Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

• Charles Matthews
• FloNight
• Fred Bauder
• Jdforrester
• Jpgordon
• Kirill Lokshin
• Morven
• SimonP
• UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away:

• Blnguyen
• Flcelloguy
• Mackensen
• Neutrality
• Paul August
• Raul654

Piotrus comment on the proposed decision (amnesty, parole, probation)

First, I am greatful that ArbCom members have started commenting on it earlier then we thought - it's a nice suprise, and will sure bring refreshing views to this issue.

Second, as the edit summary suggested, the current proposed solution is the 'big hammer' solution. It is my opinion, however, that this may cause too much 'collateral damage' and we may get better results with a 'subtle scalpel' solution (variants of which were proposed at workshop by all parties).

Amnesty. Setting aside the need to define 'good standing' (which needs to be clarified if this proposal is further discussed), I would like to draw your attention to some specifics of this case. I feel that most if not all involved editors, from all (there are more then two) sides, feel that they had been justified in their edits and behaviour, and it is the other side(s) that had wronged them. If they are not told clearly, by a neutral body such as ArbCom, that they have erred, they will not change their behaviour. Further, those editors who have been accused of wrongdoing by others likely feel that they deserve a 'certificate of good standing' from ArbCom (a statement refuting their opponents claims, akin to Fred's proposal involving me). Speaking for myself, I'd like ArbCom to comment on whether my past actions (in a reasonable timeframe) had been justified or not, and whether my evidence of others wrongdoing is justified or not. I am sure that others (and please note I am not the party that started this ArbCom) want the same answers about their character/actions and those of their opponents (see also comments here). Without such comments, how can I - or any other involved editor - know if we did right or wrong, and learn from any past mistakes? A general amnesty will leave all sides (who have likely put days into preparing their statements and evidence) just as they were, with belief in their righteousness, and in a matter of weeks, if not days, we will find ourselves in need of enforcing the second part of the 'big hammer' solution.

Probation and parole. First, I'd like to comment that singling out Eastern European history seems rather puzzling: I am sure there are many other controversial areas on Wikipedia (Holocaust history, colonialism, Japanese-Korean relations, Tibet, etc.) that are as heated and controversial as ours. Singling out a specific article for probation is feasible, singling out a general area with thousands of articles and thousands of editors unaware of this ArbCom may be creating a precedent we should likely avoid. Second, as I explained in my previous para, because parties will likely continue to act as they had we will soon find one or the other reported at ANI (and incidentally note that the very such act of reporting has been criticized by some in this ArbCom...). Then the ANI justice will kick in - an admin will review the case and make a decision. Admins, however, vastly differ in their experience and handling of such a cases, and as much as I respect my fellow co-admins I don't think trusting ANI to rule on a complex issue like this is the best idea. Sure, it's better then ignoring the problem (hence why this avenue was tried in the past, by myself included) - but it would be much better to have ArbCom issue some user conduct statements, probations, limitations, paroles and so on based on current, relativly comprehensive evidence, rather than to have random ANI decisions issued in the future based on some tiny fragment of the future evidence. By adopting the 'big hammer' solution ArbCom would in fact be 'sending this back to a lower court' (ANI); we have tried this in the past, and I believe nobody was happy with the result. Even worse, a random ANI judgement may turn out to be a block of some editors - and I don't think either party in this ArbCom has went as far as to ask for the other to be outright blocked, we may have our (sometimes big) differences but we (I hope) respect many for each other's contributions (and with one example I noted in my evidence, all involved editors have many great and uncontroversial edits to non-controversial content areas).

With respect, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the amnesty: it would, indeed, be possible (albeit rather time-consuming, as a number of the parties are quite high-volume editors) to examine each editor's conduct individually and make some sort of judgment on its relative appropriateness. Personally, I don't think this will really be a productive use of anyone's time unless the intent is to tailor particular remedies for each party, and I don't particularly want to do that here (more on this point later).

Eastern Europe is, of course, only one of several highly contentious areas in the project; but I think it's somewhat special because of the extreme length of the disputes (e.g. the Danzig issue), often involving the same participants year after year. Admittedly, the idea of applying a remedy to such a wide area is not one for which a great deal of precedent exists. (It's also worth noting that there's now a proposal for notification requirements that I had missed.)

More generally, I'm not convinced that trying yet another round of remedies tailored to specific articles or specific users will get us anywhere in the long run. We've already had a number of these, and the disputes seem to reappear a few weeks later, but on a different article or with slightly different participants. Quite honestly, though, I'm hoping that the second remedy will see minimal use except as a deterrent; as you said, I don't want to see any of the parties wind up blocked (or even prevented from contributing on the topic). While I suspect that some people will prove intractable, I hope that the majority of the regular editors will take the hint and start treating each other with a bit more patience and understanding. Kirill Lokshin 01:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we ever had any "remedies tailored to specific users" (at least nothing related to the participants of this ArbCom, with a single exception I am aware of and that I noted in my evidence). As for articles, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote worked pretty well from my experience, however the current issue is not about any (relativly) simple content issue like that was but about possibly disruptive behaviour of several users. We already have perfectly good guidelines for general behaviour (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CIV, and all the stuff from proposed principles here and in workshop). General guidelines however have not helped in the past (or else we wouldn't be here). Only specific findings and possible remedies about particular users against whom evidence has been presented in this ArbCom (and yes, this includes my person) can in my view change something. And there is no need for any timeconsuming investigation of many editors, I believe both parties made it clear who they want the ruling to concern, both sides presented what they believe is comprehensive evidence against those editors, and this involves only several individuals - me, MK, Dr. Dan and Ghirla if I count correctly).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Piotrus' points. I also sincerely hope that ArbCom members understand fully the magnitude of what they are about to do, if the rulings currently proposed are adopted. "Eastern Europe liberally defined" includes all the countries highlighted on this map. One look should make clear just how much Wikipedia content would be affected if all articles somehow connected to this area are to be placed under general probation (this would include all articles connected to Germany and Russia, for example). Clearly there will be a large number of editors that will be affected, having never heard of this Arbcom and thus unable to express their views on this matter that will strongly impact them. Balcer 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

How would "Eastern European history, politics, and geography, liberally defined," as opposed to "Eastern Europe, liberally defined," sound? I think it would capture the the articles which have been central to this dispute, while not being necessarily being in effect on an Estonian musician or a fair near Berlin. Article probation, if extended over so many tens of thousands of articles, would likely be unenforcable, unneeded, and seemingly out-of-the-blue for editors who have never heard of Piotrus, M.K, Irpen, Lysy, et al, nor are regulars in the articles related to this corner of Europe. Do you think narrowing it would accomplish as much, Kirill? Do you, Piotrus and Balcer (and anyone else), think that would be a more manageable extent? Picaroon (Talk) 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Europe is half of Europe. Declaring it a Wikipedia problem area as a whole (even only its history, politics and geography) will be unfair to the vast majority of Wikipedians who contribute productively to related articles without any conflicts or problems. I again second Piotrus' in his proposal that ArbCom step up to the plate and issue rulings designed to alter the behavior of individual problematic users who cause the vast majority of the problems discussed here. Balcer 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for being frank, but it would sound just as bad :) Seriously: Germany is not in EE (technicality, but note practical absence of comments from that part of the world in this ArbCom), and for any 'big scope case' very few users are even aware of it: I know there are grieviances involving parties in this case related to areas of EE that had not attracted attention of editors from this area, because for many this is still a local issue: a Polish-Lithuanian dispute with recent Russian (and Ukrainian/Belarusian) flavourings - and I am not even sure if we can say the Lithuanian side is represented, as almost all of the comments from Lithuanian side come from a single editor (and further, Russian side is divided, see outside statements). It is my view that this case can do some good if viewed on the level of the few involved editors, but will be pointless if we concern ourselves with trying to find a solution for half a continent (when in fact its a problem for only a few editors...).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a try. So do you think that including the limitation I suggested would not be any better than all of Eastern Europe? (As to Germany, I was just basing my use of Berlin as an example because Eastern Germany, and therefore Berlin, is on the map Balcer linked.) Picaroon (Talk) 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirla

Firstly, we are basically denied arbitration of our respective grievances, just because the topics appear to be too contentious. This "solution" leaves us no alternative but to maintain status quo, that is, to check each possible noticeboard for fraudulent complaints on the part of one's opponent and to watch as Piotrus removes from the articles those sources which he finds unpleasant. This is rather frustrating, but other "solutions" may be even less palatable.

Secondly, some people still add evidence against Piotrus. We should give them some time to come up with their statements of fact and proposed remedies on the workshop page.

Thirdly, Piotrus and most other Polish editors have made it clear that they don't consider their country part of Eastern Europe. Does it mean that Kirill's proposal applies to Russia-related articles only? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poland is most certainly part of Eastern Europe for the purposes of this arbitration case. Picaroon (Talk) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the remedy Kirill proposed says "Eastern Europe, liberally defined." It would be unreasonable to construe that as not including Poland. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I follow your logic. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Lysy

I second Ghirla and Piotrus on that the proposed "Amnesty and Probation" solution does not really seem satisfactory. It would in fact seem a euphemistic way of admitting that the ArbCom was not able to handle the case because of its scope which, as I understand it, could be vaguely defined as "conduct of various editors active in topics related to Eastern Europe". I'm not surprised that the number of edits combined with the nuances of the related content may seem immense. It does to me. On the other hand, since the case was accepted, it would be good to have at least some indication as to which of the questioned users conduct is found unacceptable. Otherwise, the involved editors will continue to believe that they are doing right, and the only outcome of this RfArb will be the extra bad blood it caused. --Lysy^talk 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed ban for M.K: While many of M.K's edits are counter-productive, and he seems to be unable to handle conflict situations properly, he is also one of the currently most active editors of the Lithuania-related articles. I believe that banning him from editing non-contentious articles in this area would be harmful both to his morale and for Lithuania-related content. I hope that the proposed warning and request to seek mentorship (both suggested in the workshop) would be sufficient as a remedy. Personally, while I complained about his conduct and aggressive attitude, I would not like to see M.K banned. --Lysy^talk 08:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, on both points. Revert and civility parole would surely be enough to solve any issues. There is only one user whose continuing actions would merit such a solution (IMHO), and that's Dr. Dan. I hope to see ArbCom comment on whether that user's behaviour is acceptable or not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

MK's punishment for citing Kazimieras Garšva

Kazimieras Garšva is cited in a paper published by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development that addresses ethnic minority/language issues ([1] page 66, "Lietuvos Rytai. /Str.rinkinys/ Sud. K.Garsva ir L.Grumadiene"). Please skim through this document, and decide whether Garšva would be cited there if his points of view were considered so extreme as to warrant this proposed action.

A Google search on "K. Garsva -wikipedia" yields other citations, including the book "Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History". Novickas 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever - to my knowledge - questioned KG's capacity as a linguist, although I am not aware he has been cited as such on Wikipedia ever. However he is a controversial and unreliable source of informations regarding Polish-Lithuanian relations and history, and should not be used as a source for for them. To give you an example: works of Stanisław Grabski in the realm of economics may still be cited, but nobody, I hope, would seriously consider using his work to support any political ideas, particulary as relating to ethnic minorities in Poland, even though he published works on that topic, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually P.P., it was you who named his works as quasi academic in mainspace. M.K. 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is extremely controversial, and his non-linguistic works are considered extreme by some, but as far as I can tell, there have been no punishments issued for citing him. Novickas 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, Novickas, the problem is not whom you cite, but how it is done and in what context. You would not claim in an article about Jews that "Jews are subhuman" and quote Nazi propagandists to support it, would you. On the other hand one could cite the same propagandists in order to present their, clearly attributed views and that would be perfectly valid, right ? The same holds for Garsva or any other nationalists, be it Polish, Lithuanian etc. Garsva is not a historian. This has been already explained many times and I don't think this is the right place to begin it anew. --Lysy^talk 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems exposed by this Arbcom is the practice of using controversial, fringe or otherwise unacceptable sources to back highly disputable claims, then screaming that "sources are being removed" when others object to using them (up to launching an Arbcom against those "guilty" of this removal, which is essentially what User:M.K. did). The proposed ruling would clearly indicate that such practices are not acceptable. We are not obliged to cite every last extremist scholar, no matter how minor, especially since citing some particularly controversial people is hugely counterproductive and makes effective multinational collaboration in writing about contentious subjects almost impossible. Balcer 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As the talking about reliable sources has begun, could please someone evaluate scientific validity and reliability of hese links? They are from Vilnija and Kazimieras Garšva pages:

[2], [3], [4],

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

I might be wrong, but most o them simply do not work, and one is (the one from tygodnk) written in quite and insulting tone against renowned Lithuanian historians. And these are used as an evidence against Garšva, and furthermore against M.K. You might check them yourself, and say your opinion. Let me note, that most of them are collected by Piotrus.

Have a good day.--Lokyz 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can show instances where Garšva is quoted using the kind of language that Lysy mentions above, then please, let us all see them. Also, if controversial = counterproductive and should be removed and/or sanctioned, as per Balcer, many WP projects would not have come to their current state. Novickas 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder has proposed that MK be blocked from WP in part for citing the book "Armija Krajova Lietuvoje". Here are some facts about that book:

• The 1999 edition is held by the Library of Congress and by Stanford University. [11] The 1995 edition is held by Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc. [12]

• It is used as a reference in a Eurozine article: see [13]. Take a look at Eurozine's editorial and advisory boards [14], [15] and the institutions represented there.

• Garsva is interviewed about Armija Krajova in the respectable journal "Mokslo Lietuva" (Lithuanian Education), ISSN 1648-710X [16]. This page displays the journal's editorial board [17].

• One of the book's contributors [18] is a member of the Lithuanian Institute of History - a a self-governing state research institute.

• It is mentioned in publications issued by the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) [19] and [20]; the first mentions it as a resource for genocide research, the latter includes it in the Seimas' suggested reading list.

Here is an item pertaining to Garšva's standing as a historian. He was invited to participate in a 1999 seminar discussing Polish-Lithuanian history issues, including Armija Krajova, relating to the period 1939-1945. This seminar was sponsored by the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Center [21], Vilnius University, and a number of Polish institutions as well. The seminar is clearly a good faith attempt to discuss the disagreements, and his invitation is significant. The website is written in Polish, but EN readers can understand and confirm the subject and the sponsorship. See [22] Novickas 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him being invited to deliver a talk there. Why ? It seems that he was in the audience and only participated in the open discussion. --Lysy^talk 16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is an item pertaining to Garšva's standing in the public realm. He is a member of a Lithuanian government-sponsored commission on LTs abroad: (English) [23]. Novickas 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He was one of over 50 discussion participants, he was not presenting anything. Attending a seminar or a conference is not difficult, one just has to sign up and pay a small participation fee, it's whether one is presenting or not that makes one's attending a conference something to brag about. As this discussion of the conference shows, he was there not as a historian, but as a politician - Vilnija representative - and when he spoke during the open discussion, the newspapers refers to his speech as "full of hate". It's nice, however, that it appears that most of the others, Lithuanian and Polish participants of the conference, were able to keep high and civil level of discussion. But thanks for finding yet another reference questioning neutrality and reliability of KG and Vilnija.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A politician? Which party did he represent? Besides, I am not surprised that newspaper, which is considered to be Bolshevist and promotes lie, is describing opponents in those words as “full of hate” etc. M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this book then to be considered so extreme and unreliable as to justify a block for citing it in a history article? Novickas 14:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Arbiters managed to notice this as Balcer falsely accused Novickas of lie.WP:CIVILITY should be consulted. M.K. 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice also that I reverted myself 5 minutes after realizing my mistake. I hope that Arbiters will again notice the tactics M.K. uses against editors he dislikes. Balcer 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you made a mistake you should say sorry, especially then you accused contributor of lie. Nocickas great contributor and deserves apology rather the "never mind".M.K. 14:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Balcer 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably the place for this is here. M.K. 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was hoping that the best approach to comments that were up for about 5 minutes would be to pass over them in silence to avoid causing any discomfort to Novickas, but now that you have dragged them prominently into the open, I apologized to clear the air. We all make mistakes, let's not dwell on this one any further. Balcer 14:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not dwell on this one any further. But try to be more attentive next time. M.K. 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Eurozine citation. It is indeed one of 11 references there, used by a seemingly reliable scholar, Alvydas Nikzentaitis([24]). However, what's extremly interesting is the context the book is cited. My knowledge of Lithuanian ([25]) and German ([26]) is non-existant, so I had to use machine translation. With the caveats that resulting translation is very poor, my understanding is that Nikzentaitis discusses how Armia Krajowa was being discredited in an attempt to rewrite history for political reasons (an argument very similar to that of another respected Lithuanian historian, Arūnas Bubnys, cited here), and Nikzentaitis uses the book in question as an example. Here are some translated parts I based my understanding on, if a native Lithuanian speaker could translate this and the following para entirely, we would have of course a much better picture: "With the treatment of the litauisch Polish relations during World War 2 took now the idea of the independence fight completely Litauens the first place, whereby it was the goal to discredit the activities of the Armija Krajowa." [...] "When Litauen 1994 expressed the desire, NATO to step - and later also the European Union - the task resulted to justify the historical connections to the western democracies ideologically." [...] "one tried to play the litauischen relations down with Hitler Germany and to represent the Armija Krajowa in the Vilniusgebiet at the same time as Kollaborateurin of the Germans" [...] "course of the new interpretation of the litauisch Polish conflict in the cultural memory becomes this topic also object of the memory politics". I am certainly looking forward to a better translation of those paragraphs, and perhaps even the entire article; I have asked a friend who speaks German to read the article quickly and he agrees with me it is crticial of that book, not supportive (he promised me a translation soon). PS. As for inclusion in various libraries, so is Mein Kampf ([27]), or Irving's Nuremberg: The Last Battle ([28]) - but that doesn't make them reliable. PS3. Nor is being interviewed by a journal, even mainstream, make one reliable, Irving had and still gives quite a few interviews... PS4. As for the contribution of Rimantas Zizas to the book: we are still waiting for positive reviews of the book, it is plausibile it has different chapters written by different authors some of which are more reliable then others - but so far all we have are critical reviews, and certainly there is no doubt that KG inputon those matters is not reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: the translation of the relevant para (from German) is available here, thanks to User:Masti. As can be seen, Alvydas Nikzentaitis is certainly not supporting KG point of view, instead he is showing how some historical works in Lithuania have been hijacked by the demands of then-current politics to support certain POV (discrediting AK). Hardly an endorsement of KG views - but a valuable reference indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Edward Prus is a professor of history, also present in the Library of Congress, yet I would never think of citing him in an article about e.g. Ukrainian Insurgent Army, as I know he has a Polish nationalistic bias. Similarly, I would welcome if authors with Lithuanian nationalistic bias were not pushed forward to support nationalistic claims. Citing such authors in neutral context, without noting their bias is an evidence of bad faith and POV pushing. --Lysy^talk 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good example with Edward Prus, I created a stub. He is certainly not somebody we should be citing much, and he has obviously a strong pro-Polish and anti-Ukrainian bias. I am looking forward to seeing some editors admit that Kazimieras Garšva, for example, even has some bias...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alvydas Nikžentaitis (not Alvydas Nikzentaitis) is good scholar. In Novickas presented source, Nikžentaitis talks about remembrance culture as scholarly tool, he compares Lithuanian and Polish remembrance views, describing how events were regarded during time. Going back to specific book which is cited in this source, it should be stressed that was Nikžentaitis cites the second volume of this book (1999), while I in wiki used the first volume of it. I do not have, nor I read second volume of it, so my expertise regarding specific second volume is limited, however I read review somewhere around 2005-2006 about the second volume, and if I remember correctly the second volume was contributed by Polish and probably by German scholars. If I remember correctly there were presented and conflicting views regarding AK. As it looks Nikžentaitis used findings of this book to this paper as well. This impression strengthens and Nikžentaitis concluding remarks, when speaking about Polish view “Completely silent [Polish historiography M.K. note] and about Armia Krajowa’s relationships with occupying German authority”. And yes P.P. Arūnas Bubnys respected Lithuanian historian, sadly his findings you in different occasions removed as “preposterous claim”, “controversial statements”. It is much telling pattern of editing – when findings suits to certain Polish POV findings became good, then not – it is become unreliable. And no, Piotrus, we don’t have any critical reviews, what you presented are only ultra nationalistic web pages (as this), who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars. Let me remind if you or anybody has more info about particularly used source (the first volume), the very best place list them is here . M.K. 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We presented far more sources critical of that book, Vilnija or KG (including western academic works and commentary by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), as any reader of that article can see. Anyway, let me ask you a single, simple question: what is your source for declaring Nasza Gazeta, the main publication of Association of Poles in Lithuania, the largest organization of Polish minority in Lithuania, and supported by Senate of Poland, an "ultra nationalistic web page who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars"?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My findings presented here. Read them from top to bottom.M.K. 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Where you have failed to present a single positive review of this book, while I have presented several negative. But this is off topic here, I am asking you to provide references to back up your claim for declaring the Nasza Gazeta source an "ultra nationalistic web page who seeks re-education of Polish ambassador and scholars". All my arguments and adjectives are clearly backed by references. Yours are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Section break

If you look where more carefully you would find some answers to your current queries. If you look even more carefully you will find and urge to translate including and this peace "findings". You also should familiarize yourself how book reviews looks like. Regarding your query of ultra nationalistic, ok lets see that Presidents adviser, Signatory of Act of Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania, member of various Lithuanian-Polish councils and yeah a Pole, Česlav Okinčicas, states - he stated about Nasza Gazeta that this "newspaper" unites cheapest local Bolshevist populism, saturated with lie and hypocrisy. As you insisting very much from now on I will call Nasza Gazeta as newspaper, which unites local Bolshevist populism, saturated with lie and hypocrisy, or shorter version - local Bolshevist newspaper. You maybe not noticed, but I am also trying to bring some light on your controversial block regarding your content opponent, could you replay (here) did you noticed, as requested, admin notice board or not? Thanks, M.K. 10:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And where, when and in what context would "Česlav Okinčicas" (whose name doesn't net a single Google hit) state this? Politicians are often critical of newspapers, but their criticism is rarely taken seriously. As for your other question, I see no reason to comment on it further, as Balcer has pointed out all the fallacies in your arguments on that subject quite well.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Be more self-dependent and try using different variants of name in dynamic internet [29] and you will find more hints. I just wonder how contributor who writhing articles about LT Poles can not recognize this prominent to Poles person. And that saddens most that there are an efforts to continuously protect this Bolshevist newspaper. But lets back to the problem with your opponents block, sadly nobody is answered to raised concerns - did you ask and other sysops to look at this controversial block or not. This is important information and could shift situation, please respond on appropriate venue in workshop.M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "Nasza Gazeta" but it's worth to note that Czesław Okińczyc was the owner of "Gazeta Wileńska" newspaper, a direct competitor of "Nasza Gazeta", so again, M.K, please be more careful selecting whom you cite and in what context. --Lysy^talk 07:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He is owner and of radio station as well, so if he will state critical opinion for instance on M1 we also should consider that he is doing this due to his business? Strange. One of the Okinčic goal was to present that there are and different Poles who supported Lithuania’s independence and not only loyal Communist regime supporters, and he was both critical and to Lenkų rinkimų akcija. His remarks are concurred not only by looking to this type of claims (which for some reason are not translated for a month now), but as well as historical perspective, regarding Polish good relationships with Communist regime, and even with newest examples of polish newspapers conduct in Lithuania. But this should go to appropriate venue. M.K. 14:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, as the owner of "Gazeta Wileńska" he's been also criticized for aggressive actions against another Polish newspaper "Kurier Wileński", so his comments on "Nasza Gazeta" are not surprising. This said, I do not know if his opinion on "Nasza Gazeta" was justified or not. BTW, since you know he is Polish, why do you use a Lithuanian translation of his name when you are writing in English ? --Lysy^talk 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. On my view, he can be quoted appropriately in some circumstances--as a linguist (as a complication, language is a major factor in ethnic identity, so there's a blurry area here); and certainly for his own opinions and the opinions of his party. For other matters, he represents a strong--and self-admitted--POV, and I would not quote him unless balanced with another opposing quote.

In general, I would say that there is no circumstance whatever where a total ban on using a particular work or author would ever be justified; (I hold this view on websites also, & disagree totally with a previous ArbCom ruling about the use of a particular WP-critical site). What would certainly be problematic is a use of a reference or quote in an improper context. DGG 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

MK as a scapegoat

Ban from a year from Eastern European topics? That's fucking ridicilous. Besides the fact that nobody involved in this arbcom deserves a ban, it's just plain stupid to ban someone from contributing to his favorite topic and sole reason being on Wikipedia. MK has very good contributions to Lithuania-related topics (like castles or FA Act of Independence of Lithuania)... and to abandon all that just for some minor skirmishes were his views clashes with Polish nationalism... And MK's contributions are not even the problem. This arbcom was started because of Piotrus and his behaviour.... P.S. I won't have internet access for about a week. Renata 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed the edits of MK very closely, but he appears to be the least disruptive party to the arbitration. There is nothing in his behaviour that merits a one-year ban, especially given the stressful background of the never-ending Polish-Lithuanian conflict peppered with a heavy dose of baiting on the part of his more experienced opponents. He makes useful mainspace contributions, too. Either there is a "general amnesty", or we single out a person that brought Piotr's behaviour to light and punish him for that. Now it appears as an oblique approval and encouragement of Piotr's frequently aggressive and bullying behaviour by David Gerard and his circle. Please reconsider. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: singling out M.K. only for findings and remedy is not an optimal solution (even if it was him who started this ArbCom); I do agree here with Kirill that "that singling out any particular" is not worthwile: but instead of dropping that line of enquiry, per my previous comments, I instead eagerly await ArbCom fidings on my person, as well as on other editors, (considering ongoing problems). Specifics, not generalities, are needed to solve our problem.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think there are any major "ongoing problems", I only addressed Dr.Dan in his talk page. We are talking to each other as usual in a friendly manner that I believe both Dr.Dan and myself accept. Maybe I should have been rather using email for this communications. --Lysy^talk 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, may I suggest that you tone down your remarks on Dan's talk page because, it looks like your remarks are used by Piotrus to panelized your friend Dr. Dan. Thanks, M.K. 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Dan, suggesting to continue our discussion on email, still he has chosen to continue in his talk page, which I respect. Are you suggesting that we should censor our discussion there because of the ongoing RfArb ? Specifically which remarks of mine would you like to see toned down ? --Lysy^talk 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What, censor? Arbitration process was started to solve lasting problems and to find ways to avoid them in the future and I am convinced that your provocative actions like these are not helpful at all, as already noticed by three autonomous contributors. M.K. 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I consider his remark that your diff mentioned quite unfriendly towards myself, and representing a pattern that has been visible for over a year now. A pattern that I don't think anything other that an ArbCom ruling could end.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy issues raised by the proposed remedies

• Banning/blocking editors based on their use of controversial sources (per MK's citation of Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija problems). To be consistent with this proposal, WP would need to apply sanctions to users who cite Ramsey Clark, since he acted as Saddam's defense attorney; users who cite Johnny Cochran, who defended OJ, or Clarence Darrow, since he defended Leopold and Lowe, and so forth. This does not go to the reliability of any particular source - just the proposed judgement here that citing controversial sources, including those who have defended convicted or indicted people, warrants a ban or block.

• The use of experts to determine the reliablity of sources. How will this be implemented? Are there precedents in any other WP project areas? The more consensus and oversight, the better, seems to be the general philosophy here on WP; but since Eastern European issues are complex and unknown to many English-speaking contributors, fatigue sets in quickly. It's also a problem that many references are in Polish, Russian, Belarussian, Lithuanian, etc.

• A counter-proposal: actively recruit more editors to these projects. Use some rhetoric to the effect that altho the situation is not as dire as that of the Balkans in the 1990s, we can all understand complex issues if we make the effort, and that it's worth our time and energy. Novickas 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the point. The problem is not in citing controversial sources but in the way they are applied. This said I can only repeat that in my opinion M.K does not deserve a ban, and I agree with Renata that nobody involved in this arbcom case does. --Lysy^talk 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Req for clarification

I would like to ask Fred Bauder and James F. to clarify several points, primarily the criteria which make the following edits appear so drastically different to them:

• this is qualified as a disruptive edit as well as "harassment", while the following false accusation of vandalism and threat by a sysop to punish opponent in a content dispute is considered OK.
• this condemnation of ethic slurs is listed as disruptive, but the following accusation of the holocaust revisionism is considered perfectly acceptable.
• this little remark made in compliance with WP:LIVING; WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR is branded as disruption, whereas Piotr's systematic campaign for removal of those references which don't buttress the Polish POV (see the evidence regarding Piotrus presented by Yury Tarasievich, Ghirlandajo, and myself) entails no criticism whatsoever.
• My usage of presumably unreliable sources is condemned, but using Polish offensive and nationalistic web pages in mainspace ref No.3, ref No.6 (already mentioned by another contributor) seem to be OK.

I would be grateful to the Arbitrators if they specified what is so strikingly different between my edits and those of Piotrus, that Polish view edits are either sanctioned or amnestied, while Lithuanian view edits are singled out as disruptive and warranting a year-long ban. Thank you a lot for your attention, M.K. 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by lack of response to my request on the workshop talk page, the answer is obvious: because Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard. Or because the Polish POV is inherently correct, while the Lithuanian POV is false. Since no other arguments have been presented, we have to go with this theory. It is a far cry from my idea of arbitrating. Within several days User:Molobo, one of the greatest liabilities of Wikipedia, will be unleashed on the poor Lithuanians, so one feels pity for their plight. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Molobo has been gone for a year, and there is no indication he is ever coming back. Could you please leave this favourite bogeyman of yours be, finally? Balcer 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have irrefutable evidence that he was editing all the time using a variety of IPs. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then those IPs should be blocked and his main account block extended.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reflect on your suggestion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, could you satisfy my curiosity and tell me what is this "free pass from David Gerard" that I supposedly have?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd better ask him to explain his mysterious behaviour in this affair. Bishonen's and Geogre's requests did not entail any response. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But I am asking you, not him. What David does or doesn't do is his own business, what you accuse me of having (some "free pass" from him) is something I'd like to know more from the person this accusation arose (i.e. you).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. Having a free pass is not a crime, and I've never accused you of that. M.K.'s request and my reply were addressed to the Arbitrators. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Twisting your words? I am simply asking you to explain the phrase "Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard". It's quite clear from that phrase that you accuse me of having that free pass; since I have no idea what this free pass would be I am asking you to elaborate on that term.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you readily see accusations where there are none. It's not my problem, is it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, do you really need to be having this conversation? Unless you can answer in the affirmative, please drop it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators?

The project of decision includes the following: "Any three uninvolved administrators may ban any editor from any set of such articles...". Could you please clarify this as follows: "Any three administrators who are not involved in editing any articles on eastern European topics may ban any editor from any set of such articles..."? Only then such administrators may be uninvolved.Biophys 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed remedy will encourage forum shopping on AN/I and IRC

This has been my main problem with Piotrus, and the proposed remedies make things so much worse. This is a loaded gun aimed randomly, and all it takes is the first person on AN/I when a complaint comes in to fail to know the full history and the full context. Given that the problem is that outsiders have trouble keeping up with the duplicity and smoothness of some of the warriors, the answer must not be to license less investigation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course when anybody dares to complain about Ghirlandajo, we are forum shopping. See for more details. Anyway, I agree with Ghirla that a remedy that would delay and delegate the responsibility for future action is rather pointless, not only because I doubt the effectiveness of ANI decisions, which will indeed be taken by administrators unfamiliar with that matter, but also because this ArbCom has all the evidence and tools needed to end this right here, right now. I have asked before and I am asking again: we (all sides...) have listed in evidence and workshop issues that concern us (a relatively small number of editors); ArbCom should rule if they are true or not. Have I been forum shopping, baiting, stalking, fueling revert wars, and so on or not? Have M.K., Dr. Dan or Ghirlandajo been disruptive or has their behavior been within acceptable norms? Should any editor in particular be warned or placed on civility or revert parole? Those are simple questions, concerning several editors, with ample evidence presented and workshop ideas built around them, for ArbCom to address them and solve this NOW.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Parties reminded

I see three arbitrators support the "Parties reminded" remedy, which reads:

All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately.

Since the above text states that all the involved parties have been acting inappropriately ("continue to") and I've been mentioned by M.K as one of the parties in this case, I would appreciate if the arbitrators could explicitly show my inappropriate behaviour so that I could improve. Thanks in advance. --Lysy^talk 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request, asking the Arbitrators to show how I've behaved inappropriately for the same reasons. I'd also like to improve and I would very much like to know which of the accusations levied against me have been deemed correct by the ArbCom. On a related note, I'd also add that since the reminder has been proposed, incourteous behaviour has been continuing, as noted in the workshop (ex. [30], [31]).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time that you derail discussions of mind-boggling POV that is present in your edits by attempting to cast Wikipedia as a contest in wikilove. Since you, Balcer, Lysy and other Polish editors prefer to discuss "article content" via instant messaging agents, I have no say in the matter, do I? Instant messaging may be very convenient when you need an extra-revert or to have your opinion seconded, so the only thing I can do is to offer my input on talk pages, as I did on Talk:Plan Wschód. If you qualify any open on-wiki discussion of your tendentious or provocative edits as "incourteous behaviour", I can't help you here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, your claim that I prefer to discuss article content via instant messaging agents is simply not true. Please take that back or support with evidence. --Lysy^talk 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if accusing other editors of "derailing discussions of mind-boggling POV" and "provocative edits" (plus other accusations in this post, and its general tone) is in line with our policies (WP:CIV, etc.)? If the ArbCom will not react to this, I am assuming that flinging of such accusations, and posts with such a tone, are perfectly ok on this project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you still expect people to stop discussing your edits and applaud as you insert POV into articles? Wikipedia is not about that. The concept of civility refers to discussions of personalities rather than content, while the epithets like "provocative edits" and "mind-boggling POV" refer to content rather than personalities. Your attempts to dismiss every content dispute questioning the validity of your edits as "incivil" are stale news, really. Please don't game the system. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So you are saying that if I were to say 'Editor X is disruptive', that's incivil, but 'Editor X's edits are disruptive' is perfectly ok? I am afraid this sounds like gaming the system to me.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Arbcom members do not have the energy or the time to make effective rulings in this case, it would be better if they openly said so, instead of issuing such boilerplate warnings which satisfy no one. Balcer 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty

Amnesty assumes guilt. I insist that I'm punished for my guilts. --Lysy^talk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to confuse amnesty with clemency. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is that ? To quote the article: [Amnesty] includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence.--Lysy^talk 09:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be amnestied even before the verdict and the hearing. Amnesty does not imply the assumption of guilt. "Amnesty means forgetting past deeds, consigning them to oblivion so that they may not become an issue in the future. Amnesty has often been used as a means of healing animosities and divisions caused by war".[32] --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be nice to at least know what guilts are we guilty off, so we can try not to repeat them in the future. Diffs to specific posts by specific editors, of course, are needed - generalities are useless.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please familiarize yourself with the title of this page: it is "proposed decision", not "evidence". If you need evidence, go to the appropriate page, where your practice of wheel-warring was discussed at length, as well as many other controversial edits.[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd very much like to know if ArbCom recognized any of those diffs or not. Also, I wonder, if you consider any of your behavior discussed in this ArbCom as violating any of our policies, or would you say you are innocent of all claims presented by others (like myself)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that every involved editor has occasionally crossed the line, but in most cases transgressions have been motivated by the controversial nature of the subject, rather than by malice aforethought. Given these circumstances, I would like to see the present case result in prevention rather than punishment. My hope is that the situation will be defused rather than escalated, although one of the proposed remedies seems to pursue a different aim. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: several editors here (myself included, and see Lysy's and Balcer's comments above) don't believe we can change our behavior until a neutral party (i.e. ArbCom) clearly tells us what we have done wrong. In lack of such explanation, we are free to assume we have done nothing wrong (or at least, nothing specific) and without that knowledge we will continue our wrongdoing. I further believe that the same applies to all other editors, including you (unless you can clearly state when you have 'crossed the line' and promise you will not do so in the future). Thus, the 'amnesty' will not change the behavior of a single editor involved in this case, and we will end up exactly where we started (particularly as recent diffs in workshop shows, both sides are unhappy with continuing behavior of the other sides up to and including the most recent days). PS. I agree that prevention is better then punishment, and this is why I have repeatedly asked for a civility parole to be placed on editors who have been shown to be incivil. Such users will be shown diffs of their past incivil behavior and warned that future repetition will be penalized. Or do you believe this would not work and would like to suggest a better solution?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that incivility is the issue that engendered this case. POV-pushing, tendentious editing, forum shopping, routine removal of references - these are the issues that induced M.K. to launch the request. I can readily see your interest in deflecting the discussion, but that is not going to solve our problems. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, ArbCom's current proposals don't mention those issues at all - but I'd gladly support your request for an ArbCom to clearly state if any users (and if so, who in particular) have been guilty of such actions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as you find the currently proposed phrasing too vague, I don't mind if the Arbitrators specifically identify the patterns of your behaviour which appear to be counterproductive if not actually disruptive. The specific nature of the current arbitration is that it involves a number of manipulation tricks that have not been examined by the ArbCom on previous occasions. Perhaps I should write the essay Wikipedia:Puppet trolling or Wikipedia:Pet trolls to make my point clear. While these patterns of behaviour don't violate any specific policy (except WP:DICK), they are not constructive either and are instrumental in escalating the conflict by involving a number of new participants to divert the attention of your opponents from productive mainspace editing. These particular tricks need to be identified. For instance, is it appropriate to maintain attack pages outside English Wikipedia where you refer to your principal opponent as "a royal pain in the butt"[48], the pages which I have every reason to believe had the effect of driving him away from Wikipedia, possibly forever? It would be good to know the answer. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, you are right about the connection. Below are my thoughts that I compiled. It took me a lot of thinking. --Irpen 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Polish nationalistic newspapers

Replying to this Lysy’s comment. What do you mean with exactly? You referencing to P.P’s “finding” that Okinčic‘s opinion should not be taken seriously, or yet better – trust unknown Bolshevist newspapers readers letter (or as Piotrus calls it - the “review”) instead? Clarify this, if you can. Going back to note that “he's been also criticized for aggressive actions against another Polish newspaper “Kurier Wileński”, I do not know which actions of Okinčic were “aggressive”, but he is not the only one with critical opinion regarding these Polish nationalistic newspapers, for instance autonomous watchdog established that Kurier Wileński was promoting ethnic hatred. So Okinčic criticism regarding these newspapers is concurred. Regarding you question about person name, why I use his name as Okinčic. Because having polish ethnicity elements, not makes your name as Polish by default and because such name is written in this official LRS biography, and because such name is used in his advocacy data, and because such name is in his Lithuanian passport, and yes, because he personally use it. So you suggesting that I should neglect WP:LIVING? However this situation reminds me user:Halibutt’s behavior, who deliberately continues to mock Lithuanian names. M.K. 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What "autonomous watchdog"?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Žurnalistų ir leidėjų etikos komisija. M.K. 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Where? When? Publication or external link, please. Based on the title it's at the very least a "Lithuanian autonomous watchdog"... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, obscure nationalist sources of newspaper quality, especially in foreign languages, are not acceptable in Wikipedia, even if they buttress your own POV. It is sad to see that editors have to seek to counter the pro-Polish POV on arbitration pages, rather than on WP:RSN, which has been monopolized by one of the parties to the dispute since its inception back in May. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a novel solution that may actually work

The root cause of this mess

To start with I would like to reiterate what I have been saying on multiple occasions, most recently in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus#Statement by Irpen (which I ask you to re-read if you have an extra minute) but also here, here and elsewhere that we should be able to see through and distinguish the true reason of these wikidrama. That nations in conflict, with tangled histories and historical animosity, would generate content disputes at Wikipedia is not news and Eastern European editors are hardly to blame for this. However, these content conflicts overall have been handled in what could hardly have been a worse manner. By emphasizing the wrong priorities, using the wrong tools and wrong solutions often by force, nothing has been advanced, and neither peace nor quiet has been achieved. When what is, at its core, a historical, ethnic, educational, and political disagreement is presented instead as an issue of "civility" and "personal attacks," we get no closer to achieving harmonious editing. Earlier, I was equally critical towards some of the Piotrus' opponents for using a somewhat similar trick (presenting the irreconcilable content disputes as civility issues) that time against Piotrus best friend, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt#Outside view by Irpen (Piotrus conveniently agreed with me at that time, of course.)

Methods and solutions that make the matters worse

Such content disagreements have to be solved by a robust debate and by inviting more sides (preferably non-involved ones) and considering more sources. Instead we are getting Piotrus' favored secretive off-wiki discussions and more troops are always there when an extra revert, extra vote or extra voice at ANI is requested while real issues are sidetracked and the real problems at the heart of the matter are skipped as the onlookers are mislead by frivolous arguments of the parties that try to accuse the opponents in violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:WHATNOT. 'All this is wrapped in any number of "WP:this" and "WP:that",' as Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus#Statement by Yury Tarasievich puts it very well.

Off-line prepared campaigns and forum shopping sprees are another favored method that seems to often work and will work even better, should ArbCom defer the future resolution of this disputes to the "ANI court". By buying into this hypocritical replacement of the issues of content with issues of WP:THISandTHAT and looking the other way or even directly encouraging forum shopping, all we do is praise the greater hypocrite or the more skilled warrior with the biggest smile on his face. I don't support personal attacks or incivility but I urge the arbcom to not confuse the very few cases where the incivility in itself is indeed the core problem with the majority of these conflict which are the content disputes aggravated by the wrong methods of resolution and, especially, by the campaigns being run both openly on- and secretly off-wiki. The civility issues, if any, have nothing to do either with the true problem or with the solution that would actually help end it. ArbCom have seen plenty of the hypocritical arguments and will hopefully not buy into this one.

This case should not end up rewarding any side that is not the most correct, or the most compliant with Wikipedia's policies, but merely the most devious, and Piotrus certainly appears to be devious when he seeks the destruction of his opponents both openly and secretly, by himself or instigating fellow editors to call for heads wanted by Piotrus.[49] [50]

That all (not one or even two or three but ALL) sides were POV-pushing, at least to some degree, is something ArbCom seem to agree here. Trying to push questionable sources that support one's own POV and attack the sources that support the opposite POV has become commonplace. This and other similar practices are to be expected, will recur and this has to be addressed not by the ArbCom decision (see the proposal below.) I applaud the general amnesty proposal for the POV-pushing that seems to be getting the support votes. But one side of this conflict seems to have been unique in one respect. We now have a rare case of direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence that one side has organized a whole underground system aimed at winning the content disputes by playing low (please see FoF's 4.2.25 and 4.2.26 at the workshop as well as some context at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#A little background .

Piotrus has created and meticulously maintained for months a page outside of the Wikipedia where he collected diffs and links to be used not as sources for the articles but in support of the future actions aimed at destruction of his opponent editors. While this arbitration case started only in the end of April, Piotrus' collection of diffs aimed to present his opponents merely as trouble makers, should the need arise, dates way earlier than that. While he kept giving me occasionally some sweet talk on-wiki, he has secretly added me to his hit list in March, way before the onset of this ArbCom or the statement that I posted to it.

Many Polish editors soon after joining the WP or at some later point, received a talk page message from Piotrus (usually in Polish) requesting for the IM information.[51],[52],[53], [54],[55],[56] We don't know how many more received such messages over email. When caught at the workshop with that, Piotrus claimed to have done so "to discuss articles." How believable is that IM is good to use for articles' discussion rather than requesting a hand in reverting, a "vote" in RfD, FAC, RM or RfAdm when needed is left to others to decide. At least we saw on many occasions how new (and familiar) forces joined the revert wars fueled by Piotrus exactly when needed, voices of editors never active at ANI, XfD, WP:RM or RfAdm conveniently appeared at the boards when needed, etc.

I believe, this mere fact of one side's playing particularly low needs to be acknowledged in the ArbCom's final finding of fact section. But if ArbCom is uncomfortable about giving a ruling that deals purely with ethics matters, no matter how strong the evidence is and despite the evidence is onwiki right in front of it, maybe ArbCom cas still try some novel remedies. I believe we ought to find a better solution than hanging most everyone or handing down a loaded gun to whoever happens to be at ANI when one party crafts a new complaint aimed at winning a content dispute through an opponent's block.

We cannot really do anything about Piotrus' or anyone else's ethics but we can and must design a solution to address the future conflicts that would actually work and this must reduce the randomness of the future remedies (conflicts are bound to persist) and eliminate the effects of forum shopping. We saw time and again what will be happening with this left to ANI court and this will continue if the ArbCom gives a ruling that would give advantage to a party that is more crafty in forum shopping and more unscrupulous in how low one is allowed to act. Users who help solve these conflicts need to be familiar with their context, the participants, preferably have their trust and know exactly what is going on rather than be clueless, eager and loving to use the block button and be presented with only one side of the story conveniently concocted by the forum shoppers while the other side does not have a chance to respond. And even if given a chance, how would another series of hurtful blocks help?

Remember, we are dealing with the real people here. Editors, who love their countries, know their histories and are immensely committed to the Wikipedia. You are not dealing with trolls or problem editors here at least for the most part. Letting the heads roll may be tempting but what will be achieved by that? Editors would get even more aggravated and radicalized and we would be actually in a worse place. Banning many people altogether? That would make it quiet and may seem appealing, especially if nice and quiet is more important than the encyclopedia itself. Fine, let's not care about live people. Forget Fred Bauder's "feelings matter" principle he recently brought to a different workshop. Screw the people, encyclopedia is all that matters. Good! But who will then write it, may I ask? Please note the amount of the amazing content we, the East Europeans are creating. And note who writes most of it? The ones most hated by their opponents are among the best content writers: Ghirla, Halibutt, M.K., Piotrus... The "there are no irreplaceable editors" argument, while correct, does not apply either. The community of WP editors is very representative of the RL community, from what I can tell. If we manage to radicalize the current editors further, ban them or drive them away, the new editors that will (hopefully) come would not be much different. And we are not talking about the bad seeds here. We are talking about the best authors of this encyclopedia. There are some bad seeds, but clearly not the main figures of this case, don't forget that.

A novel solution for ArbCom to consider

Why not try a truly novel solution since nothing else worked so far in this segment of Wikipedia except banning a few exceptional trolls, which are rather a rarity? I propose instead creating a dedicated tool, let's call it Eastern European Work Group composed from the Eastern European editors themselves.

Not everyone of the EE editing community has a cool enough head and the community trust (or at least a lack of mistrust) to be able to help steer the future conflicts towards resolution but all, except few, want them resolved. All, except few, want to write articles, seriously and without undue obstruction, without bitter conflicts and what we all already wrote is the best proof of it. I am sure there is an editor or two in most every EE nation that has the respect of their compatriot community and would, at the same time, not be too much opposed by the members of other EE communities (perhaps even supported but this may be too much to ask for too many.) There are also some non-EE editors who are interested and familiar with the context. Their participation would be most welcome as well. We can work out the specifics together but we need a Work Group composed of respected editors who are familiar with the problems, their history and the main players.

Lets work out (preferably together with the ArbCom) such group and have it develop its procedures, see how its first solutions would work out, see how it all works. I'd emphasize that this is not an iron-clad proposal but rather an ad-hoc solution, but it may actually work. I could name the candidates from most every involved EE community for such group but this is a secondary issue for now. If ArbCom can see that this is something that may actually work, let's give it a try, get the ball rolling and see how it goes. In case of failure, we would end up right where we are but, judging from the current state of affairs of the proposed decision page and the comments above, no better solution is in sight. So, it cannot make things worse. This is as far as the remedies are concerned.

ArbCom's attention and participation in the workshop would help

As for the finding of fact, that the discussion and the proposed decision pages are being stalled and nothing is happening is unacceptable. That only one or two ArbCom members tops participate in the workshop does not help matter either. This is not what we expected from our Arbcom members when we were electing them. "We are busy and backlogged" does not really help matters. You are busy, I am busy, Jimbo is busy, everyone is busy. Please get back to the workshop and comment, propose, discuss. We need to have meaningful and congruent FoF and principles sections in the final decision of this case.

Conclusion

To summarize, my lengthy post address four issues at hand.

1. The crux of this conflict lies in nothing but a host of interconnected content disputes. Seeing this as anything else does not help the matters but steers us further away from the solution.
2. Certain underground tricks are unacceptable and there seems to be the case that a particular party showed a particular taste to playing them. If Arbcom agrees that this is indeed what's happening, it would help if it acknowledges so.
3. The creation of the dedicated workgroup is proposed as an ad-hoc solution as other remedies have been either ineffective in the past or apply to resolve issues that are not really the ones in front of this ArbCom.
4. Since the case seems stalled wrt to the currently proposed FoF's and proposed principles, the workshop discussions need to be jumpstarted and continue with the participation of the ArbCom members.

Thanks for reading this, --Irpen 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments to Irpen post

Comment by Piotrus

First, please note I have addressed Irpen's points about my pl wiki diff page and editors leaving the project here. The 'IM cabal' issue was addressed in workshop discussions, Irpen kindly provided links to some of those sections and ensuing discussion is a 'must read'. Now, I would like to comment on a nice surprise - a creative solution to our problem.

An EETask Group was tried before: it was suggested by nobody else then Irpen and supported by myself - see Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board. Unfortunately, not enough editors were interested in this project to make it work, and I don't see how we can fix that crucial problem - i.e force the people to use this board to discuss their issues. The only solution I can see if closing current EE regional noticeboards, or forcing all editors to double post issues involving 2+ countries from that region to the noticeboard. If we do so, ArbCom monitoring of that board to ensure no personal attacks and hostile threads develop is crucial - or otherwise the board will be dominated by threads like this, which will further discourage many editors from participating in this forum. For the record, I don't believe banning currently existing noticeboards will do any good, and requesting users to double post will fail (simply because they will not know of this rule and will be lazy following it).

However, as I said before, while promotion of the EEnoticeboard would be nice, there is a simpler solution to this problem:

• the crux of this conflict lies in gross incivility that emanates from SOME (but not ALL) users in certain content disputes; incivility that chases some editors off this project and leads to increasing amount of DR and various complains being filled
• ArbCom should clearly state if any editor involved in this ArbCom (presenting diffs or having diffs presented against him) is guilty of those violations (to stop them from being repeated constantly on Wiki - see [57] and User_talk:Ghirlandajo#Ghirla? for some recent examples)
• ArbCom should impose a civility parole on users guilty of such actions to ensure the thick unfriendly atmosphere created by such accusations dissipates and is not recreated
  • EEnoticeboard can be promoted but I don't think it will be a feasible solution for the problem by itself
• I agree with Irpen that ArbCom member comments on various Workshop points is needed: each point should be voted for or against, and a summary of each user (ex. 'Piotrus behaved well' or 'Piotrus should be cautioned') needs to be presented.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I believe almost the entire ArbCom can be summarized in a short 'decision tree':

1. Some users, including myself (let's call us Side A), believe that certain users (commonly, Ghirlandajo, M.K, Dr. Dan, Irpen, let's call us Side B) have been uncivil (usually at talk), discussing editors instead of content, calling them names, assuming bad faith, etc.
2. Side A reports this presumed incivility of side B / ask for advice how to deal with it, hoping for neutral editors to step in, criticize incivility and make Side B apologize and discuss content, not editors
3. Side B feels they have not been incivil, and instead they feel that Side A is campaigning (canvassing) to get them blocked (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Forum_shopping, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Canvassing)
4. Over time, more and more editors became involved, more and more good faith erodes on both sides, more and more editors leave the project or go on wikiholidays annoyed by perceived incivility and bad faith in discussion between editors of both sides, and more and more DR avenues are tried.

I don't believe this situation can be stopped with any parole, amnesty or a dedicated board. Both sides believe they are right and their opponents are wrong, and will not change their behavior unless they are clearly told they are behaving badly. ArbCom needs to state clearly whether:

Side B has been incivil or not

Side A has been overreacting or not

Further, ArbCom needs to prevent the reoccurence of whatever phenomena is deemed at fault.

If Side B has been incivil, certain editors should be given a civility parole, to prevent them from creating unfriendly atmosphere on talk discussions by showing that we are not above blocking them for incivility and disruption

If Side A has been overreacting and behaviour of Side A is acceptable, certain editors (ex. myself) need to be told not to inquire further about whether behavior of Side B editors is acceptable or not, and that such inquirers will lead to a block

A final note: if the ArbCom judges that Side B has not been incivil, it is my understanding that repeating accusations of "unblocking trolls", 2-year old "long history of wheel warring", recruiting and encouraging trolls, canvassing to cheat at FAC, harrassment by a gang of Polish editors and their allies from neighbouring countries or simply calling anther editor a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda is acceptable and constitutes no violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If so, we are looking at interesting discussions in the future :( Of course, if ArbCom would decide to enforce civility policies, we could all go back to editing peacefully in a civil atmosphere... but that's, of course, just my analysis of the situation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Piotrus is adamant in his reluctance to address any issue raised by Irpen and me above and since he prefers to conflate this page with the Workshop, I will list the summary of proposed findings and corresponding remedies from the Workshop page.

1. Piotrus is cautioned to avoid discussing his opponents in foreign languages, giving them nicknames, accusing his long-standing opponents of "vandalism" or "encouraging vandalism" on administrators' noticeboards and elsewhere.

2. Piotrus is cautioned to avoid escalating edit conflicts by encouraging disruptive one-purpose nationalist accounts and campaigning for their unblocking.[58]

3. Piotrus is cautioned to stop running around Wikipedia repeating "incriminating diffs" against his opponents and petitioning for reprisals (it has been estimated that he provided a link to my RfC in excess of thirty times, basically in every discussion we have been involved in, e.g., on T:TDYK).

4. Piotrus is cautioned against maintaining attack pages in fellow Wikipedia projects.

5. Piotrus is cautioned against campaigning for coordination of activities of Polish editors on Gadu-Gadu and other instant messaging agents.

6. Piotrus is cautioned against removal of reliable sources that don't suit his POV and is advised to seek mentorship on the implementation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

7. Piotrus is admonished to stop performing a repertory of incivilities explicitly noted as inacceptable in WP:CIVIL:

"Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" [59]

"taunting and baiting" (e.g., elaborate comparisons of Ghirlandajo and Irpen with "pet trolls" and vandals) [60]

"racial slurs" ("Ruskies") [61]

"calling for bans or blocks", [62] especially in foreign languages [63]

8. Piotrus is reminded, per WP:KETTLE, that it is counterproductive to marginalize irreconcilable content disputes by reducing them to civility issues, whose interpretation varies depending on the POV of the commentator. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, your "summary" consists of workshop proposals filled by you, and completely ignore a good half or so, critical of yourself or other editors :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Xx236

• Ghirlandajo wrote "massacre talk" in his comment on my edit in Chervyen. I find his comment uncivil. The death of hundreds of prisoners deserves one line and shouldn't be mocked.
• Ghirlandajo admits he investigates Polish editors in the Polish Wikipedia, even if he doesn't understand Polish. I understand he wants to control his Polish opponents.
• Ghirlandajo attacked me when I asked about basic facts not mentioned in Fire of Moscow (1812). Everyone has the right to edit the article and to discuss its content, now the article is much better than it used to be before my comments, it's also connected with several other articles.
• Ghirlandajo accused me of being anti-Russian, because I describe Soviet crimes. Is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn anti-Russian? Xx236 15:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ghirlandajo

Off-line prepared campaigns and forum shopping sprees are another favored method that seems to often work and will work even better, should ArbCom defer the future resolution of this disputes to the "ANI court". By buying into this hypocritical replacement of the issues of content with issues of WP:THISandTHAT and looking the other way or even directly encouraging forum shopping, all we do is praise the greater hypocrite or the more skilled warrior with the biggest smile on his face.

This is indeed the problem as I see it. As I said above, the solution to this problem is not to escalate every content dispute by involving a number of biased bigmouths to divert the attention of one's opponents from productive mainspace editing. Once folks are unable to substantiate their nationalist POV with reliable sources, they start running from WP:ANI to WP:AN to WP:AN3 to WP:PAIN submitting fraudulent reports of incivility, "vandal encouragement", and whatnot to have their opponents eliminated. Wikipedia should develop a mechanism to deal with this sort of disruption. I don't believe that a teenage admin monitoring WP:ANI may instantly investigate and offer a ready solution to problems that go back several years. Troll farms of one-purpose nationalist warriors only aggravate the situation.

It's a pity that Piotrus has failed to address any of these issues. Although the request for this arbitration was not based on WP:CIVIL, Piotrus recently took up this policy as a shield to fend off any implication that his behaviour has been less than appropriate. Not that I really mind this approach, given that the policy expressedly identifies "taunting", "racial slurs", and "calling for bans or blocks" as disruptive. There is plenty of evidence on Workshop that Piotrus is the only person driving contributors from Wikipedia in connection with this case. While these issues are real and deplorable, the core problems are POV-pushing, tendentious editing, forum shopping, and routine removal of references.

Irpen's proposal to set up an above-the-battle body for investigation of these claims - the Eastern European Working Group - deserves some consideration. If sanctioned by the ArbCom decision, the group may comprise trusted members of each national community and opine on the propriety of accusations leveled against Piotrus, myself, or other long-standing contributors before they are passed to administrators' noticeboards. I'm sure that Alex Bakharev, Balcer, Dahn, DDima, Yury Tarasevich, Olessi, Duja etc. know more about the background for these conflicts than an average ANI admin. As I can see it, there is no connection whatsoever between the proposed working group and the EEnoticeboard or any other national noticeboard abused by ethnic cliques as a tool for canvassing and astroturfing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment and questions from Paul August

Thanks Irpen for your thoughtful remarks. I believe they contain many relevant insights. I agree that the root cause of the problems here is content disputes not incivility. This explains ArbCom's inability to be of much help in resolving these issues — ArbCom does not have (nor should it have) the authority to resolve content disputes. The proposal for the creation of an Eastern European Working Group, seems like an interesting idea. But I have some questions. What is actually being proposed here? And what exactly does such a group have to do with the ArbCom? Paul August ☎ 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, let me suggest a somewhat different focus. True, content disputes are a root of the problem - but they are not the problem itself. Content disputes are common on Wikipedia and by themselves don't lead to ArbCom - it is incivility, revert warring, and other types of disruptive behavior, rampant during certain content disputes involving certain editors that augment the problem and, apparently unsolvable by lower level DRs lead to ArbCom(s). A very good and recent case study of this situation involving parties from this ArbCom would be the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). The article was Featured only days ago, but during the FAC some editors - like myself - were subject to uncivil comments and accusations (see link above). Despite that we were able to improve the article and get community consensus for the Featured status, but the uncivil remarks, which were the sole contribution of several editors, were not helping. As an author of 20 FAs, I can assure you we can deal with content - providing reliable refs and copyeditng the articles for NPOV is not a problem. The problem is having to face a near-constant torrent of bad faith accusations, by editors who try to insert POVed fragments, fail to provide reliable sources, and resort to personal attacks in attempt to vent frustration or perhaps even aiming to chase their opponents away from certain articles (or from the project itself). A simple civility parole, imposed on certain editors (or all, personally I believe all editors on Wikipedia should be subject to civility parole, but that's a topic for another day) would solve the problem immediately. As for the Eastern European Working Group, as I wrote above, such an idea has been tried before, and apparently failed to do much good.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I believe that the working group implies something fundamentally different from a trivial noticeboard. Hopefully Irpen will flesh out his proposal. As to the page linked above, it is instructive in a sense, becase it spotlights what I have to go through on a daily basis from your yes-men and some other ethnic cliques: Are you afraid of the truth? Your beloved Red Army and NKVD commited several atrocities in Polish Kresy in 1939 and then, in the period 1939-1941 and 1944-1945. This article does not even mention them, to appease such individuals as you I guess. Anyway, personal slandering will not change history and truth will prevail etc, etc. Since nobody cared to react to the torrent of personal attacks, I assume that civility is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose I made my point about the disruptiveness of ethnic cliques clear when I said that "Unlike many others, I'm not followed by a crowd of Russians defending my opinions. The only way that you *won't* be alone is by being a nationalist yourself. That's the irony". --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tymek, unfortunately, seems - in my opinion - to use the same uncivil language and style as you do (I don't see much difference between "beloved NKVD" and "Polish yes-men and their propaganda"). I have recently seconded a warning he got with relation to another uncivil message, telling him that such comments are not acceptable. I was not aware of this one - I didn't read it, as it was not addressed to me; anyway it dates before the commend he was warned about and I hope he will change his behavior. That said, please note that his incivility was only an emulation of what you started on the relevant pages. As the proverb goes: "You reap what you saw". If you'd not have accused various editors, him including, of conspiracy and such, he would have no need to reply in kind to you, now, would he? So please: be more civil with your future posts, and I am sure you will find that much fewer people have complains about your behavior.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the above applies in equal measure to you. Tymek, infortunately, seems - in my opinion - to use the same uncivil language and style as you do, Piotrus. He is not the only Polish editor who emulates your objectionable editing techniques. It seems that, by your example, discussing our articles in Polish has become a regular fixture on user talk pages.[64] There is a gulf of civility between the incontrovertible fact that there are many accounts ready to second your opinions and Tymek's facile allegation associating me with murderous thugs such as NKVD (have I ever edited an article on the subject?) You have been requested to stop comparing me to Molobo, Halibutt, Tymek, and other Polish accounts. Frankly, I'm unimpressed by your failure to do so. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff (from this year, please) where I accuse you of representing "beloved NKVD or Red Army", or anything similar in tone and style. My evidence of your recent incivility is presented at the evidence section and related workshop proposals; your evidence, which consists of diffs by other editors of diffs to edits I have failed to prevent fails to show I have been uncivil to you since our mediation last December. For the record, your above statement that you are offended by comparison to "Polish accounts" is a perfect example of the claims which create unfriendly editing atmosphere.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You effectively endorsed Tymek's revolting allegation by the comment "I don't see much difference between "beloved NKVD" and "Polish yes-men and their propaganda", which is apples and oranges, so to speak. I have nothing in common with such editors as Molobo or Tymek, and I don't want to be compared to them. Such comparisons qualify as baiting. Both "taunting" and "baiting" are overtly forbidden by WP:CIVIL. Please check the appropriate policy. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2005 diff? Oh well. The ArbCom really should have a rule on the age of permissible diffs. But in any case, as I told you on your talk page, pointing fingers here will do neither of us any good. Since you do seem to share some of my sentiments about this argument being pointless, let me suggest we end this particular discussion here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to cooperate with other authors describing Soviet universities. The article was removed, also by Ghirlandajo. Ghirlanajo can censor and tutor Eastern European Working Group as he does the Polish one.Xx236 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment and questions from Paul August

Paul wrote

(emphasis added):

Thanks Irpen for your thoughtful remarks. I believe they contain many relevant insights. I agree that the root cause of the problems here is content disputes not incivility. This explains ArbCom's inability to be of much help in resolving these issues — ArbCom does not have (nor should it have) the authority to resolve content disputes. The proposal for the creation of an Eastern European Working Group, seems like an interesting idea. But I have some questions. What is actually being proposed here? And what exactly does such a group have to do with the ArbCom?

Irpen's response

Dear Paul, I will try to reply to your questions the best I could. I am encouraged that the only arbitrator who took time to respond to my suggestions can see some sense in what took me a great deal of thinking to put together.

Policy games

First of all, about POV-pushing vs incivility as being the crux of the conflict. Incivility by itself is a bad thing and no one argues with that. But the question we have to ask ourselves is what we can do to fix this corner of the Wikipedia. What is getting in our way here such that what works in most content conflicts does not work here? Are the EE editors notorious for being especially uncivil? If not (and I firmly believe they are not) there is something else here getting in our way and putting everyone on civility parole would not help but will even make the matters worse (I will explain why in a minute.) Rabid unscrupulous POV-pushing constitutes disruption, it is arbitrable and it is not a "just a content dispute" over which the ArbCom would have no authority.

Why can't we sort out this mess in the same way how most other messes are sorted out? Is the scale of incivility so horrid that it alone makes the climate untenable? While there are a couple of editors with exceptionally filthy mouths in the EE segment, none of those are among this ArbCom case participants who are among the truly best Wikipedia authors among those who write on the EE history.

What we have here is a relatively small number of editors who constantly butt their heads in hundreds of articles, and those editors are extremely committed to both Wikipedia (its content and integrity) and to their home countries' history at the same time. They are not at Wikipedia for a lark, or for a single issue: they believe that what they are doing is for the best. What adds gasoline to fire is the consistent stream of wrong solutions that made the matters worse. I am talking about the civility solutions designed to resolve the civility problems being applied to this much more complex set of issues. And those solutions are used because antagonizing parties occasionally succeed in portraying the content arguments as civility issues. The groundless "civility talk" (and other accusations) that have little or no merit has become a weapon in an ongoing dispute instead of policies that serve the best of Wikipedia. We have an established pattern that the parties game the civility policy in order to have their opponents in content disputes blocked, with no other purported policy "violations", so that they can 'win' by default.

Civility is not the only tool applied frivolously. People in these disputes also tried to invoke other policies. For example, they would stretch 'copyright' arguments past the breaking point to try to censure the images in articles that they found unflattering to their version of the content. These looked like sudden conversions, because the same people had had long arguments against the "copyright paranoia" when their favored images were questioned. Some editors even went so far as to nominate particular free image tags for deletion as non-compliant or challenging rock-solid fairuse rationales.

In my opinion, the BLP issues invoked here are often yet another strawman, and another stalking horse, as they tend to get raised only in the articles about politicians that some like (or dislike) and authors whose cited books one side wants to impeach. The civility talk in this ArbCom is about as relevant (and sincere) to solving this mess as those other examples. If you have doubts on whether civility by itself is the issue here, please join the workshop, read the relevant FoF's, and by all means click on each of the diffs and see the matter for yourself (the workshop being undeservedly ignored by the arbitrators).

If we get it wrong, we encourage further games

Above, I noted that concentrating on civility will only make matters worse, and here is how. Several editors have said that besides falsely invoking various policies without merit ("WP:THIS and WP:THAT") another favored method of some parties has been the canvassing, astroturfing and forum shopping, with the latter being for blocks, sanctions or simply opinions that support one's view. If this is indeed the case (and please see the workshop and decide for yourself), the civility decision will give a boost to such tactics as it would only encourage frivolous incivility accusations used to dupe the unsuspecting non-writing professional "Wikipedia problem solvers" who just love to hang around WP:ANI and give their eager and uninformed opinions or happily blocking left and right, making war to create peace. The deletion of WP:RFI as well as of the WP:PAIN took place specifically because the entire community realized that these boards had become substitutes for Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent (at times by this case' participants. Piotrus made no secret of his being upset at them going away.)

Decision currently proposed

I respectfully disagree that ArbCom's inability to be of much help, as you put it, is inevitable in this case. True, this is not a usual case and I had my own doubts about the ArbCom's capability to handle it that I expressed in my original statement. But arbitrators who voted to accept the case should have had something in mind, I assume. Perhaps they saw some solutions that I did not see at that time? If they did, then I'm puzzled that we have not seen those arbitrators at the workshop. The Workshop turned into the parties exchanging accusations (grounded and groundless) with no arbitrators showing much interest, except Fred at some initial stage. Then, out of the blue, the "proposed decision" appears which seems totally disconnected from the case:

• the proposed principles are as general as they can possibly be;
• the sole finding of fact states that the Earth is round;
• the sole, so called, "remedy" offers the ruling that "parties are reminded" followed by an unspecified threat of "harsh looks", while the amnesty seems merely a sign that Arbitrators see this as too complex to figure it all out.

Several parties expressed bewilderment with the course of the arbitration (see eg. this very page #Comment by Piotrus and #Comment by Ghirlandajo above, at the workshop and at my talk page.) Do the Wikipedians expect better from the ArbCom? I think we should. Amnesty seems indeed like a good decision since the main sin, POV-pushing, is something that all parties are guilty of to a different extent.

Establish facts right!

But how about the more specific grievances brought to the workshop?

• Sources: Is it OK to attack academic sources for frivolous reasons[65] [66] (and btw was it done? Maybe the sources were rightly attacked?), is it OK to defend the sources the opponent is trying to impeach by invoking BLP wrt to the sources' author rather than the general WP sourcing policies?[67]
• revert wars: Is it OK to wage revert wars taking turns[68] and coordinate those by Instant Messaging to stay under 3RR? Can we reasonably conclude that this indeed took place?
• off-wiki coordination: Is it OK to bomb the polls (be it RfAdm, WP:RM, AfD, etc.) by votes called in by IM or e-mail?[69] Since such communication leaves no trace, can we reasonably conclude from the indirect evidence that such nevertheless took place (I believe the applicable RL term for this is circumstantial evidence)?
• Digging dirt: Is it OK to shadow your "enemies" for months, follow their edits and meticulously collect diffs at an especially created dump with the aim to one day be able to destroy one's opponent by presenting him/her as a trouble maker?[70]
• Forum shopping: Can we establish that canvassing[71] and forum shopping[72] have indeed become a common practice or the accusations have no merit?

The mutual accusations are bound to continue after this arbitration especially if the ArbCom does not take any position towards even whether there is anything wrong with such activities and whether they have taken place.

After the facts are established, fine, grant an amnesty and/or issue a warning. I do not demand any heads. Besides, I am supposed to be among the parties scrutinized by this ArbCom. But if all the ArbCom does is gives a meaningless decision, it will only make the matters worse.

The proposed work group

Now, to Paul's question, what actually is meant by the Workgroup. I had in mind a creation of a work group composed of several editors, a group whose composition has some national parity, which will try to resolve the most common general disputes, like can this or that source be used in the particular article? Does the particular information fit the context of the particular article or this is a WP:UNDUE? Had some of the valuable editors overstepped a little? Certain parties just love to go 'round from board to board with tendentiously presented complaints against their opponents where they are met by avid and hasty users and admins.[73], [74] Sometimes this results in a couple of foolish blocks, and this is where things get really out of hand. The issues that arise here are by far better addressed if dealt by a single dedicated group composed of the respected and cool-headed editors who are familiar with the problems, the subjects, the context and the main players. As Ghirla said above, 'we must not license less investigation in resolving these conflicts'.

Thus, I am not talking about about a general "noticeboard" but a workgroup consisting of editors who will sort out such future disputes quickly and efficiently. Composition must multinational, at least all large EE countries must be represented by at least one editor. I am sure there is an editor or two in most every EE nation that has the respect of their compatriots and would, at the same time, not be too much opposed by the members of other EE communities (perhaps even supported but this may be too much to ask for too many.) There are also some non-EE editors who are interested and familiar with the context. Their participation would be most welcome as well. We should work out the details, perhaps together with the ArbCom.

ArbCom purview and "inability to be of much help"

To Paul's question what exactly such a group would have to do with the ArbCom. The answer is that first of all, the ArbCom may recommend the creation of such group. Second, it may oversee its creation and initial steps. It is very likely that even the process of the opting members will become a mess. We do not need this mess be resolved through appeals to an unsuspecting but eager to act crowd of ANI. So, this may be done as a part of this case's resolution. The idea per se would unlikely be opposed by any party of this conflict. So this is not like the ArbCom would dictate the policy. ArbCom could just oversee the creation of the tool designed solution, perhaps an ad-hoc one.

It would give extra clout to the group if one of two of the content-writing ArbCom members participate in the group too. This is another way how ArbCom (or arbitrators) can be involved. Lets work it out together with the ArbCom. It may actually work.

Ghirla named some names above. I think those are good candidates. If ArbCom can see that this is something that may actually work, let's give it a try, get the ball rolling and see how it goes. In case of failure, we would end up right where we are, but, judging from the current state of affairs of the proposed decision page and the comments above, no better solution is in sight. So, it cannot make things worse.

Finally, Paul, speaking about ArbCom's "inability to be of much help in resolving these issues" as you put it. Firstly, ArbCom members who voted to accept this case must have had something in mind. We do not see them at the workshop at all. As for "resolve", perhaps ArbCom can't resolve the problems (even though it is supposed to be part of conflict resolving), but it can establish facts and outline the problems clearly. This is supposed to be done at the workshop which so far is for the most part unattended by the ArbCom members. This is very disappointing.

I hope we can find some solution. What we most definitely cannot do is to leave all the problems intact after going through all those pains of this monster case and end it with no decision, because the current proposed decision is just as good as none. --Irpen 22:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Comment by Piotrus

I agree with some of Irpen's comments, but on some I'd like to elaborate - and with some, I am afraid I have to disagree.

While there are a couple of editors with exceptionally filthy mouths in the EE segment, none of those are among this ArbCom case participants

I most certainly disagree with that, per my evidence presented here and here. Maybe they are indeed some more incivil editors editing some EE areas - but I am not aware of them, and I find behavior of some parties here extremly uncivil. ArbCom ruling on whether they are, or whether I (and some other editors) are overreacting, is much needed.

portraying the content arguments as civility issues - I'd like to see some examples of that, particularly if you are alluding I am dodging some content discussions by invoking CIV-related policies.

On the other hand, I have seen plenty of attempts (perhaps not intended but nonetheless having that effect) to stop content discussions by chasing one's opponents with incivil remarks, a tactic that has already succeeded in several good contributors leaving (ex. see Halibutt's (formerly ~150 most active editor in this project) statement in this ArbCom). Also, see my comment above, where in the short 'update' part I outlined how the grievances brought by all sides of this ArbCom arose in a simple ongoing pattern, and what must be done to put an end to this vicious cycle. I am disappointed no ArbCom member has commented there - although given that so far only two ArbCom members have comment on this long page on two separate occasions, I am not surprised.

I can only agree and support Irpen's criticism of current ArbCom solutions. Irpen writes: The mutual accusations are bound to continue after this arbitration especially if the ArbCom does not take any position towards even whether there is anything wrong with such activities and whether they have taken place and he is completely right here. I have stated the very same criticism many times above, never receiving any feedback from ArbCom members.

Similarly, while I believe the tone and selection of examples in the 'Establish facts right!' are biased, I do support the idea that ArbCom should address many (if not all) of individual particular issues as discussed in the Workshop (again, I have asked for this above more then one time).

'The proposed work group'. Now that the proposal for this has been fleshed out a little more, I can see some merit in such a body. However, as far as I can tell, this body is in effect a 'faster ArbCom for EE only'. Perhaps creation of such a body (bodies...) is the inevitable future, as Wiki grows and number of cases presented at ArbCom overwhelms the current team (which appears to be the issue, judging from this very case). However, there are many procedural questions that must be addressed. How many members would this 'EE ArbCom' have? How would they be elected? Who could vote in elections (w/out restrictions, the biggest countries with most editors would get most seats, while small states like the Baltics would not be represented at all...)? What about "neutral" members from other parts of the world (I like the idea of having ArbCom members in the group, but they seem to be overworked already, so...)? Should they, perhaps, form a majority? What are the competences of this new board - Irpen suggested reliability, something which is heavily content-related and it is my understanding something which the normal ArbCom tried to avoid. Would the decisions of the EE ArbCom be appeallable by the normal ArbCom or vice-versa? Would it have the power to block or ban? And those are just a few questions off the top of my head. On the other end lies of course the simple solution of revitalizing the EE noticeboard and trying to hold discussions there, preferably with input from ArbCom or some other body - but this solution also has many questions marks as to its feasibility.

As a closing remark, I want to thank Irpen for his 'proposed work group' idea; it's always pleasant to see constructive solutions - however I'd like to stress that such a workgroup will not solve our problems quickly (if ever agreed upon, it will take weeks if not months to establish). But as many editors have suggested, addressing particular points of the Workshop and behaviour of the individual parties involved would most likely solve this issue here and now - perhaps even alleviating the need for creation of dedicated work group (another layer of bureaucracy...) altogether.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus' comparison of Ghirla with filthy-mouthed trolls that he keeps bringing up from time to time does not need a comment. I leave this to Arbitrators to decide.

Just a narrow comment, I don't see a proposed workgroup "a faster ArbCom for EE only". When the Arbcom decides that it can't handle the case load, it may initiate circuit courts but I am not proposing anything that would be of any power to kick butts, the power that ArbCom has. This group cannot decide on blocking or banning editors. OTOH, it won't rule on specific content either. It will simply consider the disputes based on general principles, like whether the specific info is relevant, irrelevant or WP:UNDUE. Whether a specific source is usable or not, etc.

We should find the way of opting members, yes. I am not calling for a principle of proportionality. All I am saying is that all large countries should have at least one member. At least we should try to have some national parity. Non-EE editors interested in the topic and respected by all parties should of course be an asset. So would be the content-writing ArbCom members if they like.

"Appeals": in Wikipedia anything can be appealed to ArbCom (and Jimbo). I don't see this changing anytime soon (unless Jimbo chooses to let the WP run by itself). What would not be expected would be appeals to WP:ANI or other fora where less familiar (and misleadable) users are likely to be found. Those problems are by far more efficiently dealt by the panel familiar with both the subjects and the editor's past pattern. I am not yet ready to draw a full procedure. I propose fleshing it out together. ::--Irpen 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla's comparison of all Polish (or on occastion, other nationalities) users to trolls, nationalists and members of cabals is also something we have commented enough on and is for ArbCom to decide whether it should be allowed.

If the group in question cannot decide on blocking or banning editor, it is a waste of time, as it will fail to address most of the problems (users who refuse to stop disruption). For content issues, we have good enough tools: from content RfC, to WP:FTN and WP:RSN. And the mentioned Eastern noticeboard. As many - even controversial - articles related to EE get GACed and FACed, I can personally attest with many dozens of example that our conflicts don't prevent creation of good content. The problem is that along the way, much wikistress is caused by certain users uncivility, causing certain editors to limit their contributions or withdraw. A task force that could somehow control this uncivility, possibly through quick mediation ending with blocks if needed, may be helpful; anything else - is pointless.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Brief response by Irpen

Piotrus' reply above sadly demonstrates the problem that is one of the main reasons why we are all here. Piotrus' sees blocking his content opponents as means to solve content disputes. We need the group not to evaluate civility. There has been enough of this frivolous civility talk as explained in a great detail in my message above. This talk is the problem rather than the solution as invoking it without reason allows Piotrus, who is himself not a civility model, btw, to circumvent real issues. When the civility problems amount to disruption, there are means already to solve these problems. The civility does not consist only of selecting the nice words to say nasty things, btw. --Irpen 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Closure!

Every single editor who voiced his opinion on the matter agreed that if the case is closed without decision (and the current "decision" is as good as none), it would make matters worse. I urge arbitrators to study the case, rule on the issues and try to get this right rather than "get rid of it." The current outcome is anything but a solution. It is quite the opposite. It is an aggravation of the problem. --Irpen 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with Arbcom's decisions as well, but this process has gone on long enough (over 3 months!!). All the parties involved seem exhausted, and the discussion has died down. Time to close. Balcer 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has "died down" because parties are waiting for the arbitrators' response after answering their questions. If the case does not yield a meaningful decision, there are good chances for another arbcom where we will all have to go over the same thing again and waste even more time and spill more bad blood.

Piotrus seems unrepentant and reasserts that he was doing everything right, even collecting dirt to assault his opponents. Not a single other party expressed any admission of wrongdoing.

ArbCom did not make any substantiative FoF or formulated any principles beyond trivial. There is no opinion on a single proposed remedy and no other meaningful remedies come from ArbCom either. This monster case should conclude meaningfully.

I am not calling for blood and amnesty is all right with me. I am not calling to selectively reprimand a specific party. I am as much open to scrutiny as anyone and I am no angel either. But we expect arbitrators to participate in the cases they accepted and render decisions that are not necessarily to our liking (hence "sensible" only to some), but at least meaningful. Not like the current "Earth is round" and "the Sun is further away than the Moon". --Irpen 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Another arbcom will not have to go over the same thing again, because one of the decisions of this arbcom is "general amnesty for most editors who have been involved in disputes in articles related to Eastern Europe". I would interpret this to mean that any misdeeds discussed here will be off the table in future dispute resolutions. I for one welcome this. We could all use a fresh start here, instead of digging up sins from the whole of the past 2 years. Balcer 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See? You also envision another ArbCom. This is exactly why this closure with no decision is wrong-headed. I would welcome a fresh start too but it won't be.

Are editors reprimanded for removing of the sourced info? Or for adding dubious info sourced to some nationalist article in tygodnik? Was it OK to run to a dozen of boards and follow this by off-wiki campaign, all for the sake of getting people blocked under bogus excused of civility? How do you see that this will stop happening? Is this case more about civility or about gaming the civility policy? ArbCom's silence is deafening.

Now, that the dirt page is moved from Piuotrus' pl-wiki page to his hard-drive, or at least I have every reason to believe so, since he stated that there was nothing wrong with that, what is exactly different to make this start "fresh"? --Irpen 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the things which buried this arbcom's chances of any resolution was the sheer volume of accusations, ranging over the whole of the past two years. Let's have a fresh start, and over the next few months watch like hawks the parties we think are acting inappropriately. Then, if necessary, a clear, focused and limited arbcom can be launched that will actually produce results. And indeed it might, since another decision of this arbcom is to be much more strict in punishing violations in the future (made clear by the statement: this amnesty is combined with the expectation that all future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies). That is my hope at least, as this arbcom is almost certainly finished, your or any other protests notwithstanding. Balcer 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Watch like hawks", huh? Balcer, Piotrus is a very intelligent person. He won't make the exact same mistake for the second time by allowing his underground activity to be spilled out. Or at least, chances of that are slim. There was neither an apology (a non-apology apology he posted to me explains why he actually sees nothing wrong with what he has done) nor a promise to stop. Neither there is much chance for some at least to take Piotrus' "promises" at the face value.[75] Even you considered his dirt-digging justifiable!

Further, who is and who is not subjected to the delayed punishment? Only MK? Members of the ArbCom did not indicate at the workshop which accusations they find of merit and which are groundless. There was no allegation of any misconduct against some users at all. You were not accused for anything. Are you under watch? The only accusation leveled against me was not at the workshop but at the wierd entry by David Gerard Piotrus called in over IRC. It caused much bemusement too. Am I also under watch? Is Ghirla under watch? What did he do wrong? Total lack of clarity? Even Piotrus' own questionable acts are not ruled at by Arbcom.

True enough, his future calls for blocks posted to various boards, by Piotrus' himself or after his inciting others to do just that[76] [77] [78] are less likely to succeed now. But as I see now, asking for a quick hand through Gadu Gadu will continue.

I have not ever seen the Arbcom case with such no decision! And this is clearly a case where there is both room and need for an ArbCom decision. --Irpen 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you could not stop yourself from using a diff over one year old to argue your point. If that is one thing which this arbcom puts an end to, I will be happy. Let's move on a little bit, and quit worrying who did what to whom in 2005 and 2006. This amnesty ruling is beginning to look better and better. Balcer 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is neither a diff from one year old, nor an answer in your post. You actually do not answer anything at all. My view is that this ruling will leave everyone seeing each other with suspicion and Piotrus continuing to try to rid Wikipedia from those who object to certain aspects of his activity. And who knows, maybe others are doing the same. All I know is that there is no such Piaskownica on my hard drive and I have reasons to believe that there is on his.

Perhaps ArbCom means that they are unable to sort this case out because it is too complex for them and they are busy with more important cases or with their off-wiki issues? Then they should close it with "no decision" rather than the bogus one. --Irpen 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you did not ask me any direct question in your post (at least none that I have any authority to address since I am not a member of Arbcom), why do you demand an answer? How am I supposed to know whether MK , you or anybody else are under watch? Anyway, am I on trial here? Maybe I was just working to leave you with the Last Word.

Link 76 (first of the triplet) refers to edits made from 26 July 2006 to 28 July, 2006. Is there something that I am not seeing? Today is August 15, 2007. Either acknowledge your error and apologize for implicitly accusing me of lying, or explain what it is that I have misunderstood. Balcer 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Diff 76 is not given in its own right. It is given as a part of the series of diffs showing the same thing, inciting others to complain against Piotrus' opponents demonstrating a long term trend. The second diff in the series is a very recent one (July 16, 2007. Please do not take things out of their context. And do not pick something in my post to answer leaving the rest ignored. --Irpen 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You said: "There is neither a diff from one year old", hence clearly indicating that there is not even one diff that is over a year old. Clearly you were wrong. Case closed. Balcer 23:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Balcer. Throughout this dialog you were picking on selected unimportant issues avoiding to answer the main questions. Just like here! The old diff is given right next to a recent diff demonstrating the pattern still existing. You pick on one diff of the two. When this is explained to you, you "close the case". BTW, is "you were worng. case closed" WP:CIV? Oh, and if you care to continue this dialog, please do not answer just the last question. --Irpen 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply I have no energy left to once more go over all the questions that you presented. Furthermore, in any discussion I am under no obligation to address every issue that the person I am discussing with raises. If you don't get an answer, accept it and let it go. If you have a question of burning importance addressed directly to me, leave it on my talk page. And with this, I would like to officially certify that my participation in this arbcom in any form whatsoever is finally over. Yipee! Balcer 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Closure!

On further thought I removed this thread between Balcer and myself initiated by me. It is available in history. Arbitrators who vote know the parties opinion anyway. Why bother. --Irpen 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the thread above. I do not believe it is proper to just erase long discussions at will. Balcer 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)