shows that such off-wiki coordination occurred in 2007. Now it is possible to conclude which scenario took place in 2007 as well. Therefore I propose that Committee should modify previous rulings, if not on Piotrus_2 case page, so at least - incorporating appropriate formulation on this case's final ruling. Thank you. M.K. (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- For starters, your "new evidences", violate(s) that big red box that says "Attention:" and has a big exclamation point in a red triangle, and that says "Clerks are instructed to enforce those measures with blocks as necessary", right at the top of the Evidence page.radek (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked ArbCom if it is ok to quote relevant parts, and they did not prohibited so far. So, please stop your wikilawyering. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I'm not wikilawyering. I don't know what you asked or did not ask the ArbCom. All I see is the big red box that says No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s). As an aside, you might want to look at the actual contribution log of myself (hint: there ain't much in it) and some of the other people in 2007 before you start making these accusations.radek (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this is more trying to get on the EE editor bashing wagon. There was no list of any kind in 2007. The fact that so many people (my perception, POV pushers) are convinced there must have been one rather proves that there actually being one didn't make a damned bit of perceptible difference. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course particular list was not established in 2007. But there were ample of other means to coordinate reverts and POV pushing - Gadu Gadu etc, you name it. 2007 events are relevant as they present similar editing pastern and mentality. M.K. (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I said previously - it was yours and others insistence that such a group exists that gave us the idea to form it in the first place :) See also my essay on the subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- So the lesson you drew from this past arbcom case involving you was to form a secret mailing list? That sounds rather like lesson not learned to me. Pantherskin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying it was a correct lesson to learn; it is in fact a lesson I have repudiated several times on those pages and suggested a better lesson to learn - that about the need to rise above petty grievances and rebuild trust and good relations. But since we were discussing why such a lesson was learned in the first place, the argument about the importance of a self-fulfilling prophecy is a part of my answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1. This is the third arbcom case involving you, so I am not sure what to think of your promises. 2. I am tired of hearing claims that you and other take responsibility, and in the next sentence you blame the bad behaviors of others for your own behavior. That is not the way to move on here after such an egregious violation of the community trust. 3. I do not think that the previous rulings should be modified, but I hope that arbcom will take into account the previous cases. They are very instructive indeed, in particular when it comes to evaluating light sanctions (what was tried in the past) and what lessons participants draw from these light sanctions. Pantherskin (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not everything is white and black (it take two to tango, and so on). I agree that the remedies of the past are useless - however you seem to forget the fact that remedies of the past included bans too; those have proven rather ineffective as well, breeding only resentment and martyrs. That's why we need a new solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1. This is the third arbcom case involving you, so I am not sure what to think of your promises. 2. I am tired of hearing claims that you and other take responsibility, and in the next sentence you blame the bad behaviors of others for your own behavior. That is not the way to move on here after such an egregious violation of the community trust. 3. I do not think that the previous rulings should be modified, but I hope that arbcom will take into account the previous cases. They are very instructive indeed, in particular when it comes to evaluating light sanctions (what was tried in the past) and what lessons participants draw from these light sanctions. Pantherskin (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not saying it was a correct lesson to learn; it is in fact a lesson I have repudiated several times on those pages and suggested a better lesson to learn - that about the need to rise above petty grievances and rebuild trust and good relations. But since we were discussing why such a lesson was learned in the first place, the argument about the importance of a self-fulfilling prophecy is a part of my answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- So the lesson you drew from this past arbcom case involving you was to form a secret mailing list? That sounds rather like lesson not learned to me. Pantherskin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course particular list was not established in 2007. But there were ample of other means to coordinate reverts and POV pushing - Gadu Gadu etc, you name it. 2007 events are relevant as they present similar editing pastern and mentality. M.K. (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this is more trying to get on the EE editor bashing wagon. There was no list of any kind in 2007. The fact that so many people (my perception, POV pushers) are convinced there must have been one rather proves that there actually being one didn't make a damned bit of perceptible difference. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I'm not wikilawyering. I don't know what you asked or did not ask the ArbCom. All I see is the big red box that says No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s). As an aside, you might want to look at the actual contribution log of myself (hint: there ain't much in it) and some of the other people in 2007 before you start making these accusations.radek (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I asked ArbCom if it is ok to quote relevant parts, and they did not prohibited so far. So, please stop your wikilawyering. M.K. (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - M.K.: Can you identify which Arbcom member gave you this consent? Alternatively please forward a copy of your communication with Arbcom to me at manningatwpen@gmail.com. As your evidence breaches the specific Arbcom directive on this point, I require proof that you were given an exemption. Manning (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is such a directive against literal quoting still in force at all? After all, Coren himself broke it with his own postings on the workshop page. As long as privacy concerns are handled properly, I really cannot see why it would be okay for the arbs to quote stuff but not the rest of us. I also honestly don't see how close paraphrasing stuff is objectively better than simply quoting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note Yes. Until I am instructed otherwise, I am enforcing this rule. As per the actions of Arbitrators and the interpretation of this rule, you would need to contact Arbcom for a clarification. Manning (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Future Perfect's comments. In addition, I'd like to mention that quoting of emails was allowed in the WP:CAMERA case, despite protests by the members. Offliner (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
@MK, no new evidence was really necessary. There was enough evidence at the time to make the ruling a ridiculous one, but they passed it anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Arbiters make mistakes as well, however this is the proper time and place to finally correct them. M.K. (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Grammar issue
In the remedies which refer to two penalties, the words "consecutive with" are used in 3, 5, 7. This should be either "concurrent with" (i.e. served at same time as) or "consecutive to" (i.e. after the end of). I'm not sure which the framer intended. Orderinchaos 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note I have emailed Arbcom re this matter. Manning (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) BTW good work with the clerking here - it's a job which, if done properly, probably attracts more brickbats than bouquets, and this case is probably one of the more challenging ones. Orderinchaos 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Piotrus Sanction Effectiveness (Uninvolved Comment)
In perusing this case, I was initially prepared to argue for the strictest sanctions against Piotrus & Co. However, I have recently been looking into more detail. My opinion:
- Serious errors in judgement were made by the mailing list members.
- That said, the proposed sanctions on Piotrus may be too harsh.
- Piotrus has persuasively argued that there are many completely uncontroversial ways he contributes to Wikipedia that the proposed broad topic ban would disallow.
- Piotrus has been performing many of the said uncontroversial tasks during this case, at great benefit to the project.
- Thus, the proposed ban should be more tightly focused, as there appears to be no actual benefit to the project in barring Piotrus from the uncontroversial projects.
I am totally uninvolved, having had no contact with any of these editors or topics. I simply wished to offer an opinion to the arbitrators and others regarding the most effective way of promoting our core effort. Thanks, and best wishes to all in your future editing! —Finn Casey * * * 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (Clerks: Clarifying in advance for your convienience - this comment is directly related to the effectiveness of a proposed remedy, and is therefore on topic.)
- Clerk note - indeed it is - well done. I actually give broad latitude for relevance as long as the post is free of incivility or biting criticism. As most will have realised by now, I am particularly harsh on anything I regard as flamebait. Manning (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a standard knot to be untied any time someone with great contributions runs afoul of unrelated issues. How do you stop the bad hand without killing the good one? How do you explain to the persons supporters that the bad behavior must be stopped even if the contributions suffer for it? How do you explain to the persons detractors that you aren't letting that person get away with murder just because of his contributions? It really doesn't help that the only implements at their disposal are brute force banhammers and the 'tightly focused' solutions end up being convoluted clusters of unenforcability. I'm sure certain users with names starting with G could tell you a thing or three about failed and misguided attempts to deal with high profile users with lots of contributions. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are alternative solutions that don't involve nuking everyone or another amnesty. See here and also look at my other proposals on that page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Questions for arbs and clerks
Any newer time frame? Not much posted yet by the Arbs. Also, could we see some explanation about why quotes are not being permitted in the evidence section? Someone has pointed out that they were used in the evidence section of the CAMERA case, not by arbs. Why are direct quotes not preferable? Novickas (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Probably for the same reason why the usual Workshop process wasn't engaged I suppose. --Martintg (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposal wrt Russavia
Ok, let's give this a one more try.
I’ve said before that if Russavia cut out the personal attacks, uncivil commentary, withdrew some of his most egregious false accusations and otherwise displayed a willingness to try and work with the editors he has been in conflict with, I would support weakening the topic ban that he has been placed under. So far I haven’t seen much evidence to that effect but perhaps what it takes is a proactive step from the other side. I have not made any concrete proposals along these lines simply because I felt that in the current atmosphere any kind of positive proposal is likely to be taken in bad faith or as a “sign of weakness”. But what the hey, let’s try again. AGF, one more time.
As I also said before I do have a lot of respect for content creation and editors who work on the meat and potatoes aspect of articles. This is the most fundamental aspect of building an encyclopedia and I do think that too often we forget about this. This has also been the basic reason for why I think the proposed topic ban on Piotrus is extremely wrong and will just be destructive to the aims of this project. In the spirit of the constructive proposals made by Piotrus here, here, and here I think that relaxing Russavia’s topic ban in some specific ways– provided that he does in fact stop the incivility, withdraws the false accusations and hopefully supports the constructive remedies that have been proposed – may work. Here’s specifically how:
Aside from all the "battlin'" that Russavia has engaged in, it is true that he has also been very active in creating and making quality edits on articles relating to the airline industry and diplomatic relations of Russia. Looking over these I think most of them are uncontroversial (and some of them are very well written). A sanction which takes this creative activity into account, while at the same time preventing further disruptive editing on controversial topics, would work better than an all around topic ban.
In particular I think that – again, given some signal of good faith from Russavia – he should be allowed to continue to create new articles, even if these would normally fall under the topic ban that has been imposed on him. For example, here [24] Russavia mentions that he would like to expand the article on Air Botswana with information relating to Russia but is unable to do so because of his topic ban. I fully understand the frustration that this entails. And as long as there’s no monkey business involved (i.e. gaming the topic ban to push POV) there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why he shouldn’t.
The basic proposal here is that Russavia’s topic ban be relaxed to allow him to create new articles relating to the airline industry and Russian diplomatic missions, subject to some kind of mentorship or over sight. The mentorship is required to make sure that the relaxation of the topic ban isn’t used as a way to game the topic ban and engage in disruptive POV pushing (like recent "topic ban fence hugging" at the DYK page with Colonies of Poland). But, giving AGF with respect to Russavia one more chance, I don’t think this will be a problem.
Since Sandstein is the one who originally placed the topic ban on Russavia, he might be the appropriate person to oversee this relaxation of the restriction and act as a mentor. Of course, if Sandstein is not interested in this, which would not be surprising given the abuse he’s been subject to, another admin could probably be found.
I hope that Russavia responds positively to this and in good faith and supports other constructive proposals which would likewise allow other editors to continue with their content creation.radek (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Before I respond to anything, you state above that I should withdraw false accusations. Could I ask what false accusations you are talking about? --Russavia Dialogue 09:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- In all sincerity, if I respond to this and explain, we're gonna get bogged down in an argument as to whether these accusations are false or not. That's not the point here. What do you think of the proposal generally?radek (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Was Russavia a member of the list? If not, this proposal should probably be discussed elsewhere. csloat (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Russavia was not a member of the list, but is one of the lists most vocal detractors. Reaching out to people like him is an effective way of showing that list members can and are taking steps to reform from previous behavior. It could go elsewhere, but I think the list members (rightly) feel the need to ensure that the Arbs see their attempts. Plus, everyone is here with bated breath looking for updates. Trying to drag them elsewhere to discuss moving forward before this case officially closes would be like herding cats. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Was Russavia a member of the list? If not, this proposal should probably be discussed elsewhere. csloat (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- In all sincerity, if I respond to this and explain, we're gonna get bogged down in an argument as to whether these accusations are false or not. That's not the point here. What do you think of the proposal generally?radek (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Before I respond to anything, you state above that I should withdraw false accusations. Could I ask what false accusations you are talking about? --Russavia Dialogue 09:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a proposed remedy which encourages the community to revisit bans and blocks and the like. If that remedy should pass, I have made it be known that I have no intention of using that remedy to have my topic ban lifted, eased, or otherwise, until such time as I have demonstrated that I am not a problematic editor. In doing this, I am abiding my the topic ban, and editing on topics outside of the scope of the ban. In the last week or so, I have expanded Flag of Bhutan, Air Botswana, Air Malawi, Air Madagascar and created Albert Sylla, and am working now on an expansion of Royal Tongan Airlines. In the near future I will also start rewriting and expanding 1989 Australian pilots' dispute (any Australian will remember this, and the article does not do the event justice as it stands now). Yes, I would like to expand articles such as Vietnam Air Service Company, Alyemda, Air Koryo, etc, but due to the fact these airlines operate/d Soviet/Russian-built aircraft, which would be covered by the topic ban. But as one can see, I am editing other things.
As I write above, until such time as 2 or 3 admins think that the topic ban should be eased/lifted/whatever, I will keep editing other subjects. Perhaps it may be decided by the community that given the circumstances, I am given a second chance. It is not up to myself to be asking the committee to be modifying my topic ban.
I know this is not probably the response one would expect, but as with anything I do, it is an honest response. Why? Because I recognise, that although the last 10 months or so have been stressful, from what we now know has been going on, I still bear responsibility for my actions. I have admitted that I was somewhat a prick at times on my talk page in discussions on the topic ban, and I have apologised to Sandstein for that, and whilst I hope that editors understand that the circumstances had some bearing on that behaviour, I still take responsibility for it, although legitimate questions were being asked by myself and other editors (including admins in good standing), and Sandstein should recognise that. But, I still bear all responsibility for the situation.
In retrospect, the way that I now look at my topic ban, the situation has not so much removed me from an area in which I am productive, and which some incorrectly portray me as only being disruptive, but has removed me from the battlefield that has been created, fostered and nurtured over the time by numerous editors, allowed me to destress, and at the same time allowed me to create content that I may not have gotten around to otherwise, and which other editors would not have done, which will help to demonstrate to the community that I am an asset to this project rather than a hindrance. I have other interests aside from "Russia", and I can edit on those interests for time being, even though there are sometimes overlaps with the topic ban which restrict this. And I say that all editors are the same; they all have more than one interest, whether it be football, science fiction, whatever, they can edit those topics, and they should edit those topics. If one is interested in soccer, there is no reason that they have to edit on Polish soccer; they can do what I have been doing as of late, and help to fight WP:BIAS by creating/expanding articles on soccer in Guinea-Bissau or Swaziland, etc.
This is even moreso the case, as I have watched some EE topics and off-arb interactions during the proceedings of this case, and the battlefield and gaming continues. I'd rather have no part in the nationalist POV-pushing -- yes, and this includes the nationalists on the mailing list -- and yes, it would be good to have editors removed from the topic area when they have been disruptive -- but the thing is, the PD has not gone far enough as yet in removing disruptive editors from this area for a time, and yes, more should be removed, and I think they know who they are.
So in short, thank you for bringing this up, but I am not interested in having the committee modifying my topic ban, in that I am not going to be asking for it, and I would encourage editors who were on the email list to stand up and take responsibility for their actions, and cop whatever they get on the chin. That is the first, and most important step, towards reforming oneself and helping to rid this topic area of the rubbish that has gone on. Then one may look forward as a collective, collegial group. --Russavia Dialogue 07:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have been pushing this "harassment" barrow for a while now. Nobody has harassed or stalked you. Areas of interest overlap and thus we come into contact. If you create articles like eSStonia, and I arrive, this is not stalking. Real stalking would see people arriving at your Russian aviation or Russian diplomatic relations articles, for example, and this has not happened. Being reported to ANI for possible account sharing is not harassment either, it was a legitimate concern, it is like claiming that your involvement in this case is evidence of you harassing me. --Martintg (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Presumption of coordination
I am sorry, but in this content dispute arena, one side having a consistent opinion based on reputable sources does not require "coordination". This accepts the meme that there has always been off-wiki coordination against editors promoting the Soviet view et al. of history regarding Eastern Europe, how else can they all possibly agree. (You will note that the editors piling on in evidence against the mailing list say virtually nothing regarding any article other than the USSR and/or Russia relative to the Baltics and EE.)
This is a utterly misguided condemnation of every editor with reputable sources regarding Eastern European history before, during, and after WWII, and that reputable sources don't count. This amounts to making a finding in favor of all those who insist "the mailing list" has existed for years. This is completely speculative and totally inappropriate. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Alternative proposal to FoF 7 (Good faith)
I propose the following alternative to the proposed FoF Nr 7 (Good faith), according to which there is every indication that the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to push a "pro-Russian" point of view. My alternative proposal is adapted and improved from the WP:CAMERA case [25]
Good intentions 3) Inappropriate conduct even if undertaken in the service of a "noble cause" is still inappropriate conduct.
Some list members have claimed that the inproper off-wiki coordination was necessary in order to counter a "Russian cabal." However, the members have failed to provide any hard evidence of the existence of such cabal.
Drawing a parallel to WP:CAMERA, CAMERA also pretended that there was a Palestinian cabal on Wikipedia—but did not provide hard evidence. See for example page 2 ("there are loud and aggressive groups of anti-Israel editors".) No one fell for that framing.
The claims that there was "a Cartel" like the list members say (while not being able to provide evidence) has one or more of the following reasons:
- it's necessary to glue the group by pretending they aren't more morally reprehensible than the others
- wishful thinking
- a dogmatic piece of a group ideology
- in case of leak, people might fall for that.
The are clear indications that even the list members themselves did not believe that there was an organized "Russian cabal."
In [20090429-0549-[WPM] Attack on Russavia_.eml] Piotrus expresses his doubts that the Russian users are organized and that their small number and poor handling suggests no involvement from any Russian government organization.
The list members knew that their basis of evidence was non-existent and they could not convince the ArbCom during a previous case [26]. However, even this statement by ArbCom was exploited by the list members, who tried to insert this into Web brigades. (20090113-0209-[WPM] ArbCom as RS_ also Russian media.eml) [27]
In reaction to Vecrumba's post in the above section, I'd like to point out that there is no organization that admits to being the bad guys, not even the Nazis did. But euphemisms are no excuse and nothing to take at face value or is needed to be mentioned. CAMERA, too, claimed it was about "accuracy". Every group of this kind spins with Glittering generality.
This "Russian Cartel" invented by the list members is nothing but framing. It is obvious that what the list members mean with this is simply editors with a POV different from their own. Offliner (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- This FoF is deeply flawed. In the entire 3000+ messages of this posted mail list archive, "Russian cabal" is mentioned some 4 times and "Russian cartel" is mentioned 3 times. However "cabal" and "cartel" were mentioned over 100 times in relation to Russavia, PasswordUsername and Offliner, since those three seemed to support each other in content disputes at various venues. Who amongst them are ethnic Russian anyway? Everyone in the maillist had their own opinion, there was no unified view. In my view a more accurate wording based upon the evidence would be:
Good intentions 3)There is every indication that some of the mailing list's participants sincerely believed that there is an organized group or groups attempting to incite ethnic tensions between Russian and Estonian editors by pushing particularly extreme "anti-Estonian" viewpoints on Wikipedia
- I am pretty sure that "there is an organized group or groups attempting to incite ethnic tensions between Russian and Estonian editors by pushing particularly extreme "anti-Estonian" viewpoints on Wikipedia" is exactly what Offliner called framing. Just to be clear, your suggestion, Martin, is to explicitly add this ridiculous framing statement to FoF by ArbCom? Why would arbitrators do that? Be reasonable please. (Igny (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC))
- The hypothetical FoF I proposed was meant to exemplify that the original FoF does not accord with my belief nor the beliefs of those members whose beliefs I am aware of. Each list member could probably each write a different FoF. Whether these beliefs were a case of framing or not is irrelevant I think. --Martintg (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Diff provided by Offliner was dated January 12. Therefore, it has nothing to do with email list. I suggest to insert only one word to the current version by Arbcom. It should tell "pro-Russian government point of view". I am also Russian editor and my point of view is different. I am sure that Colchicum or Dormitori have their own "Russian" views that are different from my views and views of Offliner. There is no such thing as "Russian point of view" or "American point of view"Biophys (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well said. As for tensions, I believe my evidence conclusively demonstrates Offliner and PasswordUsername edit-warring over presenting (and misrepresenting in the process) negative content regarding Estonia. Lastly, as I've already stated, I've personally come up against editors paid to push pro-Russian interests propaganda on WP and that the appropriate action is to strike the item. It's not a "belief." It's a fact. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re: Offliner referencing mine regarding presumption of coordination, there is no right or wrong; however, it is:
- instituting the meme that circumstantial evidence must be true
- and if not explicitly applied to both "sides" in contention over EE, then it is nothing but a priori convicting the mailing list members regardless of evidence.
- I respectfully suggest to the admins that less is more. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Re: Offliner referencing mine regarding presumption of coordination, there is no right or wrong; however, it is:
- My evidence and that of M.K. prove that this line-up has existed since 2007. Digwuren was actually proposing the very thing we are now talking about, and none of the people who were then participating in the discussion called him to order. We are not just dealing with the reading list, we are dealing with the disruption in general and the false consensus problem in particular caused by the participants to it. To delete a reference to a diff because it antedates
the archive that was leaked by a few days,the discussion in the mailing list is a joke under these circimstances. The problem seems to be that a) most of the particpants still do not realize how much harm they have done to the project by driving off prolific authors of content or having them banned (Ghirla and Irpen, remember?) b) that they have become black-belt masters at baiting (and do not realize that they are also teaching their victims how to do it) and c) that they still refuse to withdraw their accusations ("paid to push pro-Russian interests propaganda on WP") while they are asking their victims to withdraw theirs ("I never accused you of being paid to ..."). Arbcom should take good note of that. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- My evidence and that of M.K. prove that this line-up has existed since 2007. Digwuren was actually proposing the very thing we are now talking about, and none of the people who were then participating in the discussion called him to order. We are not just dealing with the reading list, we are dealing with the disruption in general and the false consensus problem in particular caused by the participants to it. To delete a reference to a diff because it antedates
- Your evidence and MK's proves nothing except the ridiculous lengths that some people will go to try and milk this case for their own purposes. I wasn't even editing (that much) in 2007 so I couldn't have been part of any kind of "line up". Stop making stuff up - especially stuff that is so blatantly false.radek (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- They do not withdraw accusations because the ArbCom said the more they make accusations the more their actions are justified.--Dojarca (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please answer
Did the mailing list members believe me also was a part of some sort of "Russian cabal" and if not, what can justify their stonewalling against my edits and dispute resolution?--Dojarca (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that's actually not a bad question, the use of inflammatory rhetoric aside.radek (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps if Dojarca adopted a good faithed approach from the beginning people would take more notice of him. Instead he complained to an unsuspecting admin Hiberneantears about an article that he hadn't edited since 2007 and which that was stable for over a year, as discussed here. The admin accepted his complaint at face value without first checking, became editorially involved and proceeded to use his admin tools to split the article and protect his version. The subsequent mediation involved Dorjarca and this admin acting as his proxy. I opted not to participate under these bad faithed conditions. BTW, another admin (Russian btw) eventually cleaned up the mess left by Hiberneantears. --Martintg (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Incredibly lenient
Given the findings of fact and the prior context, including multiple Arbitration cases with many editors on various topic restrictions, revert limits and other sanctions, the proposed remedies seem incredibly lenient. (I'm interested in the Arbitrators' rationales, other parties need not reply.) Thatcher 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)