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

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

Important — please note The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case: "Editors are expected to observe appropriate decorum on the case pages and in any other discussion of this incident." "Editors are instructed to refrain from disclosing on-wiki the name or other identifying information concerning any editor who does not edit under or disclose on-wiki his or her real-world identity. Any evidence that would have the potential effect of making such a disclosure shall not be posted on-wiki, but shall be e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee. The committee will take appropriate steps to ensure that no editor is sanctioned based on private evidence without an appropriate opportunity to respond to such evidence, while also seeking to ensure that editors' identifying information is not unnecessarily disclosed." "All editors, whether or not they are potential parties to the case, are strongly urged to exercise consideration and discretion in dealing both on- and off-wiki with all aspects of this highly sensitive situation. Any behavior that would unnecessarily inflame or widen the dispute should be avoided." The Clerk for this case is KnightLago ( talk · contribs) who will be assisted by non-recused members of the Clerk team in enforcing the above rules. The Clerks will, wherever it deems necessary, refactor and remove statements where they violate the above directions, or where they violate the general standards of decorum and Wikipedia policies. The Clerks will, where required for particular egregious or repetitive violations, ban participants from the case pages for an appropriate period of time. Both the refactoring of statements, and case page bans, that are implemented by the Clerks, can be appealed to the Committee. If any user requires assistance in submitting private evidence to the Arbitrators in the method requested by Committee (see the second bullet point, above), please contact a member of the Clerks or, alternatively, an Arbitrator directly. — User:KnightLago ( talk) 02:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Given the exceptional nature of the case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the normal workshop format is not appropriate. This page will be used by the drafting arbitrator ( Coren), or other arbitrators as required, to post redacted summaries of privately submitted evidence when appropriate and to ask questions to the participants in a format closer to that of an inquest. Please refrain from responding directly to statements made by others; this page is not appropriate for threaded discussion and such comments will be refactored. The prohibition against posting private information remains in force here. When in doubt, submit evidence to the committee directly.

Proposals for injunctions have been placed on the proposed decision page for voting; and the discussion suggesting them has been moved to the talk page. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Voting by arbitrators is here (discuss on proposed decision talk page)
• Initial proposals archived on talk page here (and can be discussed there)

1. Have you ever shared your password with anyone? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Has anyone recently sent you a file, or directed you to an unfamiliar web site? Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Do you claim that the list archive submitted to ArbCom was falsified? Have you received a copy yet? Jehochman ^Talk 09:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it is possible (easy to do technically and whoever leaked it would have a motive and opportunity to do so). We will however most likely never be able to prove it or disprove it beyond reasonable doubt based on electronic evidence alone, due to its very tamper-friendly nature. My argument, from day 1, was that the archive "could" be falsified (and it is impossible to prove or disprove that it was), that's all. I've a copy of the stolen/faked archive (but I don't have the time to read all few hundred of my emails (and probably well over a thousand which quote me in some reply) and try to recall if I wrote them or not and if everything matches (if there is no falsification, there is no problem; if there is I expect arbcom will inquire about certain emails); I've submitted some selected evidence to arbcom and I am ready to assist them in answering specific questions). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to prove data falsification. I encourage you to check the leaked archive against your personal email records and report any falsifications you may find. A forger will typically not do a perfectly thorough job. For instance, if an email is replied to many times, the content is copied into many subsequent messages. It's quite a lot of work to go through all those threads and fake each copy of the message. Most likely they will miss some instances, or make small mistakes like adding or skipping a space. Jehochman ^Talk 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've considered that. It takes much more work to fake those types of emails. Ideally, you want to change as few words as possible in as few emails as possible, since every change increases the chances of making a mistake. This is why my biggest worry is not of some long winded threads about evil doing, but of a few emails in which "Do not revert" was changed to "Do revert", or in which a "There is a discussion and vote on X" was changed by adding "(vote yes)" to the sentence. Of course, if a message was not replied to or had very few replies, or had replies which didn't quote the original text, this makes the job easier. Btw, if you'd like, I can send you the sample evidence I send to arbcom, and you can tell me if you can tell which email is original and which is faked... (and do note I am not a pro on doing that stuff :>). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a named party to this case, utilized sysop tools to unblock another party, Tymek ( talk · contribs), over my objection. I had blocked Tymek as an apparently compromised account, or else as a disruptive account falsely claiming to be compromised. At the time I asked the Committee to consider the matter. Neither I nor FPaS has Checkuser access, whereas most members of the Committee do. In the block notice I specifically asked that the account not be unblocked without my consent, or else the consent of a Checkuser or ArbCom member. I consider FPaS action to be a serious violation of Wikipedia:Administrators. FPaS could have easily requested a clerk to perform the unblock if an unblock were needed. FPaS posted this message to my talk page upon performing the disputed sysop action. I request the FPaS be directed not to perform any further sysop actions on other parties to this case. I also request that the Committee respond to my message of September 16 so that I can understand whether you have looked into the matter of Tymek being a compromised account. FPaS seems to be concerned that you may have dropped the ball on that issue. I am also concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

To make things clear, the Committee did — and will continue to — examine the list of email that has been received for potential serious violations of Wikipedia rules. In particular, hounding, meatpuppetry and disruptively gaming the rules are all activities that are forbidden and destructive and that can (and usually are) made possible by coordination off-wiki.

In doing so, we are proceeding under a number of (rebuttable) presumptions: that the mail archive has not been fabricated, that most email within the archive have not been altered or falsified, and that completeness of that archive is unknown. Insofar as information in the emails correctly matches verifiable events on-wiki, they can be presumed to be authentic. Evidence otherwise is welcome and solicited, in particular from the participants of the mailing list.

There have been objections to the use of the archive entirely based on the allegation that it has been acquired through illegal or unethical means. It is to be noted that [a link to] the archive has been received independently by a number of editors, none of whom are alleged to have stolen it, who then forwarded it to the Arbitration Committee. Claims that it has been obtained improperly by the original sender are unsubstantiated, and unverifiable by the committee. Other alternatives are equally likely (that it was transmitted willingly by a member of the list or that it was leaked accidentally then forwarded by an unknown third party for instance) and investigating the issue is neither possible, nor within the Committee's remit.

At any rate, even if one ignored the obvious fact that criminal rules of evidence do not apply to the Committee the original provenance of the email archive is entirely moot: the Committee is not bound by an exclusionary rule in the first place. Even if the allegations of the mailing list archive having been taken illegally by an outsider "hacking" were correct, they lie entirely outside the jurisdiction and reach of the Committee, and have no bearing on the propriety of using it.

—  Coren  ^(talk) 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

I believe that much of the problem would be solved if we had a general prohibition on admins using their tools in ethnic disputes when those admins closely identify with one side of the ethnic dispute. Ethnic issues have probably the longest history of dispute, right back to Gdanzig and beyond, and I think that any administrative action should be strictly at arms length for these articles. I don't see how Piotrus, for example, can ever be perceived as an honest broker by the opposing side in these disputes - however carefully he might weigh the neutrality of every action, the mere fact of his involvement will be inflammatory to a deeply entrenched opposing camp - muc more so than would be the case with, say, William and climate change articles, where there is at least an objective standard by which to judge the issue. In many ethnic disputes there never can be an objective single value of truth, which is why they are so intractable. Guy ( Help!) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

I believe that the Committee should adopt a policy that would inform parties presenting evidence to the ArbCom that they have no right to share private information that is not theirs without permission from other parties whose private information is being shared, and that the Committee will not accept such evidence. The Committee should also adopt a policy that it will not accept evidence obtained by illegal or unethical means (such as, but not limited to, hacking somebody's computer). This should substantially discourage parties from attempting to violate other editors' privacy, and from other illegal actions such as hacking. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Due to the fact that the case involves off-Wiki material that has been collected and possibly altered in an unknown manner and then disseminated with and without permission of the affected parties, issues of Wikipedia editor’s privacy, on and off Wiki, play a central, and unprecedented role in this case, in addition to the topics discussed on the mailing list or the nationalities or places of residence of its members.

As a result the case shall be renamed to “Eastern European Mailing List and Privacy Issues”.

Proposed by radek ( talk) 22:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Alex Bakharev is immediately temporarily desysopped.

User:Alex Bakharev, one of the administrators who received the email from Tymek's compromised acocunt with the supposed "evidence", despite the uncertain legal status of this material shared it with other Wikipedia users, notably User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim. He did this despite being previously asked, in a specific and clear manner, more than once, not to share the information [1] [2], as it contained personal and private data about several Wikipedia users, including their real names, occupations and families. This was a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on outing.

As a result of showing bad judgment Alex Bakharev, for the duration of the ArbCom case shall be desysopped and his administrative privileges revoked, pending complete investigation and conclusion of this case.

Proposed by radek ( talk) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia NewYorkBrad suggested that I make a proposal on editing restrictions. As this Arbcom is partly centred around the topic of Soviet/Russian/succesor states history in relation to the history of the Baltic States, Poland and Romania, I feel that a fair proposal would be the temporary ban of myself, and all editors named as being on this email list, from editing articles relating to the history of the Soviet Union/Russia/successor states (including the Baltics), Poland and Romania, where the history is based upon any one of the named states interactions with any of the other named states, e.g. Soviet-Polish history, Polish-Ukrainian history, Russian-Estonian, Romanian-Moldovan history, etc. This would allow editing to continue by all editors in areas which are not related to this area of dispute, and where there is likely productive work going on, and for the duration of these proceedings. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Based on the comments and activity of Deacon of Pndapetzim ( talk · contribs) I think it is obvious he consider himself a party to this case, and as such should be added to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Would the list administrator agree to let somebody inspect the archives? In real life I occasionally serve as an expert witness and get to peruse through people's highly private (trade secret) data and give my opinions to the court. If you don't trust me, would you trust somebody else to examine the archives and tell ArbCom whether there were nefarious activities going on, or not? Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is here

Wikipedia is a project based mostly on anonymous contributions. Each writer's privacy is protected unless they choose to reveal their identity themselves. Posting another person's personal information, or external links to such information on Wikipedia oneself (i.e.: the link to the aforementioned mailing list archive), is harassment. Privacy violations include previously undisclosed real life names, IP addresses, email addresses etc. as per our Wikipedia:Harassment policy.

Personal information delivered by undisclosed users via Wikimedia servers such as the legal names of their content opponents, home or workplace addresses, telephone numbers, and other contact information is subject to disciplinary sanctions. Thus, according to Wikipedia guiding policies the above attempted outing becomes grounds for an immediate block. That’s why the Arbitration Committee must take all necessary steps to trace the user who carried out the outing, and act accordingly.

Users need not worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors. Unless proven as misleading and malicious on purpose, the contributions provided by the group of Wikipedians connected by the above discussion forum shall be considered valuable to the project, knowledgeable and positive in spirit. Similarly, there’s nothing wrong with discussing the project by small interest groups outside Wikipedia for as long as no relevant action to the detriment of this project has been taken.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively, and requires cooperation among users leading to consensus. If anybody wishes to express doubts about the conduct of the above involved parties, then please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence drawn from Wikipedia and not from their personal correspondence acquired through illegal and/or unethical means. Although conduct may be assumed due to personal views, it is usually best to address it without mentioning motives, because you have them too (which would tend to exacerbate resentments all around). -- Poeticbent talk 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles: Enforce WP:NPOV & WP:YESPOV , lets say by enforcing splitting-up the controversial articles into relevant sections describing the opposing viewpoints one by one instead of letting editors battle over the truth. Unless someone wants to return to similar ArbCom cases in the future, there is no other way to solve this 'cold information edit war' between the Eastern European 'nationalists' and Russian/Soviet 'imperilaists' (-broadly defined) on Wikipedia I think. WP:NPOV & WP:YESPOV needs to be enforced, otherwise nothing is going to be solved in the territory of EE with this another ArbCom case either I'm afraid. There are a number of editors under editing restrictions/banned/etc. already. Has anything changed? No. Only if Wikiedia rules change on controversial subjects, only then there might be a light in the end of this tunnel.-- Termer ( talk) 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It looks like multiple users were driven out from Wikipedia by members of the team. They stopped editing to avoid further attacks (like Ghirlandajo) or were blocked (like me) through the efforts of the team. Most of them do not know about opening of this case and have no chance to present their evidence here. I myself noticed this case almost accidentally several days after it was opened. My proposal is that this editors should be:

1. identified in some preliminary investigation of emails.
2. contacted by ArbCom and asked to present their evidence.
3. given additional time to present their evidence.

DonaldDuck ( talk) 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support. Please unban User:Petri Krohn – his ban resulted from a !vote swamped by his e-mailing list content opponents, and he may present essential evidence. Anti-Nationalist ( talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Petri Krohn should be unblocked and invited to comment. The ban vote was indeed swamped by the list members and possible canvassing can be seen in emails such as 20090529-1210-[WPM] banning Petr Krohn_.eml. Offliner ( talk) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Leave no stone unturned. Myself being an editor that was largely driven away from editing in many articles of interest, and as someone who was driven to socking, and caught by accident via baseless fishing,(they seemed very surprised at who my alt account really was, and you can see about a hundred false, baseless accusations on that page), ironically both the socking and getting caught as a result of the constant harassment by Biophys and other non-related editors who Biophys used to tag-team with, I know first hand how these guys are able to bring out the worst in other editors. I know I would not have felt forced to break rules in order to avoid detection from their all-seeing eye, constantly watching my recently edited list and following me around everywhere, including to non-political topics. Anyone and everyone who has interacted with members of this cabal, regardless of how or why they were blocked/banned, should at least be able to have their say. LokiiT ( talk) 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is ridiculous. Petri Krohn got himself banned (twice!) for making threats and other disruptive behavior and the bans were imposed by neutral administrators with support from editors and admins not related to this case. Similar situation describes DD (17 reverts!) and others. This case isn't a COATRACK where every kind of grievance can be aired and everyone who has ever been restricted/reprimanded/banned/blocked/admonished gets to pretend that they never did anything wrong when they clearly did. In fact, that kind of attempts at abusing what this case is supposed to be about, should itself lead to reprimands and potential restrictions. radek ( talk) 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

No. According to the e-mails, he didn't even want to interact with you or edit in your sphere, so Digwuren needed to "bait" him by various methods. And he was banned for a misconstrued piece of advice – as a result of a !banvote whose outcome owed an enormous debt to Digwuren's and Miacek's canvassing. (So eager were the meatpuppeteers to get him banned that it took two cabalists soliciting !banvotes.) Anti-Nationalist ( talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Premise 1: Generally, an article that has been "peer"-reviewed and achieved A-class of GA-class status is unlikely to generate edit wars or inflaming discussions. The reviewing process itself, even when it does not notably increase the size of an article, has tremendous potential to eliminate many (even potential, yet unsurfaced) points of contention.

Premise 2: Although it is a social phenomenon, Wikipedia is ultimately about content, not editors.

Proposal based on these premises: After this ArbCom case would be concluded, to set up a volunteer team of editors (or a mini-project), which, or under the supervision of which, a number of articles would be developed, and "peer"-reviewed, possibly or preferably by several independent editors in parallel. ArbCom would place a number of articles it deems worth trying this path into a (hidden, i.e. which doesn't show up) category. (My guess there would be around 20 such articles, but don't believe my guess.) There could be set up a procedure by which the coordinator of this mini-project could admit further articles into this category (in case this would be a success and there would be desire to enlarge the pool of articles). The procedure for removing an article from the category would have to involve a vote of the ArbCom. (The ArbCom would not validate in any way the content - absolutely not! b/c that would go against the basics of WP - but could conclude based on a report from the coordinator of this mini-project that satisfactory progress has been achieved on that article. For example, if it became GA-class, that would be - I would say - satisfactory.) Put otherwise, for an article to (re-)enter the category should be much easier than to leave it. Dc76\ ^talk 12:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Every member of the mailing list has given approval for me to review their list correspondence. See User:Piotrus/ArbCom. Molobo signed at his user talk because of his block and Digwuren emailed approval because he no longer edits. List members will be supplying their correspondence records to me. Would the Committee please send me its copy of the list for comparison? I plan to prepare a detailed report. Collaborative input from the Committee would be welcome in this endeavor. Durova ³²⁰ 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova, I am aware of your expertise in photo restoration, but can you please tell us what your qualifications in such technical matters in this instance is? And why your judgement on this issue should be deemed anymore qualified than any of us here? -- Russavia ^Dialogue 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me expand on this question Durova. I have no objections, of course, that these emails be investigated for "fakeness". One need only remember that the changing of stories that these emails were faked, stolen, then faked, then stolen, then hacked, then whistleblowed, then stolen again, then faked, and on and on it goes. I just hope that one doesn't look at it from the outset that they are in investigating documents of the like of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. There obviously will be no doubt that these emails will be judged to be authentic, as a result of the obvious whistleblowing that took place, but in the event that you come back with a judgement that they are fake, how are we as a community to know what your professional skills in this area are, and how reliable your opinion would be in this area. Hopefully you can expand on this -- Russavia ^Dialogue 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see what this will accomplish. The mailing list members should be given copies of the evidence submitted, and then they can check their records and identify the messages they claim to have been faked. It's easy enough to say on this date, the evidence says I wrote X, but actually I wrote Y. The analysis you propose to do seems excessively complex and lacking directness. Show the authentic messages so they can be compared to the fakes. That will quickly discredit the entire pile of evidence if in fact there has been faking. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have a special request for you, Durova, with regard to your investigation. When comparing the illegal archive with the genuine list of exchanged emails, please pay special attention to messages that have been deleted by the whistleblower in an attempt to cover his own tracks. This would be important for the future, as possible proof of an attempted outing. Besides, you can’t get anymore genuine than that in your search for evidence tampering. -- Poeticbent talk 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It's interesting how no one offered to roll up their sleeves until I offered to undertake the task, and now there are several suggestions about how it should be done. ;) The decision really belongs to the people who participated in the list and they have agreed unanimously. This request is directed to the Committee. Durova ³²⁰ 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It's also interesting how you have not answered the question asked of you. Just what is your technical expertise in this area? And how is your judgement deemed more worthy of credibility than the judgement of all other editors. To be more credible than anyone else's judgement, you need to present just what your credentials in this area are. Additionally, Arbcom already have at their disposal numerous developers who have oversight permissions, and whom would possibly be able to ascertain whether these emails are fake or not. In fact, I would be somewhat surprised if the committee has not already pursued this avenue themselves, rather than relying on us amateur detectives onwiki. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 02:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought we were supposed to discuss these on the talk page, so perhaps this conversation needs to be moved, but no matter. I'm rather confused by what is being proposed here. What is being compared to what? List members have said repeatedly that there is "no archive" that they maintained. Is that not the case, or are you just looking at a few e-mails that happened to have been saved? If the latter, are list members giving you access to every e-mail they saved between all of them or just a select sample (and how would you know if it was the former or the latter)? Piotrus and I communicated about the possibility of proving fakery here (scroll down a bit) where I suggested he and others compare their saved e-mails with the archive the Arbs has, and he seemed to suggest that this would be too difficult and/or not worthwhile. But is that what you are now proposing to do, and if so shouldn't this be the kind of thing the Arbs (or maybe just one Arb) does instead? I very much trust you, Durova, to be fair and discrete, but if we're talking about comparing the "leaked" (or whatever) archive to e-mails the list members still possess, that sounds to me like something the committee should be doing. Some clarification here is needed I think. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Bigtimepeace, all I can tell you, as a member of the "evil" list, that when I was reading briefly some of the e-mail "evidence" available to the whole world to download for free:), I had a lot of fun. I guess just as much as other editors (now I "respect" very much) who read private e-mails without permission. I had lots of fun especially when I was reading e-mails I never saw before :):)-- Jacurek ( talk) 08:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Which messages do you claim were faked? It is in all your interests to compare the evidence (or "evidence" as the case may be) with your personal email records and to call out any forged messages. FUD is not the way to counteract this. You need to show specific evidence of faking. By claiming faking without showing evidence, you tend to discredit yourselves, which I am sure is not your preferred result. Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

After discussion, the committee has decided that it was best that no exception be made to our internal policy of not further forwarding private or sensitive communications that have reached us. The mailing list archive includes amongst other things copies of correspondence that may have been forwarded or copied to the mailing list without clear authorization, and further dissemination is not appropriate. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

What is unclear about the authorization that every member of the mailing list has given? Coren, I will be undertaking this examination. No announcement is not going to stop that; the only difference from noncooperation is that I would work from a publicly available version of the list which may differ from the one the Committee uses internally. I have no control over that variable; ultimately that would mean more work for yourselves. I would rather proceed cooperatively than independently, but this will proceed. If you or any other arbitrator has questions or requests additional information I would gladly communicate. Will wait one day before moving forward. Regards, Durova ³²⁰ 21:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Without offering any opinion, I believe Coren is refering to situations like this WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Shell_Kinney. E-mails of 3rd parties that were forwarded/quoted on the mailing list.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If additional requests were necessary I would gladly seek them, but to be candid about the matter there seems to be a political subtext to the way this announcement transpires: not a whisper from any arbitrator until after every list member has already signed on, then not a word about perhaps seeking additional permissions elsewhere. Simply an announcement that they won't be cooperating. Well, there can be ways of managing that. Am willing to keep an open mind in case I misunderstand the context. Further communication is welcome. Durova ³²⁰ 22:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought we had been pretty clear that we would not be perpetuating the privacy problems. [3] Unfortunately, my message does not seem to have been factored in. Risker ( talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Bear in mind that I have seen no version of the list so it would require extrasensory perception to intuit that anyone beyond the list members themselves might have a privacy issue at stake here. If there are other people whose privacy needs to be addressed, let's get on that. If you want solutions, solutions can be found. Durova ³²⁰ 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There was a delay, Durova, simply because we took time to evaluate and discuss the request before deciding against it. Balancing our obligations towards privacy, transparency and being just is — I'm sure you'll agree — a delicate exercise that should never be rushed. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Surely it would have been possible to communicate during the delay if there were actual intention to iron out the details. If it were possible to determine what (if any) other persons have privacy issues here I would already be endeavoring to obtain their consent, but my own public declaration not to read any portion of the list without all members' consent prevented that. Let us hope that there is a way to overcome this misunderstanding and these obstacles. During Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat I submitted evidence offsite which no arbitrator read. During Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war I resubmitted that evidence with updates; again no arbitrator read it. Then a third case opened with the same party present; in order to avoid being swept under the rug yet again I published here. Within a day and a half a senior administrator had retired and resigned. For the long range outcome see this page and this page. Do you think any arbitrator from the 2008 Committee contacted me to express regrets after that was all said and done? No, not one. But I was right on the money and this unanimous commendation--voted upon while the editor had already broken his pledge--is one of the silliest findings ArbCom has ever passed. Emails are not diffs; one cannot trust their veracity with the same assurance. I have better things to do than undertake this vetting, but it ought to be done. The Committee itself should have performed it before opening a case, provisionally desysopping someone who edits under his real name, or proposing any part of a decision. But you haven't, so someone needs to do it. Dagnabbit, and I have the Tropenmuseum restorations to do at the same time. Expect to see me grumpy; I'm going to be short on sleep. I sincerely hope everything checks out as unaltered. How is it that in an encyclopedia of over 3 million entries, thankless task remains a redlink? If you want to make efforts to proceed cooperatively, please state so now. Otherwise I'll follow the path that conscience dictates. Durova ³²⁰ 23:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This thread is extremely strange, and while I'm following this case fairly closely I don't understand what is going on or why anyone is getting upset. Durova I asked you some questions above which I still think need to be answered. First, what exactly are you going to do? I literally do not know. Do you have access to an entire archive of e-mails saved by a list member and are you comparing that to the "leaked" list? Or do you only have access to some of the e-mails which happened to have been saved by list members? If they are forwarding you e-mails to check against the leaked archive, how do you know they are not altering the e-mails forwarded to you so you will "discover" that the original and the leaked archive are different, thus casting doubt on the veracity of the latter? And if this is the kind of investigation you and list members are proposing, why are you doing it and not an Arbitrator? Has anyone even asked the Arbs if they are interested in having access to e-mails which list members have saved in their own e-mail folders? Finally, you (and others) have made mention before of doing textual analysis and the like (comparing one style of writing with another), but why would that even be necessary? Aren't you just comparing one e-mail to the "leaked" copy and making sure they say the exact same thing?

I'm not at all trying to be difficult here, I genuinely do not understand what you are proposing to do and why whatever it is you are proposing cannot be done by an Arb. I think this needs clarification before you embark on this project, and I also think it unwise to leap into a thankless task when the committee seems to be saying they do not want or need you to do this. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Most of the relevant discussion occurred at a linked page in Piotrus's user space and in a previous thread at this board. You and I agree that ArbCom could do this; I'm amazed that they proceeded so far without an attempt. But they have gone this far, which was why I offered to step forward (more of a matter of filling a very obvious gap than anything else). Now that every list member has agreed to the proposed review, ArbCom is raising a new set of objections. The basis of their objections appears to be that other people's email was forwarded and/or quoted occasionally. The simplest workaround would be to omit third party forwards and lengthy quotes, then send me the remainder--the emails in which only the list members themselves participated. This is what I will proceed to look at in a day. The only real difference is whether ArbCom does the cutting/deleting, or whether I do it as soon as I recognize any third party's privacy at stake. If the Committee continues to reject cooperation and evidence of tampering emerges, then matters could get very interesting. I have a hunch that privacy is not the real obstacle, since the workarounds are so simple and obvious. Durova ³²⁰ 01:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

1) Have the Arbs categorically said they do not want to do this, i.e. did you or a list member get in touch with them and say, "do you want to look at some 'original' list e-mails" and they said no?

2) Again, do you have access to an entire archive provided by a list member (i.e. something distinct from what the Arbs have), or are you only looking at scattered e-mails people happened to have saved and/or those which they decide to send to you? This is not a trivial question.

3) Other than asking them to be honest (as you did here), what precautions will you take to make sure that an e-mail forwarded to you by a list member for comparison was not tampered with by the person forwarding it (e.g. changing "let's try to get User:X to violate 3RR" to "let's make sure not to violate 3RR")? I'm not saying that anyone on the list would do that, but what's to prevent them from doing so, and how would you know if they did? Personally I think it's more likely that an e-mail sent to you by a list member would be altered than that the "archive" in the Arbs hands was altered, but regardless the fact that such alteration is possible casts an enormous cloud over what you are investigating before you even start. I'm worried you're embarking on a difficult and time consuming task which might not be take seriously regardless of the result because the endeavor (from where I sit at least) was flawed from the beginning. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It doesn't appear that you've read the previous discussion. At any rate, it's the list members who are the decision makers here. It's their words and their reputations at stake; their questions have been answered to their unanimous satisfaction. The matter will proceed; the only remaining issue is whether that cooperation will be multilateral. Durova ³²⁰ 02:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Why don't the list members come forward with their evidence of tampering? They can simply point out the messages that were allegedly adulterated and explain why they think so. Why do they need a spokeswoman? The list members aren't decision makers at all. They are targets of an investigation that is rapidly drawing to a close. If they have actual evidence of tampering, they better bring it forward soon. Up to now all we've heard are vague accusations of tampering completely unsupported by any evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(ec with Jehochman) Durova can you please point me to the discussion to which you are referring? I've read the subpage on Piotrus's user page and most of the threads on this case but I don't see where these questions are answered, particularly number 3 which is the most crucial. I hope you'll not take offense at this observation Durova, but your replies here seem (at least to me) to be somewhat confrontational both to the Arbs and others, and unnecessarily so. You seem a bit bothered by the whole matter and I have absolutely no idea why that would be. I'm genuinely trying to understand what you are doing and how, and I don't think these are impertinent questions to ask. You and the list members can obviously do whatever you want in terms of analyzing evidence, but the community deserves to know exactly what that process entailed. Perhaps in whatever discussion thread you are thinking of it was not laid out as clearly as you remembered. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

How to demonstrate tampering with a mailing list archive. Email replies frequently include the text of the original message. Imagine a sequence of messages A, B, C, and D where each is a reply to the prior one. If a tamperer modifies A to become A', they have to edit B, C and D to create B', C' and D' because those replies contain the original text of A. Getting away with tampering is very difficult because it is extremely easy to create inconsistencies in the record. Can anybody demonstrate such a slip up in the file that has been circulated? Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Look: I'm trying to keep this communication as transparent as possible. If side discussions derail things to the point where the arbitrators miss something important then matters will be harder on everyone. The best faith interpretation of Coren's and Risker's posts is that the Committee mistakenly supposed I've requested an exception to their privacy policy. I haven't requested any exception. If hurdles remain there are two possible workarounds:

1. Seek consent from any non-list members who were quoted extensively on-list.
2. Omit re-sends and extensively quoted material from the collection of emails to be sent to me.

I will be moving ahead after the start of UTC time tomorrow. If that progress occurs without the Committee's cooperation then I will pursue the second option and cull non-member material (the first option is unavailable since I do not know the names of any people who may be affected that way). Durova ³²⁰ 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova is there some reason you are unable to answer straightforward questions, or at least (as I asked) point to a previous discussion where you think they were answered? This isn't a "side discussion" and I don't see how it will cause the Arbs to "miss something important" to simply answer the questions I asked above (which you could literally answer in 3-4 sentences). When I originally asked about these things I expected you to answer right off and for that to be the end of it (I was not and am not remotely trying to stir up trouble, just trying to understand what you are doing), but you have ignored not only my questions but also those of a couple of other editors. If you are unwilling to answer basic questions about this undertaking it's unlikely anyone will take your report seriously, which ultimately does a disservice to the list editors if you do find anything suspicious. If there is something you are uncomfortable talking about on-wiki, though I cannot imagine why, do you mind if I e-mail you regarding the questions I asked above?

Finally, as evidence that there is still some confusion here, note that what Jehochman is proposing to do above (A and A' and all that) relates (I think) to textual analysis of only the ArbCom mailing list (i.e. not by comparing with saved e-mails) which is, I think, not what you are going to do, which he may or may not understand. But I'm not sure about any of that, which is why I've been trying to get some clarity. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think there are at least three types of analysis possible:

1. Look for internal inconsistencies in the ArbCom evidence (archive from who knows where). This would be proof of tampering.
2. Compare archive to emails held by list members. This is something list members should do. Many hands make light work. If there are discrepancies, one copy has been tampered with, though we cannot immediately be sure which one.
3. Check archive to see if the writing style matches editors' writing style. This is far and away the hardest and most difficult choice enumerated.

To me, it makes the most sense to start with 1, not 3. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova, I would be very interested in your answers to the questions Bigtimepeace has proposed, most especially to the third one. In any comparison of the archive to so-called original emails, the possibility of tampering with the originals must be considered. If you do find any differences and have not controlled for the possibility of tampering then the reliability of any conclusions you might seek to draw will be undermined. EdChem ( talk) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I find the extraordinary length of this thread astounding, given the simple nature of the initial request made by Durova. She asked to have access to the archive now in ArbCom’s possession because of a justifiable suspicion of tampering. – The angry whistleblower acting in secrecy could have deleted his own contributions in order to cover his own tracts and fake incriminating evidence against others at the same time. Notably, the ArbCom never offered to make such a comparison on its own between many different sources, and thus exonerate itself having used the same archive as the basis for this case. However, Durova was denied her request, which is very unfortunate, because she’s the only person so far (with related experience) willing to put in the time and effort. By denying her access to the archive, the Arbitration Committee inadvertently admitted to having been in possession of a bad apple. However, Durova insists on going ahead with her investigation, because the archive has already been shared between other administrators. I expect that Durova’s findings might help reveal the identity of a user who attempted the outing, and that is also why she’s not being offered more help. The question is, how authentic are the emails sent to her by the list members for comparison. This is a valid question, that’s why, I offered Durova an extraordinary solution at User:Piotrus/ArbCom. I’m in possession of almost 2,000 group emails in perfect succession, which have never been opened. You can’t get any more genuine that that. She can check her proven number of messages sent from a specific date marked with a timestamp, and see if it is the same as mine. She would be the first person to ever open the group emails sent to me, but this is a moral challenge for her and I understand. -- Poeticbent talk 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Durova, you have been firmly told by the Arbcom that you may not have the archived posts, I suggest you accept that. It would be completely irresponsible of the Arbcom to send them out will-nilly to any editor who asked for them, the posts need to be carefully examined and scrutinised by responsible people. One hates to mention it, but we have all seen your powers of scrutiny and deduction (do we need to be reminded of that embarassing episode? - no), you do not fall into the responsible category. Giano ( talk) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

More on the User:Giano (above) a.k.a User:GiacomoReturned a.k.a User:Giano II now available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II with the administrator review forthcoming. -- Poeticbent talk 15:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is just one of many proofs that despite lot of bad faith floating around editors involved in this case can still try to understand one another and cooperatively work together. Of course, the addition of private and sometimes offensive correspondence now made semi-public into the mix is not going to help, although I believe that there is evidence in the same correspondence that shows willingness to extend a hand and work to bridge the gaps. Nonetheless the fact remains that this was hard if not impossible to do for many months (if not years).

I'd like, therefore, to propose that the Committee considers a remedy that would involve close mediation and/or mentorship between various parties here, aiming at restoring good faith through discussion and work on articles that both parties find agreeable and helpful in building good trust (I am sure that if we look hard enough there are some mutually agreeable articles to cooperatively develop in every field, such as Russian-Estonian relations and so on). I do believe that most parties here share the goal of building a neutral, reliable encyclopedia. Developing ways to harness that common goal, and reducing bad faith that developed for various reasons, seems like "the right thing to do". And if we can turn this mess into something that will help the project, this will be truly and ArbCom case to remember :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I am willing to recuse on this case going forward if my assistance as a mediator is desirable. Before coming to ArbCom, I was part of the Mediation Committee and served as a coordinator for MedCab. I also took part as a WP:GAC reviewer and answering third opinion requests. I am a fresh face, but I am reasonably familiar with EE disputes and have experience in mediating complex disagreements. If my assistance is not desired (and I will take no offense if it is not), I can still offer to assist in finding seasoned mediators to help out. Vassyana ( talk) 21:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the prompt offer and reply. I don't think there is a need for you to recuse yourself from this case if you will want to act as a mediator after the case has finished. If you'd like to start mediating certain things now, which may be appreciated, I still don't see the conflict between the hat of an arbitrator and a mediator, but this is of course ultimately up to you. Btw, you may want to take a look at this recent mediation case, which was brainstormed on our discussion group, and which interestingly involves members of our group (although it is not limited to them) on both sides. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It's a matter of both principle and practicality. My primary concern is that a mediator should be, and should be seen as, a neutral party. It could be difficult to remain a neutral party and/or destroy the perception of neutrality if I remain a voting arbitrator on this case. I also usually refuse to act as an administrator outside of "neutral" actions like page protection when mediating, for the same basic reason. I would like to hear from a few more participants before making any final decisions to ensure that my assistance is desired by those involved. I would begin reviewing materials and starting mediation once I am assured that others wish to engage in mediation and that I am specifically acceptable as a mediator to the involved editors. Vassyana ( talk) 21:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, can you give me a single example of any of the emails which, in your words, "shows willingness to extend a hand and work to bridge the gaps" between list members and myself? All I see is discussing of how much of an enemy I am, a shedload of emails stating that I am the #1 target of your list, yourself posting threads in order for harrassment against me to snowball and continue. I wish I could believe what you write above, but call me cycnical. If you are able to show me a single email in relation to myself that covers what you say, I will eat my hat, and if you can show me three, I will support your proposal wholeheartedly. Additionally, if the Arbcom finds that stalking and harrassment of editors has taken place, that the victims' participation in any such mediation must be completely voluntary on that editor's part; otherwise it is akin to forcing a rape victim to go to counselling with her rapist. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Few quick points: I got you the photo of the Russian consulate, right? And there should be an @ in the archives along the lines (I just vaguely recall it) that I said "I don't care if Russavia spams Putin images on Commons, free images help us all, can't we try to work out some terms with him and try to improve the project together". I still stand by that sentiment. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, you did assist in posting messages for me on plwiki in regards to User:Russavia/DipMis - the Gdansk consulate I believe it was. I am not able to find any emails which state such things. Perhaps you would like to email me directly with a string of text taken verbatim from said email? It's good that you share such sentiments, but it does call into question why an editor such as myself, who also holds such sentiments, wasn't invited into this list? Particularly given that is what the list was for according to some of the members. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You probably weren't invited since you had had too many disputes with the first few participants before the list was ever created. I remember, though, having proposed finding some Ukrainian and Russian members to the list, Colchicum having being one of my suggestions.
As for Piotrus' proposal to start mediation, I do support it, not least because I suggested such activities ( [4]) some time before even joining the said list. I think some kind of collaborative undertaking can still be arranged. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This was proposed by Irpen at Piotrus' last Arbcom [5]. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Copied here by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) from here reply

User:Molobo, one of the list members, was blocked for supposed sock-puppeting [6] (in an investigation involving "secret evidence" that may or may not be related to the present case). I propose that he is temporarily unblocked for the purpose of participating in this case, making his statement and so on. Of course, he'd be banned from editing articles not related to this case, although I think he should also be allowed to make an edit here [7]. radek ( talk) 04:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Piotrus: I support this, and it seems uncontroversial and standard, in light of unbanning for the same purposes of at least two other users (Russavia and Donald). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Daniel ( talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to speculate on the rightful fate of Piotrus and co because I still have enough faith (just) in Wikipeda and the Arbcom to know they will be banned. However, when this case eventually reaches its conclusions and decisions I think the Wikipedia community is entitled to a firm and decisive statement than no Arb was aware of the mailing list's existence prior to Alex's notification. If this is not possible, I suspect certain Arbs knew of it, we need an expanation as to why the situation was allowed to continue. Also, it is essential that all blocks, concerned with Eastern European subjects, performed by Sandstein are examined and their worthiness scrutenised. Without such assurances then this case wil never die. Giano ( talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Giano. I support your thought. But also no one knows from which date this mailing list was established first. Moreover, there is also question about ICQ and Gadu-Gadu interaction. And I suspect that Piotrus cabal was formed much, much long time ago before the mailing list was created. Because, only established groups come to the mailing list idea. If it is just interest group why they need such formidable thing? Vlad fedorov ( talk) 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

December 7th, 2008. Dc76\ ^talk 17:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh I can't be bothered to download that lot yet again, just give all the jist (in your own words) of what it says. After all, half of Wikipedia has them now - what' s the secret? Giano ( talk) 18:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't understand what you mean. Could you, please, be more specific? Dc76\ ^talk 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If you are talking about Giano's comment, I think he means that half of Wikipedia have seen the email archive, and that it is now obvious to observers that this mailing list is just another incarnation of teaming and the like, that likely began over individual emails, IM and Gadu-gadu. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've posted the proposed principles early to help guide the collection of evidence and discussion. I do not expect that any findings of fact or remedies will be posted for a few weeks still, since more evidence (and examination of that evidence) is likely to be forthcoming.

Those principles, however, should give a good idea of what the Committee will be looking at in the weeks to come; and some of my colleagues may well propose a few more until then. —  Coren  ^(talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for posting these early Coren. If anything I think the principles that are ratified in this case (and for the most part I think these are excellent) are arguably more important than the specific findings of fact and the remedies.

Part of the problem here is that there is, apparently, not necessarily agreement about what kind or amount of off-wiki communication is appropriate. I think "as little as possible" is the answer to the latter question, but I'm not going to win that point any time soon. I wonder if the Arbs might consider, I suppose as a remedy, an enjoinder to the community to better clarify what we do and do not find acceptable in terms of off-wiki communication. Of course formal guidelines would be difficult and often impossible to enforce, but that doesn't mean we cannot or should not set out more clearly defined principles. Apparently this was discussed a few years ago at WP:OFF, but no consensus resulted and now all we have there is an essay which argues precisely the opposite thing it did when it was created. Perhaps it's time for the community to revisit this issue and draft a behavioral guideline at WP:OFFWIKI (or wherever), and a nudge from ArbCom might be helpful in that regard. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Inspired by comments both here and elsewhere, I would like to direct editors attention to the inactive (for all instances and purposes) Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe. In particular, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard where interested editors can list articles, disputes, votes and so on to officially canvass for community's attention (and everyone is welcome to watchlist it). The current page is just a draft; I'd like to invite all parties to sign up for the project, help design the tools we need and of course, help keep the project active. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• It could be very helpful if the participants in the Eastern European topic area attempt to revitilize the WikiProject as a reconciliation project. Such a WikiProject could seek out the oversight and assistance of uninvolved administrators acceptable to nearly all of the participants. It could also provide a central framework for mediating disputes and forming broader standards for the topic area. A few experienced mediators, similarly acceptable or non-objecitonable to nearly all participants, could be sought out to manage and oversee those portions of the project's efforts. It should also be noted that forming broader standards and precedents should be done by soliciting the broader opinion of the community. It would also be helpful if experienced editors and experts that are not part of the battleground and are generally productive could be recruited to act as neutral but involved voices. Such an approach would provide multiple avenues for resolving disputes, establish standards to minimize further disputes, and generally help improve the editing environment. Vassyana ( talk) 19:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think Vassyana, before we discuss "reconciliation" you should first be looking at guilt and acceptance of guilt. You may find a few belated good deeds reconciling now, but I doubt that will be the view of the many they have driven fron the project, and the many whose hard work has now been despoiled. You, Vassyana, have no right to be making such statement before the Arbcom has determined this case. Reconciliation comes after acceptance of guilt, not before. Giano ( talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I am with Giano on this one here. Have any of you seen The Accused? The film with Jodie Foster, where she is gang raped and the rapists are cheered on and protected by others? No-one steps in to stop it. What these editors is much the same thing. The way I feel about this whole episode is much like the movie -- and I see no reason why anyone would expect anyone else to sit down and have coffee with their rapists, when there has been absolutely zero acknowledgement that they have done a single thing wrong, much less apologised. But Piotrus has made it quite clear here that he is having no more involvement in this Arbcom, except to respond to emails from the Committee, so I very much doubt that there will be any such acknowledgment from him, and I doubt anyone else either. But one can not move forward, until they recognise the past.

To put frame that as an analogy that the web brigade will understand. They accuse Russia of being guilty of various things throughout it's history, and they accuse Russia of refusing to recognise the problem. The only way, according to them, for Russia to move forward is to recognise what they allege it is guilty of. So yes, as Giano says, acceptance of guilt is the major factor in this case for editors to move forward, and there is no evidence that this will be forthcoming.

This does not mean that other editors can not move forward with others in what is supposed to be a collegial project, but those who refuse to recognise their guilt should be left behind and forgotten about. It might seem harsh, but I live in the real world, and this is how it works in the real world. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 21:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh jeez freakin crutch Russavia, can you come up with a more ridiculous comparison? I mean, I think this is more like ... have you seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Yup, that's slightly less idiotic than your example.

Comparing people to rapists? Are you fucking serious? You're making quite a good case for why it's impossible to come to any kind of cooperative outcome, or even discuss things with editors like yourself. Why the hell would I even entertain the possibility that you are acting in good faith after way out of line comments like that?

And as I said before, this wasn't about Russia, or Poland, or anything like that. If anything it was about preventing some bullies from writing stuff like "Children are molested there" in articles on Estonia, or glorifying Stalinism in Eastern Europe. radek ( talk) 06:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Alex Bakharev proposed something similar at Piotrus' last arbcom [13]. Back then, Piotrus rejected the idea [14]. This Arbcom actually is about what he did instead, and I guess the FoFs will make most editors sceptical of the benefits of an EE board created and joined by Piotrus. Skäpperöd ( talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

What Piotr is proposing is different, which is in essence to turn this private maillist into a public notice board, to do all the things the list intended, but in an open transparent way. Alex's proposal seemed to be focused solely on dispute resolution. -- Martintg ( talk) 01:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Some differences are just irreconcilable. Consider an article on Occupation of the Baltic states. For starters it lacked details on the historic background, namely being part of Russian empire, and short period of independence under British protection. Second, there is a difference between the terms annexation and occupation and yet one of the debatable POVs was put into the title, the other was merely mentioned in passing and heavily criticized. Third, in 1944-45 Allies liberated Europe from Nazis, not occupied it. (I remember there was even a deleted article on Allied occupation of Europe, I wonder why it was deleted...). Yet in case of Baltic states that episode was called re-occupation. I thought of rewriting the article (see what what I mean, but quickly gave up facing heavy nationalistic resistance. If the project/notice board will start up, I will bring this situation over "occupation of Europe by Nazis and Soviet Union" up for discussion, and I just wonder how a qualified mediator such as Vassyana might resolve this conflict. ( Igny ( talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)) reply

The viewpoint that the Baltic states were occupied by the Soviet Union is not a nationalistic viewpoint, it is a Western viewpoint, held by eminent authors, scholars, governments and international organizations. If the European Court of Human Rights is an organ of Baltic nationalism, I'll eat my hat. -- Martintg ( talk) 03:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, you just proved my point. I know your opinion as well as I know the systemic bias in the Western viewpoint towards USSR. But I also know the Russian opinion on the matter, and I see that your response merely dismisses that viewpoint. And now I want to hear how mediators may possibly resolve such irreconcilable conflicts of the viewpoints. ( Igny ( talk) 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)) reply

Apart from official Russia (view of official Russia is already included in the respective articles), which controls television media and the various youth groups, I don't think Russian opinion is homogeneous. There are plenty of Russian speaking editors who don't support the official Russian view, Colchicum, Biophys and others for example. Have a look who first created the article European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States, look at his user page and see where the link leads. The problem is that people like Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername try and drive these people off the project and create the impression that the ultra-nationalist POV they promote is mainstream. -- Martintg ( talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

A counter-argument could be that the "Western viewpoint" is not homogeneous either, and citing various politically motivated decisions does not prove much, as such decisions easily change with the political wind. If a few decades later Baltic countries rejoin with Russia, the courts an other political bodies will make the decisions changing the wording accordingly. Before 1990s there were no such decisions and after 1990s suddenly Baltic states have always been at war with USSR. Doesn't that remind you of something, 1984 may be? ( Igny ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)) reply

I was gonna reply to Vassyana that I can see some reconciliation going on, particularly with people like Igny or Paul Siebert, who though I disagree with strongly I have acquired a good bit of respect in the past few weeks (and hell, if Igny was running for admin right now, I'd support him). I was also going to say that I can also see some reconciliation with folks like Russavia, mostly because whatever else, I respect dedicated content creation, but after that last comment where he compared the list participants to gang rapists (and people wonder how this guy got banned for incivility!) I don't see how that is possible. radek ( talk) 06:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Before we can have reconciliation we need acceptance of guilt - as simple as that. I am in 100% agreement with CLA68 [15]. All we have seen so far is prevarication. There is no alternative, but a very long (if not lifetime ban) for the ringleaders and possibly shorter bans for the "hangers on" - those who knew what was going on, but said nothing and allowed it to happen. Giano ( talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The adminship is not some honorary title, or a reward. That is just a bunch of useful tools of content control such as article protection, or user blocking. I do not think I may need such tools now and I do not have enough time at the moment to deal with other admin responsibilities. Thank you for your trust in me though. ( Igny ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)) reply

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Sandstein's block of Giano is not within the scope of this case. Requests to add parties should go to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org

---

Both the opening motion and the injunction about to be passing prohibit inflammatory speculation about the case, explicitely labeling it as disruption in the latter case. Despite this, GiacomoReturned ( talk · contribs) has seen fit to make ominous-sounding comments, including on pages that are part of this case, that appear intended to imply a material involvement of me in this affair ( [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). For these reasons, I respectfully request that GiacomoReturned be added to the parties to the case and that the Committee or a clerk take the steps required to prevent continued disruption of this sort.

Also, because I remain (for reasons unclear to me) named as a party to the case and have also been named in the ANI thread causing this case to be opened, I respectfully request that the final decision include findings of fact cleary reflecting my level of involvement with any offwiki coordination that may have been going on (i.e., no involvement whatsoever), and whether I was manipulated in any way through offwiki coordination to take administrative action. Although I can't currently think of any situation in which the latter might have been the case, I would appreciate being informed of any potential cases of manipulation so that I can reconsider the administrative action at issue.  Sandstein  06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I am more than happy to be added as a party to this case. However, I am not a party and my presence will probably cloud an already complex matter, on the other hand, if I'm a party I can say far more, so perhaps that would be no bad thing. I gave been sent (unrequested) the mailing list archive from what, I assume, is a throw away email address (which I am happy to send it to the Arbs). One does not need the detective prowess of a Durova-like-figure to see they are genuine (beside which, who on earth would go the bother of forging 3,000 posts when 300 or even 30 would do?). Incidentally, I have forwarded them to no-one. It is widely known that Sandstein's posts to ANI etc. have been supported by the Eastern European Mailing list and the evidence confirms that. I fail to see what Sandstein is complaining about, I have posted very prominently ( [21]) that he was not a known member of the list - but he is implicated and that's a fact, and I feel it would be best if he voluntarily laid down his tools until the case is over when, I hope, he may be completely and honourably exonerated of any known involvement. I shall continue to watch this case closely and make sure no stone is left unturned. or any evidence ignored in order to see so many valuable editors, who have suffered, exonerated Giano ( talk) 07:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

At this point, the most likely scenario is that participants will be culled from the list when the decision is posted and we have a clearer picture of who is involved how. I'm not opposed in principle to a finding of fact explicitly exonerating someone involved when serious allegations have been made, but that implies leaving the name on the parties' list. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

When talking of exonerated, I was referring to the victims, not those who were part of the list. Giano ( talk) 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sandstein, for someone who claims to be uninvolved as far as Giano is concerned - uninvolved enough to block for a week only days ago - you are now sounding like you have an on-going issue with him. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your claims of being impartial in blocking him while you were both connected with this case? EdChem ( talk) 17:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I considered myself uninvolved (in any ongoing dispute, at least) at the time of the block. Since then, as the edits I provided show, it appears that Giano has decided to have an on-going issue with me. At any rate, my block of Giano is not relevant to this arbitration case.  Sandstein  18:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• Administrator Sandstein, I would quit this thread now if I were you, one only has to check our "recent contributions" immediately prior to your very strange block to know we were in dispute. The fact I knew that you would block me for that edit, and the fact that you did proves it. Now this is neither the time nor the place for your protestations, please attend to your prized administorial duties elsewhere. If you want me to be a party of this case, believe me, nothing would give me more pleasure, but remember that is your choice, not mine. The drama is in your court, so decide, or for God's sake shut up. Giano ( talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Those proceedings are very deprived of good faith (on all sides), yet this project cannot function without this crucial ingredient. I am willing to assume good faith about anybody (even if I lost it in the past) and work, collaboratively with them, on an article they select. Although I have a huge ( public) log of articles I want to work on, I am willing, in an effort to show good faith and rebuild trust, to work with any editor here and apply my considerable experience in content creation to improving an article they are interested in and working on. It is my hope that by working together to create content we can rebuild the trust and good faith that got lost along the way - and help the project in its primary mission, creating encyclopedic content. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Restart

How about we start this discussion all over again, this time ignoring the personalities of the responders and rather focusing on the content of Piotrus' post? For the record, both Giano's history and also LokiiT's history are irrelevant when discussing Piotrus' proposal. Daniel ( talk) 03:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure, let me restate that the [ Political Spectrum Reconciliation Project can be used either as a template for a similar project here, or as a vehicle for building good faith itself. radek ( talk) 03:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Alternatively/in addition, the same function can be fulfilled by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard. The noticeboard which I created a few days ago is now functioning; feel free to list articles there for attention of other editors interested in EE issues. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Daniel: it's stillborn. The heading says "build trust", but trust is personal. No go. NVO ( talk) 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Personal with respect to the parties, maybe. But neither Giano nor LokiiT are parties, and hence their relevant histories is entirely irrelevant. I will not allow this case page to degenerate into a forum to continue past disputes not directly related to the current case. Daniel ( talk) 04:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Piotrus posted on my talk page, and as this is basically the same message, I will post my reply here.

Piotrus, first off, know that I am only unblocked at the present time so that I can participate in the current Arbcom proceedings. Other than that, I remain under a complete indef block, and even if I was not indef blocked, I would be unable to edit any such article, as I have been placed under a topic ban by User:Sandstein whereby for the next six months I am banned from editing anything broadly construed relating to the Soviet Union, its successor states, including the Baltic States, Russia or Russian people. So much so, I would even be unable to insert this photo into the Hugo Chavez article, and so much so that there is absolutely nothing else that I am able to edit on WP, as I have absolutely zero interest in shit like Pokemon, or the rest of the pop culture rubbish that tends to dominate this project. I have requested an official lifting of the indef block, but it seems that admins there want to await the conclusion of the Arb case; but it is entirely unlikely that the Arbcom will address this issue in the case, therefore I will likely remain under indef block for the duration of the case, which may take months given the amount of evidence and other issues. So I am not able to take you up on this so long as any bans on me are in place.

Secondly, and this is the most important part in relation to your message.

I am a productive editor, and I realise that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, and this is supposed to be done in a collegial environment. And I simply want to be able to do that in peace. I do not want any battleground conditions, and have always said it would be great to get rid of the utter bullshit in this area of editing. Whilst we all have our own opinions, and I have even on occasion expressed my personal opinion on issues on talk pages, my edits in mainspace are always meticulously sourced, and done from as neutral POV as is humanly possible, and I always try to provide all sides of an issue when creating articles. The reason that many people may see me as pro-Putin is that often I see articles and it is missing a major POV, and often this is done deliberately by editors when articles are created, as they are here to engage in advocacy. Very few articles I have written require editors to come in and add tons of POV, as I try to ensure that all POV is covered from the very beginning.

Since November/December 2008, I have basically been the target of a systematic campaign of stalking and harrassment, and this campaign was widely discussed on your email list -- 10% of emails deal with myself in some way - more than other subject -- discussions which took place included stalking my edits, teaming up on myself, harrassment, etc, and some of this also included actual admissions by list members in ways to get me to be incivil in order to report me. I have known that I have been stalked and harrassed by certain members for the last 10 months -- WP is literally plastered with my pleadings for assistance in helping to deal with what I knew was going on, but nothing was ever done (and the community itself needs to take some responsibility for that). Because of the consistency and veracity of the harrassment from certain editors, I have lost my cool on occasion and lashed out, and as the stalking and harrassment has increased, so at times has my incivility. So bad has it been, that I have considered walking away from the project altogether on numerous occasions. But you know what, I still believe the project has a purpose and has some potential, and participating here is worth it. But I can tell you, that the harrassment is not worth it at all. And because of the length and nature of the harrassment that has taken place upon myself, whilst it is still not OK for me to lash out, it is an obvious reaction when one has been harrassed such as I have been.

So you can imagine my surprise in April of this year, when I stumbled across by pure chance that thread started by yourself on AN/I in regard to myself. And this was done after Biophys had sent emails to your list, and he even gave you links to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F and User_talk:Russavia/Archive_6#Want_to_run_a_checkuser_on_me.3F_Well_read_on......, where you can see that this had already been addressed, and that it was considered by several users other than myself to be harrassment. But yet you posted it anyway, in what can only be considered as continuation of that harrassment on myself. At the time, I thought it a little too convenient that this subject should be raised on AN/I, and the only person to post was Biophys, hence why I asked you the questions I did.

This is just one incident of many involving the harrassment of myself by editors, but it is also the one incident that for some months has made me want to go off at you, although I haven't, because one would think that an admin who is supposedly a trusted member of the community would be party to such a thing. It was the stated intent of several editors on the list to make my wiki time absolute hell. And they succeeded, and you were an integral part of that. It wasn't simply a case of me being discussed on the list a few times, and we all know that.

I am an adult, and I live in the real world and I was brought up with the value system that people need to take responsibility for their actions. This is why I take responsibility for my actions, and if I have been uncivil to others, I sincerely apologise. And I will cop any fair punishment on the chin. Although with the latest drama, I did lash out afterwards, and I was a bit of a prick to Sandstein, and I apologise for that. But being an adult and living in the real world, I also expect others to admit their wrongs, because the only way that any reconciliation can take place is for past wrongs to be admitted and explained. This is something that I have had to go thru myself in the real world on occasion, by swallowing my own pride and coming to terms with events that had occurred. And I see no reason why WP should be any different.

It is fine that you wish to look forward, but I am sorry, I can not be a part of that so long as there is no acknowledgement or explanation by a single one of you in relation to what I have been put through the last 10 months, and there seems to be absolutely zero remorse at all. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well said Russavia, and as a Georgian I normally not tend to agree with you. I find it rather embarassing that Piotrus does not take any responsiblity and then goes on to mainly emphasizes a perceived bad faith of other editors as if he is the victim here. Pantherskin ( talk) 11:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Russavia's is yet another very sad story caused by this list, but made more sad becuase he is still blocked from editing articles. I really see no need for this, and it's about time the Arbs addressed this rather tham wait for the end of the case, which could well be in 2010. Giano ( talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(Based on my response from Russavia's talk): In good faith I can understand your frustration. But please consider this: how often have I, on wiki (or even in our email exchange) commented about you? 2-3 times? Yes, I started the ANI thread, but I didn't name you. And once the matter was resolved, I didn't bring it back. Yes, they were others who interacted with you more often, but frankly, I didn't read most of what they were writing - I was (and still) am not really interested in this, since we rarely edit the same topics. I can try to convince the editors who commented about you more often to adopt a voluntary restriction so that they in the future would not comment about you (and in exchange, you may want to do the same - all of us should be commenting on content, not contributors). If we can try to patch things between us, and learn from our past mistakes, I also see no reason why you shouldn't be unbanned, and if we can work together to create content, I'd support a request for you to be unbanned, so we can all try in good faith to join a mediation and work together on content creation, avoiding discussing one another. You said above you still believe in the project. So do I. Can we put our personal issues aside and start again? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, the problem is not that you have only commented on me a few times on wiki, the problem is, is that the times you have commented on myself on wiki on occasions, it has been as part of the overall scheme of harrassment of myself. Such as the thread which you started on behalf of the group. Remember it was yourself who posted the link to the list, and then reposted it again telling list members that they are missing out on an opportunity to deal with me. No one held a gun to your head and made you do that. You made that judgement call all on your own. And as Giano pointed out, you also re-acted to the Sandstein needs support emails, by announcing that you have posted to the thread that I started. In particular, and these are your words, "Disruptive users should be taught a lesson, and the lesson should not be "if you make a lot of noise and point out a procedural error, you can keep on being disruptive"." Again, as I am living in the real world, I realise that people make "mistakes", but I also believe that people need to be held responsible for their mistakes. If ones mistakes only affect themselves, then it is up to them to learn from it; but when their "mistakes" affect other people, and affect me it has, then there has to be some punishment. Much like the punishment that I have been given. In fact, in order to try and demonstrate to the community that I deserve to be unblocked, I have offered to extend the topic ban to ALL of EE. A big part of the hoo-haa by myself on my talk page in relation to my topic ban is part and parcel of what I have been going thru for months. But I take responsibility for that, and I believe I can demonstrate to the community that I am a productive editor, although with the topic ban in place on myself, I am unlikely to do any major editing on this project for the next six months (that is, if the indef block is eventually lifted).

I am not a vindictive prick Piotrus, but yes, I do share the sentiment that some other users have already expressed, in that some of you deserve to be banned for a long period of time from the project. In fact, so concerned were you guys with fighting evil ghosts that you became the very thing that you were apparently fighting against. And, dare I say it, your web brigade is much worse than the CAMERA group; in that they were mainly concerned with skewing content, whereas a key function of your group was harrassment of those whom you deemed your enemies, and the general undermining of WP as a project, and you, an admin who should know better to be involved in such a thing.

So long as every single one of you continue to deny or ignore your culpability and responsibility in fermenting what you did, one can only assume that there is still no remorse. So long as that is the case, I would be respectfully declining your offer, and I don't know about others, but I would suspect that they feel much the same way as myself. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

As I said before I posted at ANI because I found your behavior disruptive and likely indicating a possibility of a shared account. I don't see discussing such items at ANI as a harassment. I also do believe that you were disruptive on several other occasions, and when I posted in the thread involving Sandstein, I did it after reviewing your recent edits. Nonetheless I also believe that if you acknowledge your errors, you should be given another chance to edit in the areas of your interests, particularly if there are restrictions on interaction with certain editors (on both parties) and editing certain conflict-prone articles (again, this should likely affect both parties). And Russavia, we are not denying, and never did, that it takes two to tango; I myself have made mistakes and are now in the process of learning from them. Speaking of tango, my proposals on this page are now inviting all parties to a dance that should be much more beneficial to this project. I believe we have the unique opportunity here to step over our differences and work together. PS. And thanks, Russavia, for pointing out that my "harassment" of you consisted of 2 on-wiki posts and 1 private email (over the period of 9 months). Let's keep this all in perspective, shall we? This is why I suggest we stop dwelling on past grievances, but try to do something constructive like work together to create a new encyclopedic article instead. PPS. Whatever happens, my offer to that effect stands open, whether you (or somebody else) wants to accept it now or in half a year: I am always willing to work with anybody on content creation. PPPS. If anybody wants to take up my offer, please let me know on my talk. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been observing this from afar, and I simply can't less this pass without comment. That you, of all people, would lecture someone else about needing to "acknowledge your errors" is toweringly hypocritical. You would probably be well-served by simply moving on to other hobbies. It seems that the door to this one will shortly be closing for you. What was done on the EE mailing list was such a gross breach of faith, that I highly doubt there will be many of the list members with their current IDs still able to edit after it finishes. Unit Anode 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

As I said before I posted at ANI because I found your behavior disruptive and likely indicating a possibility of a shared account. If fulfilling your duty to uncover shared accounts is the motivation behind your posting to ANI; it is rather strange you never filed a Ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/UsabilityInitiative/images/wikiEditor/toolbar/insert-signature.pngNI report on Tymek given the information you had. Can you produce any plausible explanations for that posting?-- BirgitteSB 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Nobody, except the hacker/leaker, ever used Tymek's account, AFAIK. There was nothing to report. Someone probably should've told Tymek to change his password and not give it out again but that's about it. radek ( talk) 02:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If I knew somebody was using Tymek's account, I'd have reported it. Since this was not the case, I simply told Tymek not make such offers and to change his password. In Russavia's case I had no way to verify that, only evidence of a suspicious editing pattern (22h long streaks and such). Was I supposed to ignore it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Given that the knowledge on the list of Tymek's password availability and the various meaty offers he made, Piotrus had much more reason to suspect the "possibility of a shared account" with Tymek than with Russivia. Or to look at it from the other angle he had was even less "nothing to report" in regards to Russivia possibly sharing an account than he did with Tymek, yet Piotrus reported the nothingness anyways. So the point stands that whatever the level of suspicion that account sharing warranted an ANI report in Piotrus judgment, if Russivia crossed that bar then Tymek surely did as well. Whether neither of them ever shared their account or both have done so is irrelevant. It is just not plausible that Poitrus would be actually be principally motivated by the given reason yet not feel greater motivation in the case of Tymek.-- BirgitteSB 03:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You're stretching this way thin. Piotrus could tell Tymek not to do that directly. He couldn't have said that to Russavia. Piotrus pretty much knew that no-one actually used Tymek's account. He had no such knowledge wrt to Russavia. Basically, there was no account-sharing with Tymek and this was pretty obvious. So why report something that didn't happen? radek ( talk) 03:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

First of all, he could have said it directly to Russavia. He is talking directly to Russavia right above you! Secondly, he couldn't know for certain the origin of all Tymek's edits given that the account was compromised (i.e. Tymek gave out the real password to his account widely enough that he can't determine who used it spreading the archive). You ask why report something that didn't happen, that is my question. Why did Poitrus report something he had no knowledge of actually happening (i.e. Russavia's account sharing)? It is obviously not plausible that this was done because he reports every account he has reason to suspect of account sharing.-- BirgitteSB 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Said what? If you think somebody is sharing an account, you think they will admit to that if you ask them? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Said whatever radeksz thinks you could have told Tymek. He never specified. It was still an option in both cases.-- BirgitteSB 05:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• I support this proposal by Piotrus, but it should be modified to work. We need an "EE task force" group of several experienced editors from different sides, including Piotrus, Alex, Ezhiki and whoever else wants to join. If there is an editorial conflict, this should be reported to the group. If that's a conflict between Polish and German editors, for example, someone else uninvolved can look at the arguments by sides, and fix the problems in the article. If that's a dispute in a certain article where Piotrus was not previously involved (beyond possibly makig a couple of edits), he could fix it. And let's completely discount all the previous relationships between users (who "supports whom" etc.), as Piotrus proposed. Otherwise, this is endless war. Biophys ( talk) 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have just read in the latest WP signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-09-28/Arbitration_report:

Standard workshop procedures appear to have been suspended for the case, so normal drafting of proposals by the parties and other editors is not taking place; a draft decision is to be written by arbitrators Coren and Newyorkbrad, but no date for it has been announced.

Can I be so bold as to ask why normal drafting of proposals by parties to the case and other editors is not taking place in this instance? I am sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but I can't find any explanation for this in the case pages; maybe I am simply missing it? -- Russavia ^Dialogue 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Bluntly: look at this page. The matter is divisive enough that proposal by any parties (which usually take the form of overbroad "banninate them!!1!") would quickly devolve into a festival of counter-accusations and escalation of who can propose the most severe remedy against "the other side". Once examination of the evidence has taken place, I'll start using this page to post specific points for which answers/comments will be solicited that will shape the decision. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Coren, can you give us any estimate as to when the analysis of the evidence will be sufficiently advanced for the posting of questions to begin? It seems to me that more productive postings will happen then, and it might lead to less of the 'noise' that appears to me to be happening presently. EdChem ( talk) 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I was planning on doing so tomorrow, along with preliminary findings of facts. Roughly, what was found will be posted as proposed FoF (on the workshop), with an opportunity for the parties to look the emails up, check with their recollections and on-wiki edits, and respond.

Though this will not be in the format of support/oppose/etc, but discussion. —  Coren  ^(talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the update, Coren. Some discussion that isn't dominated by partisanship would be a welcome inclusion in this case, so I hope your comment is widely noted. EdChem ( talk) 09:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Expand restrictions on 1 Revert on Central and Eastern European topics

There already exists a Digwuren sanction board for reported users where they are subject to 1 Revert restriction per day. From my experience limiting the revert limit leads to more discussions and more quality work on articles, that expand content. It could be useful to expand this over all politically related Central and Eastern European topics.

Reinstate Civility

A big problem is lack of civility on the Wikipedia discussions. It would be good to reinstate WP:CIV and enforce it.

Topics I could work with Russavia and other Russian users

They are several works that I believe I could work with Russavia and Russian users with in order to reconcillate. For example:

• Rapes committed by German forces on Eastern Front-while they are frequently accusations against Red Army for their beheaviour, there is no information on Wikipedia regarding Wehrmacht's, SS and other German forces rapes and sexual violence on Eastern Front during WW2.
• Hunger Plan-the article could be expanded on information how Germany planned to organise a famine in Soviet Union.
• Concentration camps for Soviet prisoners-I have several books and much knowledge which I could share to contribute to that topic.
• Russians in Generalplan Ost-we could cover and expand information on plans regarding Russian people in Generalplan Ost.

-- Molobo ( talk) 11:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that various parties, myself included, should consider adopting various restrictions, to show the community (and other parties) that they acknowledge they have made mistakes and to atone for them they will take actions to ensure their editing falls not only withing standards of what is required of an editor, but exceeds those standards.

As far as my actions are concerned, and with regards to evidence provided, I acknowledge that:

• I saw myself as uninvolved in AE discussions where I was, in fact, involved. To address this, I have since notified Jehochman on his talk he was right and I was wrong, and I vow to avoid portraying myself as an uninvolved administrator in future discussions involving editors I am familiar with, be it on AE or elsewhere
• several times I posted links to discussion of content to a private discussion group when instead I should've announced them on publicly on Wikipedia. To address that, I vow to announce such discussions on appropriate avenues on Wikipedia (see also my proposals above)
• I made several rash comments that while private and (thankfully!) never acted upon were ill-thought. To address that, I will make sure to be more thoughtful, even in private correspondence, to avoid even the remote chance that somebody will them seriously.
• I forwarded several private emails to others without permission of the original sender (I apologize to editors affected and vow not to do that again)

Further:

• effective immediately, for the next half a year, I will avoid commenting on any dispute resolution issues not involving me but involving any other party to this case who presented evidence against me;
• effective immediately, I promise to announce all EE-related content discussions/votes/articles with problems on the public EE noticeboard (which I've recently created and I've been using and promoting in the past few weeks)
• if the Committee thinks I am too involved in edit wars, for the next half a year, I will adopt an 1RR restriction
• if the Committee thinks I showed bad judgment on articles related to modern Russian politics, I can promise to avoid that content area for the next half a year
• if the Committee thinks I showed bad judgment in my interactions with certain editors (ex. Russavia), I can promise to avoid commenting about them / participating in DR they are involved (as long as I am also not a party) for the next half a year
• if the Committee recommends it, I will resign my admin position
• I would like to ask for a mentor, an administrator in good standing, appointed by the Committee, whom I could ask for advice if in doubt of certain actions, and who would prepare a report for the Committee and/or community after half a year regarding my admin-actions in that period; or if I would resign as an administrator as an outcome of this case, the mentor would comment on whether I am once again ready to take up the mop and bucket
• if the Committee requires proof of constructive uncontroversial editing, I can demonstrate this by transcribing, proofreading and validating 500 of pages in the Wikisource project (see also this discussion)

I will happily work with the Committee to refine the above if such a need arises.

I hope that other parties will follow with similar pledges. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I support these voluntary restrictions - they are preferable to a crude ban. I believe that Piotrus' believes in WP, suggested those restrictions in good faith and will abide them. His contribution to non-controversial articles will be easy to follow and judge. Leaving Piotrus on such field will be both profitable and safe for WP. Visor ( talk) 19:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

All I can tell you all is that if Piotrus is banned for a year, Wikipedia will loose THE BEST Polish editor it have ever had. His knowledge of Polish related topics and dedication to this project is extraordinary and hard to match. ..And I don't want to hear now all the B.S. of the usual opponents of Piotrus PLEASE, I have heard it all already, so keep you comments to yourself. All I know is that one editor like Piotrus is worth more to Wikipedia than all of us Polish editors combined. I think it will be a huge loss to Wikipedia if Piotrus never comes back if banned.-- Jacurek ( talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Any wiki user experienced in community process and wikilawyering can easily see that there are almost no restrictions proposed here at all. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I like Piotrus' voluntary restrictions proposal. As Deacon pointed out above they are quite mild, contrary to what one might expected, anyways it should be noted that it is absolutely unprecedented step by Piotrus and should be also evaluated as such. Piotrus has been involved in many problematic cases, but hey - who haven't. Banning him would be punishment not only for him, but also for the community. The Committee should take his voluntary restrictions into consideration. - Darwinek ( talk) 13:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Darwinek so you acknowledge that you participated in coordinated edits along side with Piotrus, lets say back in 2007? M.K. ( talk) 07:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

?..:)..Are you sure you understand Darwineks comment MK or you just came here to attack him?-- Jacurek ( talk) 08:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it's your purpose-built misinterpretation. I wanted to make a point, that there are various conflicts and problematic cases happening at WP each day. -- Darwinek ( talk) 16:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Having been editing articles in the Central-Eastern European area of the English wiki for over five years now, I've met Piotrus a number of times in many different situations. It's probably not the best place or time to praise him but just to set my background, I'd like to note that I find Piotrus to be the most valuable editor in this domain. Not only for his enormous content contribution, the amount of time he devoted to wikipedia, and the research he did but also for his civil and balanced edits. On the other hand I'm aware that he often presented his own point of view but who does not. The EC Europe articles constitute a very conflict-prone zone, resulting from the history of the region, many conflicting ideologies, and different historiographies of each nation. It is impossible to be active here without getting involved in fights, and getting one's fingers burnt. The real challenge, however, is to continue constructive editing and content-building in spite of all these conflicts. In my opinion Piotrus mastered this very well. All this said, I think that the proposed restrictions are probably the best way out, certainly somehow more difficult to implement but also much better for the wikipedia, for Piotrus himself and for us all, than an outright ban - whether Piotrus deserves it or not (as personally I believe that his many years of devotion to wp and all the content he brought so far outweighs any wikicrime he could possibly commit.) But hey, I'm not a member of the arbcom :) -- Lysy ^talk 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply