Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

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)
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)
Well, if I can figure out how this works I can do some of this, ArbCom case or no ArbCom case (I'd be happy to help out simply if just asked).radek (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly a constructive approach that I would be willing to be a part of. There must be tons of stuff that would otherwise be neglected that would benefit from this type of thing. --Martintg (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok - I'm a little bit confused (sorry - like I said, never done this before). Do you mean 'transcribe' or 'proofread' or both? And if it's proofread, the way it works is that I go to say this source [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)
Hmmm, wish that particular one hadn't all been done.radek (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Would proofreading and transcribing be also acceptable as part of the community service? Should this be done by two (or three) different editors? I can see how our teamwork can be of use here :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

On Wikisource it does not matter how much they collaborate; they will not be able to change the glyphs on the printed page. John Vandenberg (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)

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)
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:

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).

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 here; 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)

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)

In the past the drafted decision was usually adopted.--Dojarca (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The weaseling is a correct word for a situation like this. Offering amnesty is a way ArbCom is trying to weasel itself out of an extremely inconvenient situation like this. The arbitrators probably considered different ways to handle this, and any solution would quickly draw criticism from the the affected parties. A harsh punishment like a ban for expressing thoughts freely in an off-wiki channel, or total amnesty for what is perceived as sabotaging 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)


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.[11] 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 [12] 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)


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. [13]. 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 [14], 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)
No. I am just referring to the mailing list evidence.--Dojarca (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Oh! I completely missed the heading. I like this, may we have "Wikiperv", too? --Sander Säde 08:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It may or may not be relevant that some list members (such as Sander Säde here) edit warred heavily to remove all criticism (by Amnesty International and other sources) from the article of Estonia's secret police, Kaitsepolitsei—an organization which has been called "the political police" of Estonia. [15] Offliner (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to add this to the evidence section.--Dojarca (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(irrelevant discussion removed by clerk)

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

Constructive vs. Destructive Proposals

I want to extend on something that has already been said, in particular in Kotnisky’s comment – and that is that the I hope that the ArbCom, in addition to being fair and dispensing “justice”, also considers the impact of the Proposed Decisions on the quality of the 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.
As a general principle, all editors are reminded that there is no actual requirement to respond to provocative comments, and that non-response does not automatically give an offending statement any actual credence. Manning (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz and Biophys should be prevented from further disruption

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I urge the arbitrators to take mesures against at least Radeksz and Biophys as the most active EEML members. They continue their coordinated reverts even during this arbitration [16] 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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

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

(Original post)

There does not appear to be a "Purpose of 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)

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)
"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)

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)

The current solution is a part of the problem

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

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

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

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

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)

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. [17]

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 [18] 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'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)
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." ([19]) - yes, I bolded certain points myself. Is it not obvious that this is what happened? We even have one participant being proud that he created "actively expressed consensus" between Poles and Ukrainians. Come on, why didn't you start your own Wiki, while you were at it?--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


See this Polish unhelpful coordinated editing - well known. M.K. (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the participants in 2007 ArbCom case that led to Petri Krohn's ban were really Polish socks. --Martintg (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
What M.K. is saying is: "we told you so". And unfortunately, he is 100% right. Clearly suspicious support gathering among Polish Wikipedians (under the heading "Piotrus advocates the use of IM", Tymek gets mentioned, echoes of HG Wells and "The Shape of Things to Come") was, under the good auspices of Ursul pacalit de vulpe, turned into a Polish-Romanian alliance to counter editors seen as pro-russian, pro-lithuanian or pro-german. This old and long since archived discussion on Dc76's talk page is the beginning of the third step. It not only involves more than two nationalities or self-felt identities but an attempt to create artificial consensus, reached off-wiki. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Check the 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: [20], 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)
"I was just responding to your thesis of supposedly large ArbCom's treshhold for taking harsh action." - Dojarca. Ah, I see now. Well, without commenting on how they chose to weight the evidence of the previous case, my point about raising the evidence bar to a higher level on THIS case is related to the unsundry way the evidence was presented to them. They are accepting the mailing list as factual, but are refraining from acting on everything in the list unless backed up by on-wiki evidence. Many people are upset that things on the list that they would concider horrible are being left unanswered for, but unless they want to have everyone and their dog send them haxxored mailing lists they need to keep the level of acceptance to things they can corroborate. For some, especially the ones on the list, its bad enough that they are looking at the list AT ALL let alone concidering handing out bans for something that may or may not even be true. I don't know why they chose to do what they did to Petri, or wether he did or did not deserve it. What I do know is that the mailing list ALONE is not enough damn them. If they said "lets get so-and-so banned today!" and nothing happend on-wiki, then its not a conspiracy, its people sitting around talking. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Any instance of of mailing list coordination has on-wiki consequences. There is plenty of on-wiki evidence both with apparent connection with the list and standing alone. There were numerous ArbCom cases in the past where massive evidence of disruptive on-wiki behavior of the cabal members was shown and most of them resulted in amnesties. This case is unique in that it shows their internal kitchen.--Dojarca (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
While true statements, lets not get too far from the topic here. The past Arb cases and the amnesties have little to do with wether or not the mailing list NOW containg more socialising or more plotting. I'm not saying there isn't evidence of disruption, nor am I claiming their innocence. All I am saying is that I doubt Petri's assesment of the mailing list being 90% disruption, and that Corens assesment that most of it is just people talking is a more reasonable conclusion. I am further stating that its likely the difference of opinion on that matter stems from a greater willingness on Corens part to dismiss things that cannot be directly corroberated into disruption as just talk and a greater willingness of the lists 'enemies' to latch onto things that were just talk and call them disruption. Where does the real line lie? I'm not sure.
Again, I'm not saying there weren't diamonds in that mine... but most of it was just dirt.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As you did not read the mailing list, so do not judge about what you've not seen.--Dojarca (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I do judge what I have seen. I have seen the noted opinion of a third party who has read the list and I have seen the the opinion of an involved party who has read the list. I find the third parties opinion to be more reasonable while admitting I have not literally seen it myself and providing a reason for that decision. Do you care to provide a reason why I should change my mind other than 'we caught them doing other things so the entire thing must be evil'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Shrug, Dojarca thinks discussing 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:

  1. how it was obtained, I'm sorry, it was not leaked through an act of conscience
  2. who was given the purported archive and
  3. how and to whom it was subsequently circulated
  4. 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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_3&oldid=1079517325"