Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes

Statement by Lysy

While I've been around at en.wikipedia since I think 2004, I've decided to quit or at least give it a break and I'm now on my self-imposed wikiholiday. Today I've recevied an email from Piotrus, asking to look at this rfa. Sincerely, I don't know Deacon of Pndapetzim and I don't know what prompted him to file this request, but after reading it, it seems to me to be full of compiled and/or fabricated accusations, and probably a part of a harassment campaign by tag teams against Piotrus, whom I had known as an editor who certainly respected the policies. The campaign to make him give up editing and leave the project just as I did. That kind of pestering by another editor was exactly the reason why I had decided to leave. --Lysy^talk 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since I'm not active here any more please use email if there's further need to contact me. Thanks.

Statement by Moreschi

This is probably a waste of time, but while we're here, could the arbcom please ban Matthead (talk · contribs)? I've come to the conclusion that this German nationalist flamer does more than most combined to foment a battleground mentality in EE articles (see current AE thread). I would do this myself, except all the people who don't like Piotrus for one reason or another would jump on me. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead was Rex Germanus's old sparring partner. When Rex left he moved on to other edit wars. His participation is invariably marked by tendentious revert-warring and the personal hostility, massively divorced from objectivity, that does so much to harm the chances of collegial editing. I am contemplating a year-long block. Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom does not need yet another round of Irpen-Piotrus, the issues there are more personality clashes than anything else. For what it's worth, Piotrus is certainly a patriot, and obviously his edits usually have a certain slant to them, but he is open and honest about his biases, which is, you know, what we should encourage. He writes well and is a fine Wikipedian. Irpen is also a fine writer, but I dislike the way he is nowhere near honest enough about his own biases and WP:NATIONALISTICBATTLE tendencies. He also is a real blocking factor in trying to deal with the worst excesses of his Russian compatriots (compare the way Piotrus was constructive in trying to reach a decent solution with myself over Molobo). There's certainly space enough in Wikipedia for both of them, but Irpen needs to think seriously. Escalating the conflict here will not, I think, ultimately prove to be to his benefit. At any rate, I see no serious enough issues with either of them to warrant AC attention, unlike the much more pressing issues of people like Matthead. Moreschi (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AGK

From what evidence I have, issuing sanctions on Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be a net-positive for the project, and a good move. I don't think we need the committee's involvement to do that, however: the community has not, from what I gather, exhausted all means of banning him available to it (bar the ArbCom). Anthøny ✉ 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irpen

In my opinion the WP:BATTLE issue is central here and the concept of WP:BATTLE alone allows to understand fully the core problem with Piotrus. Most but all of his Wikipedia activity is a battle and he is vicious at that.

For the sake of brevity, I want to concentrate my statement on the most revealing manifestation of his approach: Piotrus' central concept of dispute resolution lies in setting the field of his opponents' blocks and being an experienced editor he achieved certain expertise at that. He mastered the methods of baiting content opponents into a reaction that would later allow him to turn the discussion's subject to WP:CIV (which he uses as a tool in content disputes not a guideline for harmonious editing) and paint his opponents as violators of the civility rules, usually baselessly.

Piotrus thrives not in honest discussions but in off-line secretive communications, recruiting users for reverts and votes, building connections with "important people" (off-line whenever possible) who he thinks would be useful for him, logging every step of his perceived enemies for anything he could use against them at the opportune time.

During his last arbcom a secret page in his pl-wiki userspace where he maintained his log on every single content opponent was accidentally revealed (see Piotrus compiled a pile of "incriminating_diffs" against his opponents). Upon the page's discovery and discussion, he claimed to have been happy to turn the page and end his logging. But this is what he really did:

He blanked the page that became a public knowledge with "not needed" edit summary on 2007-10-10 20:28:02 (note the exact time stamp)
He immediately logged out and from an IP he within three minutes (!) at 2007-10-10 20:31:13 he pasted entire content of this "not needed" stuff into a different page for further development.

He continuously and meticulously maintains that black book to this day but edits it only being logged out to avoid detection of the activity, he himself realizes as shameful. And look at what kind of diffs he finds "useful" to keep for the opportune time!

Here are some comments on the malaise, as he claims, by his opponents supposedly supported by the links. Comments come from many respected and high profile Wikipedians:

Piotrus' unloading of the log he compiled on myself into an unrelated case:

Another example:

Piotrus' unloading of the log he compiled on Lokyz to WP:AE, which became his favorite block shopping venue once WP:RFI and WP:PAIN and WP:CSNB were shut down by the community largely for their being abused that way despite of his protestations during the deletion discussions:

There were other discussions of Piotrus' ridiculous "diffs" but it is not easy to find every thread from so long ago. I can do so if the case gets accepted and Piotrus unloads another pile from his stack at everyone he sees as an obstacle. These are nothing but fraudulent gaming the system and misuse of various policies but WP:BATTLE approach to Wikipedia editing is the core of the problem.

Oh, and before he or anyone claims "stalking", I did not discover his secret page by following him (and I could not even if I went to pl-wiki since he edits the page always logged out from many different IP's.) I found the page by mere accident as it showed up in google when, during some wikipolitics discussion, I was looking for some old thread that I knew should have been in Wikipedia archives. His page showed up in my ["search string" site:wikipedia.org] google results and made me disgusted beyond belief, especially the fact that it was recreated in such a sneaky way after claimed ceasure of such activity. I had no desire to follow what he was doing there as simply seeing it made me feel like I need to take a shower. This is not a kind of feeling one usually relish, so I did not look forward for the new immersion into that laundry list of grievances. But the very feeling that I was being meticulously stalked and logged (not that I have anything to hide but still) is something any of you can only understand if you get such a dedicated attention yourself. Especially, if while he does that, he attempts to make an impression of reaching out in a friendly-sounding innuendo, while logging the reaction.

I would like to reiterate that I am not seeking punishment of Piotrus for maintaining a black book on a page outside of en-wiki. I am merely saying that this page is the strongest possible evidence that Piotrus' approach to editing Wikipedia falls exactly under WP:BATTLE and WP:BATTLING is a sanctionable offense.

As for the usual stuff posted by Piotrus above, I'm confident anyone who is looking will see through it. Alden's own assertion here was that Piotrus asked him to do revert for him [1], so it doesn't look like poor old harassed Piotrus's love-fest with his adoring "fans" is quite the way he'd like his readers to believe, though admittedly Alden appears to love him enough to co-operate with the public distancing that's been arranged since Alden's "slip". As for Piotrus' boasting about his "excellent" content, I link to my assessment here to save space.

I told him long time ago that there is one thing he should stop, trying to win content disputes through achieving the opponents' blocks. He always denied his doing that. I leave it to others to decide. His diffs are mostly tendentious nonsense he uses to misrepresent the conflicts and overwhelm with "evidence". Examples are in the threads above. If this is not WP:BATLE at its prime, I do not know what is.

Statement by User:Novickas

Three points. 1) This entry does not mention a block or ban, so his content creation is not relevant; it would not be hindered. 2) The following action strikes me as an abuse of admin powers - his threat to block User:Boodlesthecat after B removed a clear BLP violation: he stated that "Next time you change other's users talk I will simply block you for vandalism" [2], confirmation of BLP violation here [3] From May 2008. 3). User:FloNight firmly opposed his self-nom as an administrator on Wikimedia [4]. Why, if he was deemed unfit to be an admin there, should he remain as an admin here? Novickas (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that "examination of others involved", brought up by several statements and Kirill, will be reconsidered. Yes, many editors have lost their tempers while interacting with him. But could we not limit this action to a more manageable scope by addressing Deacon's original questions: whether Piotrus' behavior has been admin-like, whether he has been a member of edit-warring teams, and whether/how such behavior by an admin sets a bad example for other editors?

Much of the following goes to the question of whether or not admins should be held to a higher standard than editors.

Use of sources

Many of these conflicts involved a lot of time and energy on the part of various editors - could have been spared if P had just backed off; no acknowlegment of error on his part was ever made in these cases AFAIK:

Use of questionable websites as sources: Patryk Dole [5]. Future battles: this FA relies mostly on the Polish Militaria Collectors Association ([6]); this FA likewise is mostly referenced by whatfor.com, "Your lifestyle resource" [7], and someone's blog. Six of his FAs have been delisted so far [8] - I would think more will be, as standards rise, but probably each delisting will be a battle.

Use of clearly awful sources: Dariusz Ratajczak removed by me on 15:20, March 20, 2008 [9] after waiting for P to do so himself. Piotrus had earlier asserted his credibility here: [10]

Questionable use of good sources: [11], [12], [13]

Extended battle over the use of a hoax book as a reference: [14]

Much of his content creation is unsourced - see the new articles created within the past week or two: Lesko uprising, Battle of Pęcice, Battle of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ferdinand II Hohenstein, Hotseat (multiplayer mode).

Additional conduct-unbecoming-an-admin issues

Goading: "Yes, as the history has shown, Germany and Russia proven to be true great friends of the Lithuanian nation, indeed." [15].

Inserting a copyvio that stood until it was pointed out by Irpen: [16]

Unsuccessfully putting an article up for AFD followed by the comment "glad to see the AfD had a positive effect" [17] (I don't know exactly where WP currently stands on the issue of filing AFDs for that purpose, but it seems disruptive.)

Removing referenced material until JPGordon intervened: [18] But we shouldn't need intervention at that level - JP was just stating WP policy. Novickas (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark by Mackensen

No fair poking the clerks Brad--just doing what you told them to do. Course, it's your page, so you can break it however you like. More seriously, I don't see much point in accepting unless Arbcom really wants another go-round in Eastern Europe and has a better idea for addressing the topical conflicts there. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tell them to do it. But then again, in my real-world life, I am constantly struggling to stay within page limits. (And I know this comment doesn't belong here either. So sue me, except please don't.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tymek

I have seen groups (tag teams?) of editors gunning for Piotrus ever since I joined this project. User Matthead, mentioned by AGK and Moreschi, is probably the most active editor in the "Greater Germany POV tag team". Irpen has been gunning for Piotrus for years, I recall last ArbCom found his behavior very uncivil, particularly to Piotrus. This seems unchanged, just like his tactics of repreating the same old accusations that failed to gain support in the past discussions.

PS. Piotrus has the full right to collect evidence - just like anybody else - and we all can see he badly needs evidence, since he is targeted by those "tag teams" all the time. On the other hand, Irpen did a "great" job tracking Piotrus evidence list... I find it amusing that he is (again) offended by the list of his wrongdoings, which he found after probably many, many hours of stalking Piotrus edits. Thank you Tymek (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Martintg

Holy cow, Irpen's first day back after a month long Wikibreak and he doesn't miss an opportunity to engage in WP:BATTLE himself against his long time opponent Piotrus, recycling old diffs and past accusations from previous years. Irpen has been waging war against Piotrus for years across a number of boards. This is tiresome and it has to stop. Irpen has been warned often enough about this in previous cases. Could Arbcom please ban Irpen, there seems to be considerably less drama in Wikipedia whenever he is on extended wikibreak, and his return always seems to coincide with yet another EE arbcom case, this time mounted in conjunction with his cohort Deacon of Pndapetzim. It must be noted that Deacon, as former User Calgacus, has had a long history with conflict with Polish editors, particularly Piotrus, notoriously beginning with the article Jogaila back in 2006 [19]. This following exchange during the discussion to promote Jogaila to featured article status provides some insight to Deacon's palpable hostility in the face of attempts by Piotrus to engage him in a dialog:

I would argue, and I'm sure so would others, that that statement is complete nonsense. Jogaila needed the superior Poles to save him from conquest from the Order? Polish nationalist myth. Funny how Lithuania had done alright before and had grown to five times larger than Poland. I dunno, maybe Jogaila didn't mind getting another kingdom to crush the Order and expand his own power, but to imply Lithuania faced desperation ... would like to see how these historians sustain that argument. If anything, fear of continued isolation, being surrounded by christian states, may have played some role in his decision, but most of Jogaila's lands lay out of reach of TO campaigns. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be quite interesting in seeing you present a source that supports your POV and calls the opposite a 'Polish nationalist myth'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fascinating. Must be another conspiracy between the ghosts of Stalin and Hitler to destroy the Polish nation. Congrats for discovering it! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If this is your reply when asked for sources, I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You asked me about sources? In what parallel universe? If this is your reply when asked if you support human rights, then I guess there's no point going on. You must just be evil. :p Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim's polophobic attitude is further demonstrated more recently this year when he was only one to support Irpen's vexatious nomination of the article Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939-1946) for deletion within 24 hours of its creation by Piotrus, with a borderline racist spray against Poles and their "nationalist god of victimhood". The result was an over whelming snowball keep. If you closely read Deacon's talk page and edit comments in the article that triggered this current Arbcom case, his hostility and combativeness hasn't really diminished since the first time he conflicted with Piotrus. --Martintg (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Durova

Irpen is one of the most dedicated editors Wikipedia has, and he seems sincere. He can also be difficult to communicate with. I first noticed this during a delicate phase of the Piotrus-Ghirlandajo mediation when Irpen interrupted an ongoing discussion with input that was not helpful. When I asked him to withdraw he developed a personal dislike for me (he later stated so). Yet I wouldn't have anticipated that personal feelings, however strong, could have such an effect as the following quote.

I had been attempting to patch up a misunderstanding between Irpen and myself, and had suggested that perhaps the the tone had come across badly because we were communicating only in text. His response misread that neutral statement as an invitation to communicate off-wiki (which it wasn't), and took offense based upon the misreading. I don't take offense easily and wouldn't bring his reply to the attention of the Committee, except for this bon mot:

The post-!! development of Alex Bakharev's being duped into believing of anonymous harassment of female editors fairy tale just enforced my firm belief in an advantage of onwiki conversations.[20]

About two weeks after Irpen scolded me for duping Alex Bakharev into believing a fairy tale that harassment of female editors occurs, the FBI opened an investigation into months of death threats that were being sent to me from a stable location within driving distance of my home. In order to promote public awareness that this sort of thing actually happens, and in hopes of making the situation less difficult for other people who get targeted, I went public about the experience in a story that was published in P2Pnet News in early June. Despite these developments, Irpen has never withdrawn the misplaced accusation.

In light of the recent retirement of two other editors--both much younger than I am--who were targeted for harassment, and encountered open hostility from the community when they disclosed the problem, and who made serious errors in judgement afterward--it is quite concerning that an editor of Irpen's experience conducts himself this way without challenge or correction (obviously I was not in a position to comment further). This is indicative of a senior editor who is setting the wrong example and I wonder how many other problems have been worsened by his participation. I would gladly withdraw this statement if Irpen reconsiders his; it would restore some of my faith in him. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boodlesthecat

Novickas cited one instance of my ongiong conflicts with Piotrus above. That instance is illustrative of a serious problem with Poitrus' behavior and his flagrant misuse of his admin status. I note that in his self-nom, he requested that status to facilitate his uploading of images to Wikipedia. A year later, it appears to have become a tool to be used for the benefit of apparently ethnic based team edit warring. Novickas cite the case in which Piotrus angrily threatened to block me for removing a clear BLP violation (and one with antisemitic overtones). The particular nasty, offensive BLP violation was supplied by greg park avenue who spent much of his time (in full view of Piotrus, among others) peppering the page with abusive, Jew baiting rants. A cursory examination reveals that greg park avenue apparently contributes little or no actual content to Wikipedia, instead opting for running commentaries in a variety of forums, often with a nasty streak. So why would Piotrus aggressively threaten to block me for removing some of the foul words that greg park avenue contributed? A hint can be obtained by perusing the history of the article in question, as well as some others in which Piotrus has had ongoing disputes (e.g., here, and we can see the key role greg park avenue has played in the team edit warring (I'm not going to waste time pulling diffs; anyone can do their own examination and see how Piotrus, greg park avenue, Tymek, Poeticbent, Molobo, Alden Jones et al operate in tandem.) And then, Piotrus files the inevitable 3RR complaint (often exaggerating the number of reverts, eg, counting every edit made as a revert). Piotrus' questionable tactics have been noted more than once (e.g. here and here). Piotrus pulled the team-edit-war-then-file-a-3RR on me maybe half a dozen times (yes, I'm a sucker). On the final one, I pleaded with him to not do it again, but to discuss issues like an adult--90 minutes later came the 3RR--prompting an unkind email from me accusing him of dickkery (although there were at least some editors who felt my pain.) . I've since attempted to extract myself from this nonsense by among other things opening a medcab case for one of the disputed articles. That case quickly degenerated into chaos, as Piotrus' "team" bogged the discussion down with accusations, filibusters, and assorted flims flams (anything to avoid discussing actual content issues). Piotrus repeatedly demanded semi-groveling apologies from me to secure his participation (while he let loose a stream of accusatory abuse), but even while agreeing to the medcab, he continued to stealthily forum shop for ways to block me] (unsuccessfully) from editing his pet articles. So I leave it top the wisdom of this forum as to whether the innocent reasons for Piotrus' original self-nom have devolved in any manner, way, shape or form. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prom3th3an's Repsonse to Comments by Boodlesthecat

The following message contains my personal views and is given in my role as a User, Editor and nothing else.
Boodlesthecat, I find your remarks misguided and biased to say the least. With your conduct in the past such as sending insulting of wiki emails and of course your rathor colourful blocklog, you have been lucky not to be indef blocked. I hardly think an apologie was out of order, as for demanding it, I was also of the opinion that it was a reasonable request. I find this comment Piotrus, greg park avenue, Tymek, Poeticbent, Molobo, Alden Jones et al operate in tandem. most disturbing, would you provide some reasonable evidence of this occuring on multiple occasions and that there is a conspiracy to do so? I will further extend this reply in the morning as its 1:38 am ;-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)}}

Boodlesthecat's Response to Prom3th3an's Response to Comments by Boodlesthecat

I fully stand by my comments. Your entirely ad hominem response/attack addresses exactly zero of the concrete issues I raised and documented. And as the mediator in the current dispute, you yourself have witnessed the very behavior I am describing. Perhaps you should revisit when the hour is not so late. And "conspiracy" is your word, not mine, so I feel no obligation to provide evidence for anything beyond what I actually described. I apologized for my e-mail, as requested, and was rewarded in that mediation for my apology with a torrent of abuse and filibustering. Where is Piotrus' apology for his blatant and flagrant misuse of authority in threatening to block me for removing anti-semitic BLP violating rantings of his ally? Where is your request for his apology? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda: OK, the inexplicable hostility of Prom3th3an seems to have been addressed properly. Although the odd apparent collusion of this mediator with Piotrus from the very beginning of the mediation (complete with ":;" "winks"), culminating in Prom3th3an's open declaration of allegiance to Piotrus' side of the mediation and threats to use extra means to achieve his ends ("I am now throwing my weight around")--mimicking Piotrus' own threats to abuse his authority--seems perhaps more than coincidental and certainly not unrelated to the issues being looked at in this arbitration. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPINDOCTOR A few points of consideration, A) Most people are aware that it was no coinsidence that Sciurinæ, an outsider who is a wiki friend of boodles commented, one must wonder who's tag teaming now, or is he your puppet? B) Any statement that implys that I was POV or colluding at the very start of the case with a user of which I had no interaction with prior to that is a farse. C) Do ordinery users not have weight? because thats what I was reffering to. D) My hostility toward you was as a result of a case I should have never accepted, the reasons I say that it because the case looked disceptivly easy, untill another 6 pov's were added once I had accepted the case as a result of your poor choices of "who to include". I do agree on one thing and that is that I failed as a mediator, I let the stress of the bickering and conflict of the case get to me, hence my otherwise irrational attack at arbcom, for that I am sorry. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free to comment on which ever case I choose to. After your pompous performance for Piotrus, I had a look at the mediation case of my own free will. If you want to dispute the content of what I said, just go ahead. If you don't like the fact that it was me who made the comment, still try to stick to the content if you can. It's strange to think that suddenly wild and unexplained "tag team" and "puppet" accusations should be allowed even if there's nothing disruptive to go for. If "teamwork" does not happen for a bad deed, but consists of a person who says something that helps another, how would this be bad in itself? Before you think you were in part right: I was not asked by anyone implicitly or explicitly to make a comment, and I did not even inform anyone about my comment, let alone expect another person to use it - yes, I was actually surprised that Boodles took the diff. Please take a look at WP:PA and WP:AGF. Nor am I a "puppet" and I don't feel I have to put up with an accusation like this. As for the content of my statement, it was skewed in your favour. While you said it was Boodles who was drifting towards indef-block, it was actually you (and only you) who had been warned of the possibility of an indef-block a few days before ([21] [22]) and I didn't point that out then. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Poeticbent

I find these never-ending Arbcom swarmings really pathetic, with all the usual suspects getting all fired up and queasy with numbing repetitiousness, every few months. What a terrible waste of time for everybody. I’ve never seen so much bad blood between Eastern European nations anywhere outside of here. Perhaps the bad blood was already brewing in the hearts of these people without an outlet for a long time, and now it just spills out in all its repulsiveness, bouts of extreme chauvinism, hate mongering and the like. I’m asking myself, can Wikipedia be an outlet for a personal soul-searching? I suppose it can. But please, don’t drag my name around whenever the new wave of character assassinations begin to bubble up. --Poeticbent talk 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Ghirla

Following the disgusting circus show, in which Piotrus was found innocent of all charges, I quit English Wikipedia (my activity has been limited to occasional interwiki fixing) and became one of the foremost editors of Russian Wikipedia. I am thankful to Piotrus and the Arbitration Committee for showing me a battlefree wikipedia community in which no duplicity is allowed. This latest attempt to bring Piotrus to reason is unlikely to succeeed as long as the likes of Kirill Lokshin (who famously found Bishonen to be a "problem user" and has waged multiple anti-Giano campaigns) and James F. (who even more famously called us all "idiots") preside over ArbCom. It's a shame what they've done to English Wikipedia. The only result of this case will be to drive Piotrus' detractors out of English Wikipedia, as I have been. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.K.

I am the one who started the first ArbCase involving Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. And frankly speaking I am not surprised that there is another case involving this contributor. I have to agree for the most part about Piotrus' editing problems.

If you ever had dispute with Piotrus, you would probably know that he converts the whole situation into a messy battlefield, employing revert wars, tendentious editing, rollback abuse, blocks and block threats, page moves immediately followed by salting the resulting redirects, as well as hypocritical dishonest forum shopping (including #admins IRC) etc.

All those techniques were employed against fellow wikipedians recently, including #admins IRC abuse where his opponets, myself included, were called "POV trolls" and sockpuppeteers.

Attempts to reduce his tendentious editing with DR steps pose a challenge, as Piotrus chooses to go against consensus as he finds fit [23][24][25]. When community rejects his original thoughts, then another stage of waging war is employed – forum shopping. When he does not get the support in the first forum he asks in another one going around from board to board[26][27][28].

Last, but not least, the most "lucrative" step is attempting to gain a block/ suspension/restriction, which outcome is usually used for future character assassination of his opponents. It is usually done by firstly provoking opponents [29] [30] (edit summaries implying historical whitewashing is already a blockable offense) later filing a complaint (most favorite is WP:AE). Already such Piotrus "cases" were identified as unclean attempts. But those are coming and coming over and over again. Who knows, maybe some of them will produce some desirable "results" and "victory" in another battle.

Also most of problems about this contributor listed back in 2007 process are valid and just as topical today, I would not over expand my statement, as if arbiters will choose to take this case (I encourage this to do) I will present more evidences and reinforce already mentioned ones. M.K. (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stor stark7

I've been on traveling foot for the last few weeks, and my access will remain very spotty for a few days until I'm back. I will attempt to refactor with more info then. I've encountered Piotrus mainly in connection to edits by Molobo, Piotrus seems to have taken on the role of defender of Polands honor, at all costs. I suppose that's borderline for an ordinary user, but unsuitable behaviour for an admin. As of late Piotrus has taken to accuse me of being a Nazi, which is seriously inapropriate behaviour. For more info and the relevant diff see my request for comment by Moreschi.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I withdrew my statement yesterday as not to be involved in this mess. But this becomes a witch hunt. No, Stor stark7, Piotrus did not call you "Nazi" as obvious from the diffs. I had relatively little interaction with Piotrus, but it was very constructive and positive interaction, and I admire the outstanding quality of articles Piotrus has created or contributed. Unfortunately, I can not tell the same about my interactions with Irpen. If this case has any merit (and I do not think it has), this is only to investigate the accusers. Piotrus was a subject of already two previous trials. How many more witch hunts do we need? Biophys (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Piotrus said that many administrators "are in fear of tag teams". True, but Piotrus himself is a rare exception. He did not fear. That is why he became the target. But how about "ordinary" users who are not administrators? While editing here, I live in a state of fear to alienate the "team" that collectively own such articles as Putin, Russia and many others, which would be gladly approved by the Soviet Glavlit. One of the members told me in open not to edit anything in article Russia, "or else". And I would think twice before providing any evidence against Irpen. Let me be frank. Some political/history parts of wikipedia has became a "battleground" where every good editor like Piotrus needs to be protected. This became a place of fear, a virtual hell, as anyone can see from the numerous ArbComm hearings, including this one. I know at least one good editor who experienced mental problems after editing here. Others quit to keep their sanity. No wonder.Biophys (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to clerks or ArbComm members: What exactly issues are under review here? Biophys (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

Witch-hunt is entirely appropriate:

Deacon of Pndapetzim ... regarding the article in question, it was stable and GA. An RFA is not the place to hash out whose editorial position is right or wrong. Deacon's comments in article talk are not always in a tone soliciting dialog, this RFA is nothing but Deacon making editorial disagreement into a full out battle.
Irpen ... Irpen has hardly been back and he's already flogging Piotrus yet again with every ounce of bolded denouncement he can muster.
Boodlesthecat ... What have your allegations of "Jew baiting" on the part of Greg park avenue have to do with Piotrus? Tarring all Polish editors with the same brush? And what will I find if I go back through the entire trail? I have not found Greg park avenue to be an extremist in past interactions.
And your campaign in the wake of my comments regarding Greg park avenue which you have waged since to paint me out to be an anti-Semite proves you do not belong on Wikipedia, per our final exchange here.
M.K. ... OK, let's take Piotrus adding "and [[baptism of Lithuania]]<ref name="NCMH"/>, tying [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] to the [[Kingdom of Poland]].". And reputably sourced. Of course the baptism of Jogaila was the first step away from pagan rituals and toward the Polonization of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is hardly Piotrus' OR or some controversial item requiring "consensus."

As far as I can tell, we've got (predictable, based on the editors involved) "irreconcilable" editorial differences (leaving sourced/unsourced/interpretations aside) leading to Deacon's RFA. I've dealt with some sticky issues between Polish and Lithuanian editors and sources (including some of the parties here). Differences are not insurmountable when one assumes good faith. What I see here is a mound of accusations built on the bad faith mantra against Piotrus with all the usual anti-Piotrus editors jumping on the bandwagon, including Irpen's tome after just having returned to WP spouting the same tired accusations, not to mention Ghirla's chiming in with "this is why I left EN WP." This is just repeat performance of "lynch Eastern European editors who bring reputable sources to the table and stand up for themselves," I'm sorry to say. —PētersV (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusation: "Continued edit-warring and battling, in particular edit-warring with and provoking Lithuanian editors" this is not the case, as I've been asked to assist in charting a middle course amongst conflicting often Polish and Lithuanian sources over the conduct of the Polish and Lithuanian sides leading to, and in, WWII: who collaborated with whom, etc. These are good faith disagreements which by necessity provoke strong feelings. That this is a war is a gross mischaracterization based on the premise that Piotrus' editorial behavior comes from unethical behavior, not defense of reputable sources. Moreover, this mischaracterization demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for the basis of true disagreement amongst reputable nationalist sources (as opposed to the Soviet "version" of Eastern European history). —PētersV (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have subsequently reviewed Boodlesthecat's entire "Jew baiting" thread being accused and this is purely Boodlesthecat's personal interpretation having nothing to do with the factual objective content of Greg park avenue's statement in the diff nor Greg park avenue's position as stated throughout that entire thread. Don't like it? Call your editorial opposition an anti-Semite, Nazi, Jew-murdering nationality, etc., a behavior generally devoid of any consequences for editors making such accusations, I'm sorry to observe. —PētersV (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Dc76, Glad to see you here. Just to let you know, Piotrus has reached out to me on some of the Polish-Lithuanian editorial conflicts over the historical Polish-Lithuanian conflict. :-) Best regards, PētersV (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

I've been involved in one or two attempted mediation on Central European articles, involving Piotrus and some of the other editors, involved here. It has not been entirely a matter of Poles vs. Lithuanians--conflicts in this area , real-world and Wikipedian, are not usually merely two-sided. And it is not to be expected that the enmities accumulated over centuries will be settled on Wikipedia , or that disputes over the rights and wrongs of the thousands of contentious events in that history will be resolved here. Nobody from the area can really be expected to be neutral; however, of the various editors involved, the one who has seemed to be to have the most respect for Wikipedia policy is Piotrus. He certainly edits in accordance with his knowledge and background, as any editor does, but he edits fairly. He does not reject good opposing sources, nor try to gain acceptance for clearly unreliable supporting ones. He understands that the mere quotation of excerpts does not prove a general point, and translation and context is necessary. He knows the weaknesses expected from various kinds of sources, and uses them accordingly. If people not directly involved tend to support his positions frequently, there's a reason--they are usually fairly close to being correct. He's also generally objective within the standards of Wikipedia --it is very easy to make accusations of political bias where everyone has some degree of it, but he does not accept or reject material solely on the basis of the editors involved, and he tries to achieve generally the clearest wording, not the one that can be most twisted to accommodate his position. I see some of the support for this RfA as an attempt to win at RfA what can not be won in talk pages--to impugn an editor by peripheral attack whose work is reliable. Those who can not win by logic or by sourcing are trying to win here; but they here too have neither the arguments nor the evidence to back up their charges. I'm confident an examination of the material will show where sanctions are truly needed, and I think it a great merit of our RfA system that it will examine the actions of all the parties involved. DGG (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sciurinæ

Piotrus revealed in July 2006 that he had Gadu-Gadu contact with Molobo.[31] Piotrus wanted to "prove" that his behaviour towards Molobo was critical and, though never ever having given any warnings to Molobo, he argued that he did so on GG. He conceded as explanation that he "didn't want to leave permanent record on his talk pages. In the end it apparently wasn't enough" (a few days earlier, Molobo had been blocked for a year). Piotrus - whose sympathy for Molobo knows no limits in reality - proved not only to be aware of the unaccountability resulting from the use of GG, but wanted to benefit from it:

(before the block) by being able to criticise Molobo for bad actions without the criticism being able to be used against Molobo, whom Piotrus not wanted to be blocked
(after the block) by using the fact that he "criticised" him as "proof" of the appropriateness of his behaviour towards Molobo (actually that proved the opposite even more).

Molobo didn't know about the revelation of their IM-relationship and believed that finding out about it was near impossible, blatantly declaring: "I don't know Piotrus besides Wikipedia-we are in no personal connection".[32] Btw, how come Tymek and Appleseed knew of Piotrus' Rfa in commons other than GG ([33] [34] + I remember him canvassing at Rfa long ago)? Why did Piotrus, when blocked, aggravated by making a horrific threat against the uninvolved administrator who executed the block and by arguing that he should have different treatment from the norm before the 3rr, turn to a consistently friendly ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]) sysop to dismiss this valid 3RR-block on incorrect grounds?

There must be a sensible and practical approach to this issue that sees the borders between acceptable and unacceptable use of secret communication. We cannot know for sure whether Piotrus told the truth when he said it wasn't him who told Alden Jones to revert and, for example, not every user who passes on his MSN number does so with bad intent, not every time someone informs another person about a revert war with the intention of getting a favourable result or the whole 3RR-board would be bad. What we have to consider is the appropriateness in the relevant situation and the appropriateness in the result, and treat secrecy as an aggravating factor if there is inappropriateness in either the situation or the result.

Furthermore, Piotrus' role in naming disputes and towards certain disruptive Polish editors should be shed light on, as well as assumptions of bad faith, blank denial and personal attacks (admins should be role models). We all know about Piotrus' prolificness regarding content but adminship shouldn't be seen as a reward and Piotrus has made very little use of his admin rights as a vandalism fighter or anywhere else. It only serves him as an additional authority argument for personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and leads others to take knee-jerk actions in his favour. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Molobo: I do not have your contributions on my watchlist and don't remember claiming so. As for your comment to Irpen, yes, claiming that Piotrus, who you now admit is on your GG buddy list, was "just a fellow co-editor not my friend" and "I don't know Piotrus besides Wikipedia-we are in no personal connection" is intentionally misleading since instant messenger contact is a personal connection and that relationship to him is more than that of "just a fellow co-editor".

I'm curious why I should justify an official rename from 2005, and even despite the fact that you already tried in vain to vilify me because of it years ago (Talk:Anti-Polish_sentiment#Regarding_revisionism). But then again, Deacon has been subject to exactly the same situation. Seeing you insinuating to one that a change of username was foul, setting you (the only person who ever did so) straight, suddenly later getting vilified again by you (who should actually now know better) in a general attempt at character assassination is an odd déjà vu. Arbitrations, for your and Piotrus' information, are not exempt from personal attacks ([42]) and since you are on parole and the other a sysop, it's unbelievable to have to tell you this. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Termer

It didn't took long to figure out what is this all about? Such a question arised for me since none of the accusations against Piotrus have any evidence provided as far as I can tell. But thanks to Deacon of Pndapetzim for adding the article Boleslaw I's interventio to the case here, a content dispute where it seems it all has started. What I see is that Piotrus has edited the article according to the sources he has available and all his edits have been reverted. One of the reasons for the reverts given that should speak for itself has been following: respected historians of medieval Rus don't write in Polish by Deacon of Pndapetzim.
That makes it clear at least for me that Deacon of Pndapetzim dosn't respect historians on medieval Rus who write in Polish. Since the historic facts are straight forward. Medival Rus was split between Lithuania-Poland and Mongol Empire, the split that exists until modern times in the form of 2 countries: Ukraine and Russia, the Polish historians might have a take on the subject. According to WP:NPOV, in case multiple POV-s exist, each should be presented fairly. And at the same time the policy doesn't say anything that sources-historians should by respected differently based on their nationality or languages they use like it has been suggested by Deacon of Pndapetzim.
Seems like a content dispute gone bad, at least one side has used clearly racist statements to support the opinions and as a last resort has turned to ArbCom.--Termer (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Xavexgoem

This comment is entirely concerning the Boodles vs. Piotrus/Promethean curfufle that I observed during informal mediation. Most of the diffs have been provided above, and a fairly quick glance of the medcab case (here) will show it to be true. First, a lack of good faith on both sides, mostly evenly distributed except for cases where it was either felt by others' that Boodles was accusing them of being in a cabal, or him outright stating such. This includes Boodles making such accusations on Promethean, which I find uncalled for. Although the group of mediators who regularly go about medcab (or 3O and other informal DR, for that matter) are generally less experienced than those at medcom, we typically attract a pretty clueful bunch. Of all the important policies to keep in mind - especially during an ethnic/religious/etc dispute - NPOV is obviously at the top of the list, especially for the mediator during their interaction with other editors (AGF being implied, with more benefit of the doubt being given than usual). I have seen no indication that Promethean, during informal mediation, was pushing a POV (he was pushing for civility, perhaps not in the best of ways). Were he pushing his POV, he'd have been caught red-handed and likely reported to either medcab coordinator for mucking around in an important and contentious article. I have no knowledge of this happening, and logically the reprimand would be made public if it were indeed such a gross violation.

However, it is possible, and in my experience likely, that suggestions given by an informal mediator were misconstrued as imperatives. Given the huge amount of bad faith flying around that mediation, this wouldn't surprise me one bit. It's relatively easy to conflate a content issue (article structure, verifiability, etc) with a behavioral one (bias, civility, etc), such that content X was thought to be introduced on the faulty grounds that editor Y is abstraction Z, where Z is anything outside the domain of editing (e.g., Jewish, Polish, etc; instead of new-comer, generally-informed, troll, etc; these differences are easily conflated, too). But to say, when the inf. mediator leaves (that is, will no longer be participating), that he was "on their 'team'" ([43]) is a gross assumption of bad faith. All in all, boodle's behavior suggests that a firm reminder of Wikipedia:There Is No Cabal is needed at the least.

Also: I have seen no indication (again, only during informal mediation) that Piotrus was explicitly antisemitic. I do not have the context to tell whether there were implicit instances, but our job as editors is to assume good faith in such gray areas where we cannot determine motives beyond a reasonable doubt. The line really isn't that fine between frustration and abuse, and this entire case (again, in medcab) is a matter of the former misconstrued as the latter. AGF, AGF, AGF. All around. Criminey.

Comment by Boodlesthecat

Xavexgoem says "I have seen no indication (again, only during informal mediation) that Piotrus was explicitly antisemitic." This is a non-starter, since no one to my knowledge (certainly not me) has accused Piotrus of being antisemitic. Xavexgoem's adding that statement indicates either a lack of familiarity with this boondoggle of a case, or further evidence that someone(s) are falsely spreading misinformation to the effect that Piotrus is being accused of being an anti-semite. So unless someone has a diff indicating such a charge explicitly made against Piotrus, that part of Xavexgoem's observation is simply a straw man with a red herring in each pocket. If you actually read through that mediation, you would find that I spent an exhaustive amount of time trying to get the "opposing" editors there to actually comment on article issue, rather then blow smoke every which way--which obviously accomplished what may have been their goal--to crate a faux martyrdom wherein they are all being unjustly accused of anti-semitism. I for one have only made that charge against the flagrantly anti-semitic posting of Greg park avenue. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Hillock65

Somehow I am not surprised that this arbcom case is up again. It seems that one of the most productive contributors to WP is causing too much concern for some people. I happen to know by their edits and mutual contribution many of the participants in this case, including Piotrus, Irpen and Deacon. It seems that the new row is brewing up again as ever in Eastern European topics, where groups of nationalist cabals never stopped hounding those that they dislike. That Piotrus has become their target yet again is not surprising at all. From my experience he is one of the few editors, who refuse to be intimidated and forced out from Wikipedia and that's why I am also not surprised to see Irpen and even Ghirla showing up whenever Piotrus's name comes up. All this points to what other editors mentioned above: this is nothing but a nationalist inspired witch-hunt of a dedicated and hardworking wikipedian. Should this hounding of productive contributors succeed, the consequences for the whole of this community would be grim indeed.--Hillock65 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Recuse. I have handled matters related to Matthead in the past, most notably on arbitration enforcement. I would rather another Clerk handled this matter, although my involvement was largely only as a neutral third party and as an uninvolved administrator. Anthøny ✉ 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs) to refactor their statements as they're way over the 500 word limit. If this isn't done within a reasonable time frame, the clerks will do it for them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications

This is not a statement for the case (I have already made mine) but I would like to address some of the posts made above. Statement by Piotrus and others would be answered in the evidence page. However, while the comments by Moreschi and Durova warrant a response they do not belong to the evidence page since they have no relation to whatever belongs to the case. In fact, I am surprised to see what they posted at all, but I will answer them for the record.

On Moreschi's comment

While Moreschi passingly acknowledges that I seem to him an "also fine writer" he immediately goes into a new round of accusations, this time that I am "a real blocking factor in trying to deal with the worst excesses of [my] Russian compatriots". Beside being factually wrong about Russians being my "compatriots" (I am neither a resident, nor a citizen, nor a native of Russia), he pointedly fails to provide examples of me "blocking in trying to deal with the worst excesses of" the Russians in Wikipedia.

Interestingly, this very same accusation was brought up earlier this summer by one of the Moreschi's friends who, at least, had courage and decency to retract this accusation and apologize (a hatchet I am very happy to bury.) The only interaction that involved Moreschi, myself and a Russian editor prior to this arbcom that I think of (and the one that I guess prompted his statement) can be found in the history of his talk. The matter of contention (at least for me) was the fact that Moreschi's talk page became a stage for an unseemly stuff where a certain Russian editor (with whom I argued and whom I reverted many times) became bashed with accusations of xenophobia behind his back.

Moreschi somehow "forgets" our joint effort to curb the damage to Wikipedia from a marxist POV pusher Jacob Peters (who I guess, he also considers Russian) and his socks. My single problem with Moreschi lies in the field of ethics rather than content. He apparently considers people having been insulted behind their backs an acceptable practice. This was most pointedly exposed in an incident, when he himself engaged in such behind the back insults. Public details can be found here and here. Perhaps, I am wrong and Moreschi is uncomfortable himself about his past behavior. If so, he expressed no sign of that.

On Durova's comment

This comment is worthy of a response, only because it is so irrelevant to the matters at hand that it should be laid to rest right now. The exchanges to which Durova refers all relate to her improper block of an editor in November 2007 following an unwarranted investigation she conducted and then described on an off-wiki private mailing list that was supposed to be dedicated to the support of female editors who had been harassed. Her investigation of the editor involved did not reveal any evidence whatsoever of harassment of female editors, and her email detailing her conclusions was found to be shockingly beneath the minimal standards expected for any form of action against the involved, extremely dedicated editor. Alex Bakharev indicated Durova had thought the editor involved had been harassing female Wikipedians with sick emails, following an off-wiki exchange with Durova. This was completely untrue, and it is this belief that I have labeled as a fairy tale. As Durova's comments have nothing to do with the matter at hand, I do not intend to address them further. --Irpen 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Halibutt

Below I re-post my letter to Piotrus. I believe it might serve as my statement here. In short: I quit wiki after 4+ years and thousands of articles edited and created because I have been under similar attacks as Piotrus. He still believes content creators have a place in Wikipedia, I don't.

The level of my wikistress has fallen recently. Not to the level at which I'd be willing to return to this can of worms where a group of devoted editors are watching my every step, reverting wherever they can, criticizing and slandering me for what I did (and, in most cases, for what I didn't do) and so on. I still believe Wikipedia is a waste of my time. Too much time have I spent here already.

Sadly, we, the content creators are at a lost position here. In case of content disputes, both you and me in most cases saw that there is more than "One Truth", and tried to defend that. I believe that's how both of us understand the sacred rule of NPOV. However, the recent conflicts with the Lithuanian club (and not-so-recent quarrels with the Russian-minded editors) taught me, that the "One Sacred Truth" will always win, no matter how many references you present. Our opponents do not present evidence (and when they do - it's Kazimieras Garšva), yet they prevail anyway.

Why? It seems to me that sheer number of votes is all that matters. They're plenty, we're few. In theory, all open-minded Wikipedians should take part in such content disputes and simply judge by the sources presented. However, in most cases nobody cares except for a small group of people - too small to make a difference. Users like Lokyz or Iulius can safely delete references they dislike - and it's perfectly right and well. But when you revert an article to restore the references - you're instantly reported to some ArbCom, RfA or some other place, where you have to waste time explaining that "you're not a camel", as we say here in Poland.

The same applies to cases of "simple" personal attacks and slanderous campaigns take place. Remember Renata's farewell letter? She accused me of all sorts of absurd things without presenting a single diff or link (of which there could be none), but noone stood in my defence. People don't care, we have to waste time defending ourselves against all sorts of tag teams.

Now on to your case. Of course, the accusations are in most cases completely absurd and out of the blue. Of course, holding this diff against you would be hilarious if it wasn't true (for the non-informed readers, the article deals with Jews from the areas annexed by Lithuania as well; erasing a mention of Polish Jews from there is similar to, say, erasing the mention of Polish Jews from the article on Warsaw Ghetto, arguing that there was no Poland back then). Same for the RfA against Lokyz you filed - you clearly tried to defend against a similar slander campaign that the one that finally pushed me out of Wikipedia. And now that's one of the main arguments against you. Sad but true. //Halibu tt 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by greg park avenue

Thanks for the vote of confidence to Users Biophys & Vecrumba and others. I never was an anti-Semite or racist, as the bugger Boddlesthecat et al, who seems to have more puppets than you may find in any Gypsy or Barnum and Bailey wagon, imply. BTW, never had an encounter with User Irpen, but his allegations that collecting evidence by User Piotrus (Black Book) is against WP:AGF is just silly in my opinion. After two ArbComs, were they against me, I would do that too. One afterthought comes to mind. Such accusations remains me of the transcripts from Soviet era interrogations from Lubyanka (KGB) - if one collects an evidence against a party line one is a suspect of being an anti-socialist element (read criminal and US spy) and should be ashamed of doing so. The only way to redeem oneself is to plead guilty to any charges filed by the state, then the penalty for treason may be reduced from 20 to 5-10 years of hard labor in the Siberian or Kazakhstan Gulag. greg park avenue (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Molobo

Regarding this statement "Molobo didn't know about the revelation of their IM-relationship and believed that finding out about it was near impossible, blatantly declaring: "I don't know Piotrus besides Wikipedia-we are in no personal connection". This is completely correct. The link Scinurae provided is regarding Irpen's accusations that I am Piotrus friend and my edits are coming due to my personal relationship with him. My contacts with Piotrus are only involved with Wikipedia. This was the point of my statement. I can and would freely admit that Piotrus and I (as well as other users) contact each other on email and GG. Piotrus often asks me what I do I know about topic or if I know any sources that write about the subject. The above claim by Scinurae is then purely misleading, as the exchange was not about communication but about my alledged personal friendship with Piotrus which Irpen claimed is my reason for edits. I admit that I believe Scinurae is a bit 'obsessed' about my person since most of his edits are pure pop-ups, besides jumping into any discussion that involves me(he once admited my contributions page is on his watchlist).This comes from a long history of his rejection of German aspects of history regarding Poland(going back to the time he was user Nightbeast) to which I contribute. I don't like this type of exchanges since my time is limited and I would rather wrote about subjects I like. Also from my experience, usuallly a fury of statements(usually misleading or abusive) follows by people with much more time and dedication that need explaining and the round goes on and on. As to Piotrus and Irpen-I can only say that Irpen has become obsessed with Piotrus and to lesser extent some others who Piotrus gained as "followers"-this was bound to happen as he edits many controversial articles which attract editors with strong views. However I will say that Irpens obsession borders on something that has reached a disturbing scale. His whole existance on Wikipedia now is 90% focused on disputing Piotrus.--Molobo (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xx236

It's not about Piotrus, it's about this Wikipedia. The result will be you remove all Polish editors. Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kpjas

I've been with Wikipedia almost from the very beginning (Spring 2001) and over 7 years in the project shows my commitment and dedication to it.
Due to my tasks in the Polish Wikipedia I was away from the English version for about two years (only occasionally a guest) and I have never been involved in any of these edit wars. You can assume I am neutral if you exclude my bias due to the fact that I'm Polish.

This is my credo: Wikipedia is the ultimate goal that every Wikipedian must keep in mind at all times (Will Wikipedia benefit or suffer from my action/edit/behaviour etc.). But I would never underestimate the importance of the community of editors. Editors create Wikipedia after all. However there are hundreds of things that need to be subdued and put under control in the name of Wikipedia's good. Edit wars and growing animosity can cause irreparable damage to the project.

Piotrus' arbitration

I wasn't able to follow all of this lengthy case with hundreds of diffs and dozens of pages of evidence and discussion. Please let me share my thoughts with you:

Piotrus is definitely a valuable and prolific editor so losing him would be a great loss for the project. What company would quietly accept losing one of its most productive men?
I believe Piotrus is sincere and acts in good faith
To err is human, we all make mistakes, and Piotrus is like the rest of us. I think he can sometimes be excused bearing in mind how challenging and controversial topics he engages
I suspect that he has been targeted and that so often he is treated unfairly by his opponents
wouldn't Wikipedia's NPOV be sacrificed if one side of POV in controversial and (relatively) obscure subjects be wiped out and driven away. The strength of NPOV is that both side have a chance to be represented if consensus is impossible to reach
I believe Piotrus is a reasonable, constructive and cooperative person so his knowledge and expertise can certainly be employed in Wikipedia in a lot of ways

Kpjas (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dc76

There are two issues rased by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · count) that in my personal opinion are off (citing below from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Sumary_of_concerns):

"So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored."

"His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community, while at the same time it gives him the gravitas edit-war and battle subject to higher community tolerance."

To the first issue, the record of WP:Tag team behavior against Piotrus (talk · contribs · count) and people that at least on one occasion, at least on one issue took the same stand as Piotrus is adamant, is deathening. Just one example of sidelining dedicated and honest editors of encyclopedic depth through non-chalant bullying: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2. This example goes directly to disprove that Piotrus is a "singular problem". I'm afraid that in the eyes of many of the people that voted against Biruitorul (talk · contribs · count) singular is not Piotrus, but everyone and everything that reveals in an unpleasant light some actions of Soviet Union or Russia in Eastern Europe.

I also personally faced very harsh treatment, bun only from a couple of those editors. I contributed to WP about 20 times less than Piotrus, so I faced 20 times less such treatment, and only from a portion of that group. I never had, not a single bit of conflict with Deacon of Pndapetzimhim, and he was very civil when we talked in the above-mentioned RfA. In fact, I believe that Deacon of Pndapetzim stands apart in that group, as he is a person that truly can be convinced that eastern European editors should be judges by the same rules as everyone else, and none should put a label "Anti-Russian nationalist" just because they come from eastern Europe and edit articles about eastern Europe.

To the second issue: People who in real life have dignity and are not puppets of someone else would never consider someone to be charismatic just because he or she has more edits and comments. Personally, I'm ignorant of 95% of Piotrus edits (because many of them concern Polish issues, and I had no tangency with those). From the remaining 5%, I learn to respect him as a civil and intelligent fellow editor. Nothing more or less. Piotrus is not Julius Caesar to be charismatic, let's avoid big words.

Last but not least, I'm very sorry to hear (by far not for the first time) about disputes in Polish-Lithuanian issues on WP? Can fellow Eastern Europeans help you, guys? Perhaps those involved in the dispute should open a WP:Request for Comment with issue by issue lists, where other poeple can comment on issue by issue bases? Warning to both Poles and Lithuanian: don't assume other eastern Europeans would take one side or the other, and we are more knowledgeble, than say Americans, to spot something fishy in eastern European issues. But I think, those Poles and Lithuanians who are 100% honest when they edit, should not be afraid of taking the risk of asking assistance from their neighbors to solve at least some of the problems. I can halp in 3-4 instances, some other 10-20 people in 3-4 instances each, so we can get to the bottom of 30-50 issues. Dc76\^talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

For the committee: Any projections? Novickas (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One party who was necessarily away for a few days had requested a little more time to finish presenting his evidence. We are allowing another couple of days for that and then I expect that one of the arbitrators will write up a decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Novickas (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nihil novi

I am surprised to see this kind of ligitious proceeding against Piotrus. I have worked on many articles with him; and while we have occasionally differed, I have never found him anything but courteous, civil and collegial. His sensitivity to maintaining a neutral point of view has been such as at times to actually exceed what seemed to me indispensable. I have never experienced any effort by him to exert undue influence with me; what influence he has had, was based on sound argument and reliable sources.

I cannot say the same of his accusers, who have frequently been notable for the absence of these qualities, and whose behaviors have contributed to creating a hostile workplace at Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re editor findings section

To Kirill: Could you state your criteria for inclusion/exclusion there? Novickas (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially went through the evidence page and listed any editor that was accused of some substantive misbehavior (although it's quite possible that I missed someone, given the scale involved). This particular setup is mainly in reference to the requests by several editors that we explicitly address all of the accusations being thrown around and state whether or not the accused editors have actually violated anything.

(Having said that, I'm not sure whether this format is the best way to go yet.) Kirill ^(prof) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, lost connection... I'm hoping for (this would be the condensed version)

amnesty (evidence before close of RfA invalid for future use)
moratorium on editor against editor RfAs (six months)
ban on denunciations (including morphing content disputes into WP:CIVIL at every turn)
applicable to Baltic, Central, Eastern, "Soviet" European space

We've shown that one assumption/accusation of bad faith leads to two more and two more and two more... Let's excise all the past bad faith and give good faith a chance to flourish. —PētersV (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, I'm willing to trade the estocada or two for half a year of quiet editing.—PētersV (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Finding = the atmosphere of bad faith accusations has not improved and has gotten worse across the Baltic, Central, Eastern, and former "Soviet" European sphere. Apologies for my bluntness. —PētersV (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ecoleetage

I have worked with Piotrus on the article Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust. I found him to be an intelligent, friendly, insightful and supportive editor. I am aware that there are editors who dislike Piotrus. I cannot comment on their feelings, nor do I wish to pass judgment on their interactions with Piotrus. I can only speak about my experience in working with Piotrus, which has been extremely positive. Personally, I wish there were more editors like Piotrus on Wikipedia, and I look forward to working with him on future projects. After all, we are here to create content...not drama! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final arbitrators

Active:

Charles Matthews
FloNight
FT2
Jdforrester
Kirill Lokshin
Matthew Brown (Morven)
Newyorkbrad
Sam Blacketer
Stephen Bain (bainer)
YellowMonkey

Away or inactive:

Deskana
FayssalF
Jpgordon

Post-arbitration statement by Piotrus

I am not going to nitpick the case (although it might be something to consider in the future along the lines of arbitration report - ask parties to write down their experiences...). It was not an easy one, and overall, the arbitrators did more good than bad, and did better than those in the past cases I observed (this is not to say that I think this is a perfect case...).

I do want to stress one point, not directly related to any of the findings/remedies: in this case the arbitrators seemed to interact a little bit more with the parties than in the past cases, and this is as well a big improvement. Yet "a little more" still means that most of the comments by parties - including direct ones to arbitrators on their talk pages - were ignored. One sad impression I took away from this case is that none of the editors matter (much) for the ArbCom: we are cogs in the machine, to be fit into the machine, thrown away if too individualistic, and rarely treated like humans (and certainly not respected as volunteers who try to build this project). The iron law seems to be inescapable, after all. That is not to say a condemnation of all of the arbitrators. There was an elite minority of arbitrators who engaged parties in meaningful discussion, made rational and thought-out comments and decisions. You know who you are; thank you.

Will there be a dreaded Piotrus 3, taking another half a year (btw, I wonder why this case didn't merit an explanation if not an apology for the extreme lenght...)? I hope not, but I am not sure if the remedies went far enough. Too many disruptive editors got off lightly due to recent inactivity (while at the same time, some others users - disruptive or otherwise - got penalized for ancient history... but I promised not to get into details :>). Coming weeks will show if they really gave up or were just laying low and will resume their wikiharassment campaign.

Thanks again to all of those (arbitrators and otherwise) who tried to do the right thing and help to build the shining encyclopedia of the future, rather then pursue some personal agendas (and vendettas). Overall, I think you prevailed, and if not perfectly - this is life. Merry XMAS,

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to rename: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2

Statement by Geoff Plourde

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee;

I am filing this request after consultation with others. I believe that the current title of this case is not accurate due to the immense number of sanctions in this case, on users other than Piotrus. I am proposing therefore that it be renamed Eastern european disputes.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rlevse: A motion was filed here, but Arbitrators did not act on it despite support from several members of the community. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]; Clerk note: This remark moved from the Arbitrators' section. AGK 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill: The substantive benefit is that the name does not accurately reflect the scope of this case, even at acceptance. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad: Due to the Arbcom practice of reviewing the conduct of all involved, the scope of this case at acceptance automatically became Eastern European disputes. The scope has been and always was this, therefore the name should reflect it.

Response to Flonight: I agree that in the current Arbcom practice, cases should not be named after one person. If a case involves the conduct of one person, then such is appropriate, but in the current methodology of reviewing conduct of all involved, this is impractical. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam: The fact of Piotrus filing the original motion would lead one to the assumption that he wanted this renamed? Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deacon: I must respectfully disagree. While you may believe that you filed on Piotrus, this isn't just about Piotrus. When arbitrators accepted this case, they specifically said "accept to look at all parties". By doing so, the scope automatically became anyone involved in Eastern European disputes. Even if this were not the case, the sheer amount of named parties would support a rename, at least to Piotrus and 20 others. Due to the scope, a rename is in order. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Motion 2: Can this be adjusted to "may be rejected, at the Committee's discretion" to reflect new information and special cases? Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

I concur with this. The Piotrus 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) involved 19 parties (or so), a substantial number of whom remedies were passed on; I don't think the current name is an appropriate title—nor one which accurately reflects the scope of the case.

Inaccurate naming gives a poor impression to editors reviewing the decision; remedying this would be a step in the direction of ensuring all decisions are easy to understand—a direction which, when proposed in the recent ArbCom RfC, the Community quite eagerly assented to.

I'm hoping the Committee can agree to retitle the case.

AGK 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

Good proposal. Durova^Charge! 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to the arbitrators: this is too absurd to pass without a blog post.[44] Durova^Charge! 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

The case as launched was about Piotrus, renaming it distorts this and would be historically inaccurate. I didn't launch a case for all or general north-eastern european disputes (Poland, Germany, Russia & the Baltic are the countries/areas involved, not eastern europe in general), but against Piotrus, following on from Piotrus 1. Historically, the case launched was called Piotrus 2, and it is now over and that can't be changed. The arbs accepted the case and then proceeded to deal with anything subsequently raised in the evidence section, which made the case about North-Eastern Europe in general. So this would suggest splitting the case into something launched by me [and rejected?] and something dealt with by the arbs. Renaming it entirely would bury this historic fact. Moreover, Piotrus 2 follows neatly from Piotrus [1]. If it is to be renamed, make it North-Eastern Europe 2 or North-Eastern Europe 3 (with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla as North-Eastern Europe 1 and Piotrus 1 as North-Eastern Europe 2). Additionally, there are other Eastern and North-Eastern Europe arbitration cases which evolved [through evidence sections] from one editor to include that one editor's main allies and enemies. There are of course even more in wikipedia generally. The principle has thus not been established yet. I oppose renaming for historical reasons, but oppose general renaming less. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.K.

I have been involved in this case primary due to continues problems surrounding user:Piotrus' behavior, not because the general Eastern European topics, as current proposal would imply. Renaming will make make unnecessary confusion - completely distort my motives why I participated in it, the whole evidence section will be out of context etc.

Personally I still fail to see any solid reasons why closed case should be renamed as such; we saw such attempts to rename first Piotrus arbitration case, (which was not implemented), there was attempts during and the second Piotrus case as well [45]. M.K. (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Now people are redrawing their statements, soon this case will be complete mess.[reply]

Idle comment by Orderinchaos

Given it affected many parties and Piotrus was not even the main sanctioned party (two users were banned and three restricted and two mentored, whilst Piotrus was only "urged, cautioned and admonished"), I think this is a no-brainer especially given it seems Piotrus himself had requested such a rename during the case. Orderinchaos 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-factum comment by Piotrus

One would think somebody would inform me about this at some point (after all, the case was named after me in the first place, for better or worse). In any case, I have long supported renaming it, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Workshop#Motion_to_recognize_more_parties_and_rename_this_case, and I am glad this was done. A little less slander on my name is always appreciated, although as it can be seen, some editors still would prefer to frame my name as a synonym to problems they create and I am trying to solve... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I've moved 1 comment by Geoff to his own section. If you'd like to respond to a comment by another editor in the thread or by an Arbitrator, you can do so in your own section; by doing so we avoid unnecessary threaded discussion in-Request. Thanks, AGK 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally (as far as I know), case name is set when the case is opened (because there are numerous links and notifications). And there are various precedents where parties not indicated in case name have been sanctioned. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed a case name at close once to more accurately indicate what findings and remedies were made (Kuban kazak - Hillock65 became Kuban kazak). Its not a bad practice.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion is passed, will enforce right away. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Question--did anyone ask this before the case closed, by any method? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have not, traditionally, renamed cases merely because the final decision dealt with users whose names did not feature in the original title; the only occasions I can recall where we undertook this sort of change involved removing names, not adding them. I'm not convinced that the idea of matching the title with the scope, in and of itself, is worth the confusion that radically renaming the case will cause; is there some substantive benefit to doing so? Kirill 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It frequently happens that the final scope of a case winds up being different from what was anticipated, and we don't usually rename the case for this reason (except sometimes by dropping the name of a party who winds up not really being mentioned in the final decision at all). That being said, I might be willing to consider taking action here if Piotrus feels strongly about it; otherwise, there's really no reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to renaming this case. My preference is to never name a case after an user since it often causes them distress. In situation such as this one, I think that naming the case after a single user in not for the best since it over emphasizes his importance in the situation. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with renaming this recently closed case (to reflect final remedies). However, I'd recommend such requests be made within a week of the closure; otherwise we'll end up renaming cases closed years ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit late but a rename would not be inappropriate if, as Brad says, Piotrus feels it is important. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that a rename really serves any purpose here. If Piotrus had been shown to be behaving completely within policy at all times, I would agree there was justification to change the name, but he was indeed the subject of two remedies (a caution with respect to administrative privileges and an admonishment with respect to edit-warring). I find it unfortunate that this case was permitted to range as widely as it did, but it was the decision of the committee at the time and I will respect that. Indeed, if not for the issues identified with respect to Piotrus, there would not have been any findings on any of the other editors. Risker (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case amounted to a post-amnesty review of user conduct that had not been addressed under the existing discretionary sanctions. "Eastern European disputes" would be a reasonable title, though somewhat misleading as the case was not about articles at all (what with the sanctions mentioned already existing) but entirely about conduct. --bainer (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The case Piotrus 2 is to be renamed Eastern European disputes and all subpages moved accordingly. Redirects will be left at the former name to prevent breaking internal links.

Support:

— Coren ^(talk) 05:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming a case, (and courtesy blanking, deleting personal information, inviting sensitive evidence to be submitted privately, and other means to help users feel less violated by the process.) This matches well our goal of dispute resolution since people that feel violated by the process have a more difficult time accepting the ruling and moving on. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree with FloNight. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree with FloNight. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though pedantically "disputes" should be a lowercase 'd'. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Wizardman 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Don't name a case after a handful of specific editors if it's a more general case and not specifically about those editors per se.[reply]
Support. Calling it "Piotrus 2" seems to me to unnecessarily personalise it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I don't see much value in the name change, but will not stand in the way. Risker (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes

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

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Sorry, arbs, I'd hoped to see the back of Piotrus 2 and its issues after all the grief it caused. However, a concern has been raised about the attempt of User:Piotrus to close an AN/3 thread in a Polish-Lithuanian dispute nominated by a Lithuanian user (User:M.K), in light of his caution in the last Arbitration hearing not to do such things (see see here). Piotrus "warning" of the Lithuanian user (with whom he has a long history of dispute) was removed from the thread by William Connelly who pointed out Piotrus' involvement, and Piotrus subsequently renewed unsubstantiated accusations against the user (repeated from ArbEnf) of "harrassing Polish users".[46] Ignoring the serious nature of accusing another established editor of nationality based harassment particularly in light of such allegations being untrue, there is absolutely nothing the patrollers of AE can actually do about this "admin intervention". Piotrus' response to the concerns show such a complete lack of self-awareness about the issues that I'd like the ArbCom to clarify to him and the community whether such action is acceptable in light of the previous caution; and to avoid future occurrences prohibit future ad hoc "Neutral admin interventions" on behalf of friends/against "enemies" at AN/3. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tiptoety

Clarification I think (if that's the best way to classify what I have asked for in my text; change it to amend if you think that's better). Piotrus was already notified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to William and Shell

This is a simple matter, there's no need to fight over it or dramatize it, and I'm not seeking anyone's "punishment". Piotrus attempted to intervene as admin on behalf of a friend, and "warned" a content opponent in the process. This is factual. He doesn't acknowledge this nor that anything is wrong. Again, check the AE thread, this is factual. It is thus clear evidence of a threat to process in dispute resolution, and to the safety of all users likely to be opposed by Piotrus or friends in content disputes (this is where Piotrus is right, I am seeking to protect such users). In light of the previous caution it is clearly reasonable for me to request ArbCom to use their powers to prevent a threat. It is especially reasonable in light of the new committee's pledge to reduce tolerance of potential admin abuse. M.K brought this to AE. I brought it here because I know AE can't do anything. Obviously it's not a waste of time. Arbcom can either vote to do something about it as I recommended (just a ban on intervening on AN/3 on behalf of friends), or vote not to. The posts made Shell Kinney and William Connelly hence don't make any sense in these regards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Coren

Ah, Coren, I love you too! Maybe the argument we had a month or so ago led you to believe I am naive about Arbcom or daftly malicious or something. I'm sorry if it did, but I really don't think I am. I am fully aware that, even if I wanted to, I'd never succeed if I tried to "misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta" (you should get used to these words, as you will undoubtedly see them quoted a lot in the future). I hope, if you haven't already, you'll read through Piotrus 2 at a decent pace or at least the evidence that M.K presented on AE to see that the supposedly "tenuous possible conflict of interest" is actually clear and that the situation presented here is that the misuse stems from the context rather than the event on its own. At the very worst, I am alleging a problem exists and exercising my right to ask Arbcom to solve it. I don't think I deserve this kind of dirt thrown at me from you for doing that! It doesn't, if it means anything, bother me though. :) And even if Piotrus had killed my father as a boy and I swore thereafter to dedicate my life to revenge on Piotrus and all his family, it wouldn't detract from the problem presented, nor the fact that the problem is wikipedia's rather than mine (I still don't get where the bad-faith version of my agenda here is seriously postulated to come from?). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Radeksz' post

For the record, Piotrus and Radeksz' public assertions about their own relationship with each other, while being impressionistically contradicted by M.K's AE post, is also contradicted by this evidence of an off-wiki relationship when not so long ago Piotrus requested Radeksz' email address in Polish away over at Polish wiki where Rad only ever made two contributions. One of the snags with Piotrus 2 leading to its inertia was that while it was widely suspected much editorial manoeuvring and gamesmanship by Piotrus took place off-wiki, it could never be proved. The result is that the public distancing with users like Alden Jones and Rad which seems to have so much persuasive effect on its intended audience is believed by Piotrus' normal opponents to be orchestrated merely for "outsider" consumption (such as threads like this) which allows Piotrus to "protect" users with similar editorial inclinations without discrediting himself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Sciurinae

Don't know why you bothered compiling and posting this, telling though it is. As you can tell from the responses below, some have license to do whatever they like and there's nothing wrong to closing AN/3 threads to save a POV-buddy and warn an old foe (and anyone who tries to say there is will get such nonsense like Coren posted below). Get used to it! I'm just about getting used to it now myself. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Let's see. I became aware of the 3RR report via my watchlist, and reviewed it as it concerned an article also on my watchlist I found the report (by MK) biased (it reported only one editor of the two editors warring) and potentially misleading an admin less familiar with the incident that would review it. As I have had already reviewed it, I decided to comment. Since the case was relatively clear (two users were edit warring and on the verge of breaking 3RR), but I was familiar to a certain extent with both of them, I would have not used my admin powers to block or unblock them, but as in this case no blocks were needed (both users are in good standing and are not known to edit war often), simply an equal warning to both sides seemed sufficient (and indeed Radek has already apologized and promised to stick to the 1RR I suggest to the parties). It is my understanding that such warnings can be issued by non-admins as well, so calling my warning "an abuse of admin power" sounds rather bad faithed towards me (and please note that whatever my past interactions with both warned editors, I have treated them equally and fairly, as their infractions were equal - I have not treated one of them better and one of them worse (which would indicate a preference)). Note that decision (to warn the users and close the case) was reviewed and approved by two other admins (Shell Kinney and William M. Connolley).

What I find more disturbing is actions of both MK and Deacon. MK was not involved in the editing of an article recently (although based on a past history I'd assume it is on his watchlist) and certainly does not have a habit of reporting people to 3RR - unless they are editors who have disagreed with him in the past. Thus instead of warning the involved editors that they are approaching 3RR, he stealthily reported only one of them to 3RR (one that has in the past disagreed with him and agreed with me, and not the one that in the past has agreed with him and disagreed with me...). Further, given that he has launched at least one RfC and two ArbCom requests against me and at least one RfC against another Polish user (I am kind of losing track here...), I have doubts if his reporting me to AE is motivated by good faith - or if by desire to stick another ball of mud to my reputation (and/or to force a block of an editor he dislikes via any means possible). How to remedy that, unfortunately, I am not sure, but if a neutral body would admonish MK and advise him to concentrate on building an encyclopedia instead of discussing editors he dislikes, this would be welcome (please note that I don't go around this project criticizing Lithuanian or other editors I've disagreed with in the past, and trying to catch them on the tiniest infractions of our policies...).

Deacon's involvement in the thread, on the other hand, resembles to me very much the actions of Irpen - appearing suddenly in any thread that is criticizing my person, and criticizing me (although I'll give Deacon that he does take things further then Irpen did - Irpen, AFAIR, has never launched threads against me, he just joined them). Incidentally, the last ArbCom involving me took place when Deacon took upon himself to defend another Lithuanian editor against "my harassment", first commenting in AE cases, then intervening in them and finally launching the Piotrus 2/EE arbcom (and then ArbCom found that editor incivil, edit warring and issued remedies concerning him).

Considering that I don't go around this project complaining about Deacon, I'd appreciate if the arbcom would consider issuing a restriction (on Deacon and me, to be fair - even through as I noted I don't go around criticizing Deacon...) similar to the one on Irpen and me (6.1A), preventing us from wasting our time criticizing one another. This would do MUCH to prevent similar wikidrama from occurring in the future.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. In short: I did not use my admin powers; I issued equal warnings to two parties involved in edit warring that seems to have put an end to the ongoing edit war. For restoring stability to an article without blocking anyone I have been dragged to AE and now, here, forcing me to waste my time on wikilawyering instead of building an encyclopedia (good thing I've finished my daily DYK already, as my desire (and time...) to write another one today, which I was planning on doing, has somehow evaporated). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. Thank you, Shelly, for seeing clearly through all of the dramu :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Novickas

Well, I think I'm involved, since I made this edit to Armia Krajowa on February 4th [47], and the edit war started soon afterwards. It's really, really hard to disentangle the subsequent edits and determine if 3RR was violated there or not. But I cannot see how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents at the AK article could NOT be interpreted as an admin acting inappropriately. You all have tools at your disposal to check his interests there. At the very least, could you ask him to stop talking about stalking - this expression has been disparaged when not referring to real-life harassment, has it not? Novickas (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tymek

Novickas writes: "how Piotrus' warnings to his content opponents"... but Piotrus warned also the other party in a dispute. Such selective omission of the facts has been common throughout last ArbCom case. So Piotrus stopped an edit war with warnings instead of blocks - I don't see anything wrong here, instead, I think he acted wisely, as a good admin should. See also my post at AE. Tymek (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

I had just closed this on AE only to find out that Deacon brought this here as well. There's no substance to this complaint - Piotrus appropriately handled an approaching edit war with as little disruption as possible. M.K.'s report on AE reads suspiciously like sour grapes that both parties were cautioned (appropriately) instead of just the one he reported. As I suggested in closing there, M.K. and Deacon may both wish to find hobbies that do not include interacting with Piotrus; it wouldn't be amiss for the Committee to make a ruling to that affect. Shell ^babelfish 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

This should be closed as a dup of AE and whoever brought this here admonished for wasting everyones time. I've commented there [48] but consider me to have said this here too if necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Radeksz

I'm not sure if I even want to reply here since as William and Shell note above this is really just a waste of time. I find the amount of information that MK has gathered on me, things like when I activated my email, who sent me a Christmas card, trying to track me out on Polish wiki etc. to be, frankly, a bit creepy. Particularly since I think I've interacted with him once before if ever. When I saw the report and the subsequent discussion I had to try hard to remember who this person, who appeared to really have it in for me, was. He also misrepresents the situation in several ways. Basically MK is not only being petty, vindictive, dishonest and mean spirited but is just simply wasting other Wikipedians' time. He needs to stop. I'm gonna go back to actually working on an article now.radek (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Deacon

While I have no wish to hurt Piotrus' feelings, Deacon's mendacity prompts me to say that in fact Piotrus is not my friend. I mean, he seems like a good guy, hardworking, knowledgeable and collegial but the truth is that I really don't know him that well. Before the whole nasty Arbcom beeswax I had like two interactions with him. And then maybe a few more since then (and those in fact, in large part due to other, bad faith, editors assuming that if two Polish editors have the temerity to edit the same Poland-related article then they MUST be part of some conspiracy). So no, Deacon, the things you say are 'factual' are not 'factual' (I don't think that word means what you think it means). Yes, Deacon, you are wasting people's time.radek (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.K.

Well I did not expect that this issue would be presented here. I really don't have much time therefore only few comments.

I noticed on Armia Krajowa, an article which I edited previously, violation of 3RR rule by one of the parties. I reported this violation to the proper board [49].

If the neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide, that to both parties remedies should be applied regarding this case - fine. If neutral and uninvolved AN3 administrator would decide that article should be protected – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide, that one party should be sanctioned – fine. If neutral and uninvolved administrator would decide that case is unfounded – fine. All this fine, until such actions are carried by an uninvolved - neutral in specific situation administrator. While Piotrus, in contrast, was a party of the dispute and has different relations with both parties (also he invited one of the party to that page).

Therefore, in my view, such closing of 3RR report should not be done by Piotrus, but rather by uninvolved administrator (I noted this on the 3RR board [50]), also using his status by issuing "warning" to me [51] on that board, I interpret it as neglect towards Committee's remedy - Piotrus is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.

Taking into consideration this experience and to avoid similar developments in the future, it would be good that Arbiters clarify how we should understand and interpret - administrators' status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cla68

This appears to me to be an attempt to bully and intimidate Piotrus. I don't know if it's a first offense or not for the editors who are doing it, but if it isn't, I suggest an enforced wiki-break for them. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Poeticbent

The reason why the Eastern European disputes are being revived so quickly—after their hasty amendment at New Years—is because the role played initially by M.K and Deacon of Pndapetzim was not properly examined before the case was closed. I warned the ArbCom about that in my comments to Proposed Decision. These two users are the flamers who ended up getting away free, with the assumption that they are also free to do whatever they want whenever they want.

In the interest of fairness: M.K is the editor who launched (together with his political tag-team staunch-man Ghirla) RfC against Piotrus and Halibutt, and then his first ArbCom against him (that's just citing some of his most notable attempts to harass Polish editors - including me - based on anti-Polish sentiment and bad science). I already spoke about these malevolent campaigns during Eastern European disputes case which in turn was initiated by Deacon. I'm still disturbed by the fact that nothing was being done to end this game. Clearly, these users remain the most adverse elements to any sense of lasting stability in the region. --Poeticbent talk 04:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vecrumba

Per Tymek above and New York Brad below. The attempt to manufacture an illusion of bad faith at every turn and the stream of accusations only because an editor/admin is of some Eastern European heritage has to stop. I can't believe Deacon is starting this all over again so soon. Piotrus hasn't started anything, these accusations coming so soon look a whole lot more like a personal vendetta than editorial concern for Wikipedia. PetersV TALK 21:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sciurinæ

I've had a closer look over the last few days and although I know it's too late to change anything, I'd still like to list the facts for future reference. Why this was completely unacceptable of Piotrus:

Piotrus biased in favour of Radeksz: This is Radeksz's third 3RR violation and all of Piotrus' reactions to them are interesting:
- First 3RR violation: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (the violation wasn't reported). Piotrus couldn't contact him off-wiki to warn him and the case about his tag teaming was still on. Piotrus actually took the trouble of going to pl.wiki to ask Radeksz for his mail.[52] Piotrus also took part in the edit warring at the article before Radeksz, which resulted in page protection later after the second violation.[53]
- Second 3RR violation: Same page one day later.[54] Piotrus then secretly warned him in Polish about getting blocked for 3RR and to have a look at his message in pl.wiki.[55] This constitutes usage of another language to conceal improper conduct (see remedy). Piotrus also supported unblocking of Radeksz ([56]), and ignored his formula (it goes: when A has 4 reverts and B has 3, only A should receive a consequence. The formula was only designed after Piotrus often had 3 reverts and Boodlesthecat 4 anyway).
- Third 3RR violation (current one): Piotrus closes the issue himself to avoid a block.[57]
Piotrus biased against M0RD00R. M0RD00R had a history of reporting Piotrus's closer friends like Alden Jones, Tymek, Jacurek, Molobo, Greg park avenue and Poeticbent, eg [58] [59]. Or as I remarked in the EE arbitration: "When Tymek was reported for something else, Piotrus would turn up to acquit by equating him with the reporter [M0RD00R] ([60]) and later also opposed another ANI thread of the reporter this way.[61]" M0RD00R had also had content-related complaints about Piotrus and co before, eg [62]. He once even reported a 3RR ([63]) and a 1RR violation of Piotrus.[64]
Piotrus biased against M.K. M.K once reported a 3RR violation of Piotrus, which got Piotrus blocked and into the IRC unblock shopping scandal. M.K also created the first Piotrus arbitration and it's M.K's paragraph that is the foundation of the ArbCom's decision that Piotrus edit-warred repeatedly. Piotrus has now also made the PAs that M.K was just anti-Polish ([65] [66]) and a "bully" ([67]). After M.K complained at the 3RR board and at AE about Piotrus's meddling, Piotrus also tried to give him an extra slap ([68]) that didn't work out.[69]
Piotrus could predict drama. This was the first or one of the first 3RR threads he ever chose to decide (and just where it suited his interests. Why didn't he also close his AE thread while at it?).
Radeksz violated 3RR and was the only one to violate it. Here's my summary of the reverts.
Piotrus involved in article. Piotrus is involved in the article as the predominant editor. Piotrus was cautioned "to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent." Deciding 3RR threads is done by admins.
Piotrus instigated the revert war. Piotrus asked Radeksz for involvement in the edit war, who made his first revert minutes later. After all, Piotrus also did nothing but reverting and did not request a change of course before the 3RR report.
Piotrus took part in the revert war. Piotrus revert warred over the same sentence before Radeksz (look for "entire army as anti-Semitic").[70] [71] Sciurinæ (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Is this a request to amend prior case, a request for appeal, or for clarification? Also, please notify Piotrus of this. Thanks. Tiptoety ^talk 19:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm going to be blunt here: what I see is a 3RR report that was closed uncontroversially and properly (and which nobody contests on its face, for that matter), and a thread on AE that attempts to rely on a tenuous possible conflict of interest to invoke sanctions according to a particularily imaginative reading of a remedy which was swiftly (and correctly) closed as unactionable. It is impossible, in this context, to see this request as little more than forum shopping; and an attempt to misuse the committee into a bludgeon in a vendetta. — Coren ^(talk) 22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see an issue with Piotrus's cautioning both users against edit-warring and warning that they were approaching 3RR, and noting on AN3 that he had done so. I think Deacon is right that perhaps Piotrus should not have formally closed the 3RR report, but the solution Piotrus engineered appears to have satisfactorily resolved the issue, and I find no need for action here. (I will note that I don't think it was necessary for Piotrus's statement in this thread to criticize Irpen. If the point is to reference the remedy preventing interaction between the two of them as a precedent, this could have been done in a different fashion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Newyorkbrad here; it was acceptable for Piotrus to warn both users. Piotrus' closure of the AN3 report is sailing awfully close to the wind, though, as he is far and away the most frequent editor of Armia Krajowa at 343 edits, more than 3 times the edits of anyone else. Closing of an AN3 is widely considered to be an administrative action, and I strongly recommend to Piotrus that he not take administrative actions involving articles in which he is such a major and continuing contributor. That isn't just in relation to the prior arbitration committee caution, but is right out of Wikipedia:Administrators. Risker (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Newyorkbrad, it might have been better if Piotrus had not been the one to take the action of closing the 3RR report, but his conduct once he had decided to do so was unimpeachable: fair, impartial and wise. This request looks suspiciously like forum-shopping. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the arb comments above. In the future, I'd ask Piotrus to take the side of caution in acting administratively in relation to articles and specific topic areas where he is a prolific editor. That said, our normal processes and (overworked) AE regulars seem to have this well in hand to the point that this should be a completely dead issue. Comments in the AE thread indicated it was already a dead issue then. This request does not seem to be undertaken with the best interests of the project at heart, to put it gently. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed by the Committee. Agree with the above comments and particularly Newyorkbrad (including his mention that bringing in criticism of Irpen was uncalled for in Piotrus's comment). FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tch. Newyorkbrad is right. Cool Hand Luke 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NYB above. Wizardman 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been said already. Nothing to add. Nothing to do here. Agree with all the above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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