Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago ( Talk) & Mailer diablo ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Important — please note
The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case:
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) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recuse:
I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
All editors are strongly advised to observe that proper conduct on these Arbcom will now be subject to severe enforcement. Special attention is brought to the interim ruling by Arbcom for this case concerning speculative and inflammatory comments.
From here onwards any infraction will receive a first and final warning. A second infraction will result in a permanent topic-ban for all Arbcom EEML pages (except when directly instructed to respond by an arbitrator). Any further infractions will result in a block. Such actions can be appealed to Arbcom. Manning ( talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this removal of a question as "silliness", perhaps the poser of the question had in mind that California state law (where WMF is incorporated), per Penal Code § 631, establishes expansive protections for "communications," which clearly includes e-mail messages. Specifically, § 631(a) prohibits a broad range of activities where any person attempts to extract the meaning or content of a communication without consent of all the parties to the communication:
This is not a threat or attempt at drama—forget that I am involved in the proceedings here for the moment. I deal with data privacy issues professionally and am genuinely concerned that no one is taking this seriously per the dismissive edit summary deleting the question. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I must admit, I took that IP's statement in a rather different manner than you guys are. I saw Godwin and thought he was making a roundabout accusation about nazi's via Godwins Law. Thats why I assumed it was going to get removed. Didn't realise Mike Godwin was Wikipedia's lawyer too. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this should go on his talkpage or here, but I figure a clerk might be able to handle it so I'm putting it here.
Carcharoth has doublevoted at least once (FoF 13:Tymek, account sharing). I believe his abstain vote is the double, but obviously I can't be sure. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.
It's nearly impossible to edit in the area without being engaged in discussions, and almost every argument can be viewed as an attempt to influence the outcome of consensus. This looks like a de fact indefinite topic ban for 17 editors in a very wide area. Is it? Biophys ( talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope this helps clarify. Vassyana ( talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If Polish-speaking Wikipedians who are conversant with Polish history are effectively banned from writing on Polish topics, who is going to write those articles? Will it be individuals who do not speak the language and have no substantial knowledge of the subject? Nihil novi ( talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this comment Move to abstain for now due to concerns about abusing the dispute resolution process. Could you please explain what "abusing the dispute resolution process" are you talking about? Dr. Loosmark 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Reply by Piotrus: regarding Talk:Schieder commission, I see FloNight is linking the section in which I started a WP:RFC, so I presume this is what she wants us to discuss. I invite everybody to review that talk page and section. I noted than an RfC may be useful on Dec 6 ( [1]); on Dec 8 I started a neutrally worded RfC. RfC brought one new editor, User:Hans Adler, whose input seems quite helpful. On Dec 9 I asked if editors are interested in mediation and I also said I will be limiting my involvement with this articlle ( [2]). Please note that two neutral editors don't see any abuse or disruption from me: [3], [4] (Hans sais it clearly here). How is DR being abused there? If editors participating in a discussion cannot reach an agreement, using 3O/RfC/Mediation to bring new, neutral editors is the right, proper way to solve problems, right? I am not shooing anybody away; I have said multiple times on that page that participation of others is welcome ( [5], [6], [7]). If any of my comments give impression to the contrary, I am more then prepared to apologize for them and refactor them, or if other editors there desire so, stop my involvement there immediately (nobody on that page had indicated any of my comments were inappropriate; if they said so I'd have apologized/refactored them already). PS. I should note that I did in fact ask an editor to cool down on that article: I asked this of... Radeksz. I still believe that my comment to him was civil and proper. PPS. I do believe that there were unhelpful comments made on that article, creating a battleground, and baiting Radeksz (particularly with comments like this), also first post does nothing but attack creators, if "further contributions of the EEML are obviously not helpful " is not shooing editors away, I don't know what is.... PPPS. In either case, I've refactored my posts there to remove any possible battleground misinterpretation, and I am withdrawing from editing the article. I hope neutral editors attracted via RfC can improve the article without our input. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never looked at this case (not even now), and am here only because Piotrus just sent me an email telling me his behaviour at the RfC Talk:Schieder commission#Is the article neutral? is under discussion here in connection with a possible ban. I believe that prior to my response to the RfC I have had no interaction with Piotrus or the other current actors at that article.
I came to Schieder commission because of the RfC. I am not particularly interested in German history from that era, or in German–Polish relations, and consider myself neutral. The article looks very Polish POV, but after a bit of research in recent German sources I came to the conclusion that this is primarily a matter of style and completeness. (The word "selectivity" would be a bit too hard.) The main thesis is accurate and is in fact the most important aspect of the topic as it is covered, e.g., in an excellent Wikipedia-style article published by the German Federal Centre for Political Education. The main problem is the lack of nuances and of any details that don't directly contribute to the main thesis. I am trying to fix the article (still in the sighting phase), but I am not interested in the conflicts at the article or in anything like blame or guilt for the situation.
The first response to the RfC (neutrally worded by Piotrus, I believe) was a forceful statement by Skäpperöd, an editor who had participated in the pre-RfC debate. That was of course not helpful, and in my opinion Piotrus was justified to ask the user not to do this. Once there was new input (from me) it did of course make sense to involve me into a discussion. I don't know why only Piotrus discussed with me; in retrospect the other involved editors may have read Piotrus' "This section is for neutral editors, not parties of the arbitration" literally rather than as a request to wait for neutral input before discussing in that space. That he actually meant the latter seems to be clear from the following "Please don't poison the well", which I guess was misunderstood as a general attack rather than the very precise description of the unwanted behaviour that it was.
In that particular case Piotrus seems to have used the dispute resolution process exactly as intended and with good success. He made one communication error, but apparently in good faith and clearly without dramatic consequences. Now he has started a discussion on possible mediation. I am a bit puzzled by the timing, which might well have political reasons as it does not appear to be necessary right now, but I am sure that doesn't count as abuse of the dispute resolution process. Hans Adler 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I am discussed here:
Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
regards to that article. If there is need I can quote the emails where the Comission is mentioned to prove it. The idea of this article started a long time ago with the discovery that such commission existed and composition of its members that were mentioned by Skapperod during his defence of using it as sorurce, regardless of discovery that Schieder was a former Nazi:Schieder was the head of the commission, and he had a Nazi past. Yet there were also other people in the commission with not such a past, eg Oberländer had broken with Koch already in 1938, and Lukaschek was in the anti-Nazi resistance. [13]. At first it wasn't clear what exact past Schieder had(it turned out he supported Nazi cleansing of Jews and Poles etc(For examole The business of genocide: the SS, slave labor, and the concentration camps - page 284 Michael Thad Allen - 2002 Schieder advocated what we would now call ethnic cleansing of Poles as well)), and it turned out that Oberlander's break with one Nazi official's faction didn't mean break with radical nationalism and support for German conquest of Central and Eastern Europe, ethnic cleansing plans, or that Lukaschek despite opposing Nazis was supportive of claims against Poland and organised German propaganda before the war against Polish people. In short-it turned that the commission had very dubious credibility. And yes, Radek didn't proxy for me, such claim comes from limited insight into emails-in fact we discussed the commission and searched for information on it for a long time-discovering more details on how Nazis and nationalists influenced its work, and goals. Radek sent me then a draft of the article and I helped him with references and sources. Again if there is need-this can be quoted from emails.
As to Piotrus reaction-I believe it was desire to attract opinion of neutral editors, and Skapperod isn't seen as neutral in this topics due to his previous defence of the commssion and former Nazi historians(the commission consisted of several respected historians [14]). -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Are new FoF on Disruption presented by bainer superseding alternatives or additions to older FoFs on Disruption proposed by Coren? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Could an Arbitrator define this? Not that I personally care as I am quitting the project, but am asking on behalf of the others so that they do not inadvertently violate these so called remedies. Does this include articles such as Baikal Amur Mainline, Kuril Islands, Australia–Russia relations, Albania and the European Union and the Cold War, for example? -- Martin ( talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
@clerk, I addressed this question directly to the Committee. This is an important question also asked by Biophys above and concerns all 17 members of the list, not just Piotrus. Dr. Dan and Triplestop taunting Piotrus is just not helpful and should be removed from this thread. -- Martin ( talk) 05:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, but it doesn't quite answer the question. I know a "topic ban covers articles (and sections, and topics) about the topic", but as an illustration to aid understanding, are the following topics in/out/partially okay:
-- Martin ( talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, if contentious areas are to be excluded then
In more general, if Google search on "[title of article] dispute" or controversy, returns anything related to EE, it should be excluded as contentious. Can't you edit pokemon instead?( Igny ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC))
In relation to the above section it is clearly evident what broadly construed means, and much of what is written by list members is tantamount to wikilawyering, and it obvious from some arb member comments that this would be the case.
May i make the suggestion that list members contact an admin who would be responsible for WP:AE, perhaps User:Sandstein, and ask for his opinion...it is obvious from the mailing list archives that those being sanctioned believe that that admin does a fine job at arbitration enforcement, so they should value his opinion quite highly.
But it should be clearly obvious that an eastern europe topic ban includes anything to do with eastern europe, whether that be geopolitics, sport, people...everything. This is exactly what my "Russia" topic ban includes, and so it should be NO different for list members. Under my "Russia" topic ban i can not edit any article relating directly to Russia and i am also not able to include details in a non-russia related article which is linked to Russia. For example, Air Botswana is an article which i 5x expanded, and in it i was unable to include information related to a potential takeover by a russian businessman. In an article on an argentinian cargo airline i was unable to include information related to one of its aircraft being shot down in soviet territory after running guns from israel to iran as part of the iran-contra affair. I would also be unable to edit an article on kostya tszyu...an australian boxer...because he is of russian heritage.
I am fully aware of what my topic ban includes and it should be no different for list members. However a couple of further points:
Comments from arbcom members on the above points would be welcomed. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Igny, Russavia, Coren, and FloNight are correct in their clarifications here. If there is any doubt, it would be best to presume a topic/article is included. If some additional clarification is desired on a case by case basis, WP:ECN, WP:AE, and WT:EEUROPE are all at the disposal of editors seeking feedback. Vassyana ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rationale: Enforcement of the remedies should not require specialists. Also, block logs and sanction notes as outlined on the respective user talk pages must be accessible without an unreasonable amount of research.
Examples making this remedy necessary:
Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed.
Does it cover potential aspirations for adminship ? Say a editor who engaged in incivility in EE topics, had used sources about EE that were determined highly biased and discouraged by Wiki community(not on the list), had displayed striking POV in EE topics an so on, tries to be elected into an admin status. Are people covered by sanction prohibited from pointing out the problems associated with such editor, or is this sanction restricted to content writing only ?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Broadly construed means just that. If a need is felt to ask whether or not it applies, the chances are that it does. To be explicit, if I were an enforcing administrator, I would consider an RfA prominently featuring EE matters to be within the scope of the restriction. Vassyana ( talk) 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may, I'm at loss here: what's the point of this remedy? What kind of disruption have I caused to the Eastern European topics? Where's such significant misconduct? Look at my list of article created or just other contributions - this remedy doe not make sense in my opinion. I have always tried to maintain balance in those debated articles and to be as neutral as possible. I haven't created any battleground stuff and have done my best to get rid of such things when encountered. Banning me from EE topics would effectively mean that I cannot contribute to Wikipedia on topics in which I'm well-informed. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with seeing "remedy 2" (Piotrus 3 months siteban) currently pass with the absolute minimum "majority" of a mere 3 supports, with 1 oppose and 4 abstentions. Now, I can see how the math works out, but it just doesn't feel right. A remedy as serious as this one, on a major longtime editor like Piotrus (and with all negative and positive things that can be said about him, he doubtless has been deeply committed to the project) deserves at least the courtesy of a clear vote that every arbitrator has taken a considered stance on.
Risker, Carcharoth, Vassyana, FloNight: do you really not care whether a major figure of this project such as Piotrus is banned or not? You should.
I can understand how such a result could come about in such a large and messy case, and I know you guys must all be tired of voting and re-voting here, but please decide this properly. One way or the other. A lame non-majority with more abstentions than supports would risk looking cynical.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It probably would be good to see additional votes here, but the existing guidelines were quite clear before the voting started. If there is a need to change those guidelines I am sure there's an appropriate way to do so; intervening in an active case by changing the way votes are counted after the fact is not the appropriate way. Bringing up such changes after a vote because one doesn't like the vote result brings to mind the comment from Stalin, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how." csloat ( talk) 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently canvasing FoF on EEML plotters sounds like this : user:X participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing. While from previous evidence it is clear cut that those activities were involved in order to influence the decision making and is disruptive. However, current FoF makes no direct assertion that such campaign was improper and later EEML plotters could argue that canvasing was allowed per outlined WP:CANVASS and that FOF dont state the nature of that campaign of canvassing. Therefore I suggest to Arbiters adding words like disruptive, improper to the original formulation of FoF in order to avoid wikilawyering in the future. M.K. ( talk) 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be traveling for the next week and a half or so. I have asked all of the other clerks to watch the case pages in my absence. If there is a problem, or you have a question, please email the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. I wish everyone happy holidays.
KnightLago (
talk)
12:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I am posing this question principally for consideration of the Clerks and Arbitrators, and I preface it by saying I have no opinion about the editor who is the subject of proposed remedies 17 and 17.1. I have no idea about whether a sanction is justified; I am merely puzzled by the possibility that remedy 17.1 should be considered passing. My reason for raising this question is as follows:
Is there a standard practice established for situations such as this? EdChem ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just voted on the topic bans to help reduce the ambiguity. Rlevse is, however, on a Wikibreak until the 26th. — Coren (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth and FloNight, thank you for clarifying that the policy / practice is that only explicit votes are considered. I can see the practical desirability of such a position, even though it will lead (at times) to logical inconsistencies. In this case, it appears that Dc76 is very fortunate that Rlevse is on wikibreak and is unlikely to clarify his position (as Coren has now done) as it seems likely that clarification would lead to proposed remedy 17.1 passing. As an aside / observation, ArbCom should perhaps consider privately the issue of when an alternative would pass but for the missing vote of an arbitrator who is temporarily unavailable but supported a harsher formulation. EdChem ( talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled by passing remedies 11B and 11C for all members of the email list because I think that less harsh remedy would suffice. After I leave the Committee, I plan to watch the contributions of members and suggest that the 2010 ArbCom relax these remedies for some parties that are not otherwise named in the case and do not get into any further conflicts during the next 45 days. I know that some of you will not find this satisfactory because you think it is too harsh, but I think it is in the best interest of the Community to pass these proposals and close the case now. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My preference was for editor specific sanctions. With the flurry of voting in the last day, more of these have passed and I'm now opposing the the remedies (11B and 11C) that I think are too harsh on some members of the mailing list. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the disruption in the EE topics will only stop when editors with battleground mentality like Skapperod will get some remedy too. Here he's again trying to get rid of all of his content opponents at once. What he says above it's not nearly true, many members of the EEML will get very long topic bans (some IMO too long), so it's very far from truth that the ArbCom is "giving invitation to continue as usual", quite the contrary. And the ArbCom will probably keep an eye on the situation closely in the future (and hopefully not just the ex-EEML members but also editors like Skapperod too.) Anyway the initial comment by FloNight in this thread is a completely correct and logic one, every editor should get a remedy exactly proportional to the things he has done. (Giving somebody a remedy for something he has not done is absurd). Frankly I am surprised that the ArbCom didn't choose this approach from the beginning. Dr. Loosmark 18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 11B) and Coren's "and find new, less contentious, areas to edit in productively":
I have been studying Soviet actions and its legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe longer than any of the ArbCom members have likely been alive. In the absence of evidence presented of a disruptive on-Wiki edit, I wish to know why I should refrain from standing up to the edit-warring brought on by editors bringing attack content and unsubstantiated POV declarations regarding versions of history to an encyclopedia and go off to edit
Orange (fruit) and
Coffee. You've read the evidence (have you?) regarding characterizations of my actions presented by my detractors and my responses. This sort of editorializing commentary by a ruling ArbCom member is not only inappropriate but totally unacceptable unless ArbCom is now implicitly ruling on content, that is, my "EEML member" content is bad and disruptive (as it is being discouraged because I am being explicitly told to go elsewhere), and my detactors' content is good and their conduct collegial (as it is all that will be left if my ability to contribute is silenced).
PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►
talk
23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, "indefinite" restrictions are not sanctions, they are censorship. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion: should the sanctioned editors continue to edit collaboratively with each other, coordinate and discuss always on-wiki. Yes, it means that if anyone steps over the line they'll be put to task, but it also means that people will be able to trust that no backroom machinations are going on. Remember that this is what caused the whole mess: other editors lost trust that you weren't collectively gaming the system in order to win content disputes — until you dispel that impression with transparency, that trust will not return. — Coren (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If my privacy were not violated and my personal Emails weren't announced to the world as a majority of Emails out to get Russavia, then read, then people who know nothing about me create circumstantial evidence of timings that I responded to canvassing (as opposed to my explanation) then we wouldn't have accusations which led to editors "losing trust." This is the first conspiracy I've ever seen that (a) no one could point to any change in on-Wiki behavior and (b) no one could produce evidence of on-Wiki contributions which are less than reputable. Quite honestly, whatever opinion my detractors in these proceedings have of me has not changed, their having just putting Bandags on the same tired accusations. (Have you read the "evidence" regarding my alleged "edit warring?") Nor do I care about ingratiating myself to them as all that matters is fair and accurate representation of reputable sources. Who here that has actually dealt with me on content "lost trust" in me? All I see is budding opportunism outside these proceedings using "EEML EDITOR!" to deride editors; same tactics, different word for WITCH! At least on the surface it's not as patently offensive as "ethnofascist POV pusher" or denouncing authors as POV based on the spelling of their surname. And you want to ban me because I'm responsible for "continuing disruption"? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for the "three to six months" explanation, that is good enough. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 05:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. My detractors insist I push a nationalist POV; sadly, I only write what I find in reputable sources—it's much simpler that way, both in writing and in defending content. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 06:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what ArbCom generally looks for, but this three to six months means that time spent productively editing in other areas not simply idling as that time period elapsed? EdChem ( talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I regret that I am still waiting for on-Wiki diffs supporting the draconian 18.1, i.e., which do not require mind-reading and interpretations based on assumptions of battlefield mentality, nationalist POV, and general bad faith on my part, that is, put me in a box and then punish me for being in the box. Is ArbCom really ready to travel down this course and set these precedents? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User Skapperod has engaged in copy and paste texting demands harsher sanctions to several Arbcom members and this board(I sincerily believe posting this here and to a specific admin would be enough)
Is this not a improper canvassing as defined under : [19] Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.
Could I request clarks in this Arbcom to politely react to this?
If my concern is not valid, then I have nothing against closing this, if it is I would welcome clerk reaction. Kind regards. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Coren's rationale in supporting this FoF: "given it is now known unequivocally that this has occurred at least once on that mailing list already — the presumption must be that the offer was serious like the other". Miacek's joke offer came in June [20090602-1428], before Tymek's offer in August [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]. Therefore Coren conclusion is mistaken. -- Martin ( talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Some comments regarding these FoF.
The first part of the Canvassing FoF: "Xxxxx participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing" is not a finding of fact but an opinion, because it makes the assumption that there was a planned campaign to begin with. Unless there is some email found that states, for example, "could you join our maillist because we want to conduct a campaign to influence AfDs", it remains an assumption. The second part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions" is a valid finding of fact. The third part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is not a finding of fact, it can never be detemined as fact if someone voted in response to an email (was it even read?) or because they checked the article/noticeboard/contributions of an editor. The problem here is that there is no acknowledgement that there are other means of becoming aware of a discussion, the presumption being that it was solely done through the maillist.
A better wording of these FoFs would be:
Xxxxx canvassed on the mailing list:
Now whether that canvassing was disruptive depends upon whether messages were written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, and whether the outcome of actual AfD was in fact influenced. But what ever is determined in this regard, it has always been the case that the canvasser is the one who is sanctioned, not the canvassee, because it cannot ever be determined with any certainty that the canvassee participated as a result of reading the canvasser's notice with any reliability. Putting Dc76, Miacek, Vecrumba under a one year topic ban for one single instance of emailing a notice is unduly harsh, given the lack of an explicit FoF in regard to disruption. -- Martin ( talk) 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I am sorry, but "We do not look for certainty, Martin. Arbcom's evidential standard is "perponderance of evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt"" is unacceptable. ArbCom has patently ignored my discussion regarding bulk reading Email after the fact. Assuming ArbCom's explanation of bad faith outweighs my explanation in good faith is little more than a campaign to justify preconceived guilt. Apparently, if one believes the evidence presented by my detractors, if I am attacked enough times by enough editors I must be the problem and the source of disruption. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing was a regular feature, even one of the dominant aspects, of the mailing list. The complaint about "campaign" doesn't seem to stand in this light, as it seems an apt description by definition. Statements or implications that this was undertaken to improve discourse instead of sway discussions are not credible given the secretive nature of the canvassing and the distinct targeted audience of the messages.
"Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is most certainly a valid finding of fact. The mailing list received a canvassing message. The person was part of the mailing list. Their participation took place after the message. Put that all together and saying they participated after being canvassed sounds perfectly accurate.
To be perfectly blunt, I'm starting to tire of the nitpicking responses and obvious searching for loopholes. That is not directed specifically against Martin, but rather is a general statement about the discourse taking place on this page and elsewhere about the forming decision. At the least, such responses are extremely counterproductive as they are leading to me doubt that lesser measures and topic bans will be effective. Indeed, they are leading to me believe that sanctions will be fought, gamed, and circumvented. Vassyana ( talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Does it include criticism of Communism or Soviet Union?-- Dojarca ( talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics. Eurocommunism, Chinese communism or Communism in Angola can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically. An example of a heated discussion is in front of us... Russavia, there's no wikilawyering here and the question is legitimate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to clarify. Are people under topic bans allowed to create and edit articles in their userspace - and move articles to the mainspace when their topic ban ends? As the topic ban is meant to punish some of the most active contributors with by far majority of their edits being absolutely noncontroversial, then allowing them to prepare such noncontroversial articles in their own space would be only beneficial to Wikipedia.
The reason I am asking is because Martin still owes me a promise to get Estonian Open Air Museum to GA-status - it would be perfect time to work on it and I sincerely hope that even most biased editor wouldn't find that article "McCarthist" or "nationalist". Other punished editors can certainly find similar topics in their field of interest.
-- Dojarca ( talk) 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that majority of arbs voted for closing this case long time ago. More then 48 hrs has passed since majority vote, but as I understand the case still opened. Can anybody predict then this case will be official closed? And who usually closing arb cases, clerks? M.K. ( talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I unsderstand correcty Biophys is left go without any remedy?-- Dojarca ( talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anything prevent outvoting an editor from Wikipedia by the EEML members?-- Dojarca ( talk) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What if the EEML members tomorrow decide to community ban an editor?. That's nothing, what if EEML members decide to install a new Jimbo Wales? This arbitration doesn't prevent similar scenarios in the future! Dr. Loosmark 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The top of the Proposed decision page says that five support votes are a majority, however Implementation notes has several remedies passing with only four supporting votes, such as 4.2 (Digwuren banned), 8.2 (Tymek topic banned), 12 (Participants admonished, only 3 support votes), 17.1 (Dc76 topic banned) and 20 (Miacek topic banned). Does this mean the majority reference is wrong or clerk simply hasn't updated the implementation notes? The latter seems unlikely, as Mailer Diablo's last update to implementation notes is after any votes in most of these remedies. -- Sander Säde 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
So now "abstain" is support but with a caveat? This is not an arbitration this is a kangoroo court. Dr. Loosmark 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) To FayssalF, regarding: "To make it clear... We are talking about abstaining in the context of proposing or not proposing alternatives. Otherwise, a vote to abstain is interpreted to mean that the arbitrator has no firm opinion and is willing to allow that principle to be decided by the consensus of the other arbitrators." I am sorry, what "interpretation?" The current instantiation of abstention clearly (by reducing the majority required) confirms that the abstaining arbitrator has no decision for or against and actively defers the decision on their behalf, whatever it is, to the consensus of the other arbitrators. You appear to be splitting hairs to state something is an interpretation when it most clearly is not. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the ArbCom going to make any decision concerning these users? What to do with them now? Should we start general votings to lift their bans (where the EEML members could participate and make the move to fail)?-- Dojarca ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I would expect that if I wish to further my Russia studies in the meantime, topics such as Sino-Russian relations or the history of Russia not involving the Baltic or Eastern European region are acceptable. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I addressed a question of ArbCom, my apologies I did not make that clear. This was not an invitation to Russavia to bemoan their ban or speak for Sandstein, or for Commodore Sloat to suggest I am wikilawyering.
In purchasing sources dealing with the Baltics and Eastern Europe, I have many reputable sources regarding Russia which, while they mention the Baltics or Eastern Europe, deal primarily with topics completely outside that sphere. I would like to put them to good use as a productive learning experience. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) Alas the proceedings are over, Igny, but feel free to continue your attacks. I have no confirmation bias. If by that you perhaps mean the GSE's version of history regarding certain events is not confirmed (this would be the encyclopedia that had pages pasted over as "history" changed), that is the position of reputable scholars on the topic, I simply (personal editorial opinion) agree. And Dojarca, thank you for chiming in with the rest of my detractors here (so far I count Russavia, Commodore Sloat, Igny, and yourself) with your personal interpretations on behalf of ArbCom.
As for "picking" sources, I research what are acknowledged as the best sources among scholars, then get those (e.g., King's book on Moldova and Magocsi's on Central Eastern Europe). I don't pick sources for them to agree with me, I'm too old and too poor to spend my hard-earned money on something I'm not going to learn from. I also make it a point to include works by scholars with whose conclusions I don't always agree, but whose work is acknowledged and cited (e.g., Pål Kolstø). Good articles require a representation of reputable scholarship, not reputable scholarship filtered based on the degree to which someone personally agrees. As for topic areas, I don't see why I should not be able to write about non-"controversial" areas, such as the history of the Pechenegs, but I expect that is part of EE "broadly construed" territorially although Eastern Europe did not exist conceptually at the time. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to put my sources to good use and learn something, that is all. Don't accuse me of personal attacks by demanding an apology—no one asked you to answer for ArbCom. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I want a clarification on the EE topic ban. If I want to engage one of the EEML members in a debate on the EE topic on his or my talk page, or user sub-page, is it covered by his EE topic ban? I believe that a constructive debate without personal attacks and with respect for each other should benefit Wikipedia, right? ( Igny ( talk) 23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
While you may not be covered by the topic ban, Igny, the other person would. It would be inconsiderate and disrespectful for you to attempt to involve him in discussion on this topic if you are aware that he is under a topic ban. Repeated attempts to engage one or more sanctioned user(s) in an area from which he or she is restricted could be considered disruptive. Sanctioned users are be encouraged to point out that they are restricted from the topic area if another user attempts to engage them in discussion about the topic. Risker ( talk) 03:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Estonians are now akin to Goebbels here and Estonian-sourced information subject to summary deletion. I am enjoined from commenting thereupon. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk) Case clerks: KnightLago ( Talk) & Mailer diablo ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk) |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Important — please note
The Committee, in passing the motion to open this case, provided explicit direction to all editors participating in this case:
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) |
Active:
Inactive:
Recuse:
I am recused because user:Russavia is a member of m:Wikipedia Australia (see User:John_Vandenberg/recusal#AU). John Vandenberg ( chat) 07:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
All editors are strongly advised to observe that proper conduct on these Arbcom will now be subject to severe enforcement. Special attention is brought to the interim ruling by Arbcom for this case concerning speculative and inflammatory comments.
From here onwards any infraction will receive a first and final warning. A second infraction will result in a permanent topic-ban for all Arbcom EEML pages (except when directly instructed to respond by an arbitrator). Any further infractions will result in a block. Such actions can be appealed to Arbcom. Manning ( talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this removal of a question as "silliness", perhaps the poser of the question had in mind that California state law (where WMF is incorporated), per Penal Code § 631, establishes expansive protections for "communications," which clearly includes e-mail messages. Specifically, § 631(a) prohibits a broad range of activities where any person attempts to extract the meaning or content of a communication without consent of all the parties to the communication:
This is not a threat or attempt at drama—forget that I am involved in the proceedings here for the moment. I deal with data privacy issues professionally and am genuinely concerned that no one is taking this seriously per the dismissive edit summary deleting the question. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I must admit, I took that IP's statement in a rather different manner than you guys are. I saw Godwin and thought he was making a roundabout accusation about nazi's via Godwins Law. Thats why I assumed it was going to get removed. Didn't realise Mike Godwin was Wikipedia's lawyer too. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this should go on his talkpage or here, but I figure a clerk might be able to handle it so I'm putting it here.
Carcharoth has doublevoted at least once (FoF 13:Tymek, account sharing). I believe his abstain vote is the double, but obviously I can't be sure. 198.161.174.222 ( talk) 17:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.
It's nearly impossible to edit in the area without being engaged in discussions, and almost every argument can be viewed as an attempt to influence the outcome of consensus. This looks like a de fact indefinite topic ban for 17 editors in a very wide area. Is it? Biophys ( talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope this helps clarify. Vassyana ( talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If Polish-speaking Wikipedians who are conversant with Polish history are effectively banned from writing on Polish topics, who is going to write those articles? Will it be individuals who do not speak the language and have no substantial knowledge of the subject? Nihil novi ( talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this comment Move to abstain for now due to concerns about abusing the dispute resolution process. Could you please explain what "abusing the dispute resolution process" are you talking about? Dr. Loosmark 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Reply by Piotrus: regarding Talk:Schieder commission, I see FloNight is linking the section in which I started a WP:RFC, so I presume this is what she wants us to discuss. I invite everybody to review that talk page and section. I noted than an RfC may be useful on Dec 6 ( [1]); on Dec 8 I started a neutrally worded RfC. RfC brought one new editor, User:Hans Adler, whose input seems quite helpful. On Dec 9 I asked if editors are interested in mediation and I also said I will be limiting my involvement with this articlle ( [2]). Please note that two neutral editors don't see any abuse or disruption from me: [3], [4] (Hans sais it clearly here). How is DR being abused there? If editors participating in a discussion cannot reach an agreement, using 3O/RfC/Mediation to bring new, neutral editors is the right, proper way to solve problems, right? I am not shooing anybody away; I have said multiple times on that page that participation of others is welcome ( [5], [6], [7]). If any of my comments give impression to the contrary, I am more then prepared to apologize for them and refactor them, or if other editors there desire so, stop my involvement there immediately (nobody on that page had indicated any of my comments were inappropriate; if they said so I'd have apologized/refactored them already). PS. I should note that I did in fact ask an editor to cool down on that article: I asked this of... Radeksz. I still believe that my comment to him was civil and proper. PPS. I do believe that there were unhelpful comments made on that article, creating a battleground, and baiting Radeksz (particularly with comments like this), also first post does nothing but attack creators, if "further contributions of the EEML are obviously not helpful " is not shooing editors away, I don't know what is.... PPPS. In either case, I've refactored my posts there to remove any possible battleground misinterpretation, and I am withdrawing from editing the article. I hope neutral editors attracted via RfC can improve the article without our input. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never looked at this case (not even now), and am here only because Piotrus just sent me an email telling me his behaviour at the RfC Talk:Schieder commission#Is the article neutral? is under discussion here in connection with a possible ban. I believe that prior to my response to the RfC I have had no interaction with Piotrus or the other current actors at that article.
I came to Schieder commission because of the RfC. I am not particularly interested in German history from that era, or in German–Polish relations, and consider myself neutral. The article looks very Polish POV, but after a bit of research in recent German sources I came to the conclusion that this is primarily a matter of style and completeness. (The word "selectivity" would be a bit too hard.) The main thesis is accurate and is in fact the most important aspect of the topic as it is covered, e.g., in an excellent Wikipedia-style article published by the German Federal Centre for Political Education. The main problem is the lack of nuances and of any details that don't directly contribute to the main thesis. I am trying to fix the article (still in the sighting phase), but I am not interested in the conflicts at the article or in anything like blame or guilt for the situation.
The first response to the RfC (neutrally worded by Piotrus, I believe) was a forceful statement by Skäpperöd, an editor who had participated in the pre-RfC debate. That was of course not helpful, and in my opinion Piotrus was justified to ask the user not to do this. Once there was new input (from me) it did of course make sense to involve me into a discussion. I don't know why only Piotrus discussed with me; in retrospect the other involved editors may have read Piotrus' "This section is for neutral editors, not parties of the arbitration" literally rather than as a request to wait for neutral input before discussing in that space. That he actually meant the latter seems to be clear from the following "Please don't poison the well", which I guess was misunderstood as a general attack rather than the very precise description of the unwanted behaviour that it was.
In that particular case Piotrus seems to have used the dispute resolution process exactly as intended and with good success. He made one communication error, but apparently in good faith and clearly without dramatic consequences. Now he has started a discussion on possible mediation. I am a bit puzzled by the timing, which might well have political reasons as it does not appear to be necessary right now, but I am sure that doesn't count as abuse of the dispute resolution process. Hans Adler 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I am discussed here:
Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
regards to that article. If there is need I can quote the emails where the Comission is mentioned to prove it. The idea of this article started a long time ago with the discovery that such commission existed and composition of its members that were mentioned by Skapperod during his defence of using it as sorurce, regardless of discovery that Schieder was a former Nazi:Schieder was the head of the commission, and he had a Nazi past. Yet there were also other people in the commission with not such a past, eg Oberländer had broken with Koch already in 1938, and Lukaschek was in the anti-Nazi resistance. [13]. At first it wasn't clear what exact past Schieder had(it turned out he supported Nazi cleansing of Jews and Poles etc(For examole The business of genocide: the SS, slave labor, and the concentration camps - page 284 Michael Thad Allen - 2002 Schieder advocated what we would now call ethnic cleansing of Poles as well)), and it turned out that Oberlander's break with one Nazi official's faction didn't mean break with radical nationalism and support for German conquest of Central and Eastern Europe, ethnic cleansing plans, or that Lukaschek despite opposing Nazis was supportive of claims against Poland and organised German propaganda before the war against Polish people. In short-it turned that the commission had very dubious credibility. And yes, Radek didn't proxy for me, such claim comes from limited insight into emails-in fact we discussed the commission and searched for information on it for a long time-discovering more details on how Nazis and nationalists influenced its work, and goals. Radek sent me then a draft of the article and I helped him with references and sources. Again if there is need-this can be quoted from emails.
As to Piotrus reaction-I believe it was desire to attract opinion of neutral editors, and Skapperod isn't seen as neutral in this topics due to his previous defence of the commssion and former Nazi historians(the commission consisted of several respected historians [14]). -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Are new FoF on Disruption presented by bainer superseding alternatives or additions to older FoFs on Disruption proposed by Coren? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Could an Arbitrator define this? Not that I personally care as I am quitting the project, but am asking on behalf of the others so that they do not inadvertently violate these so called remedies. Does this include articles such as Baikal Amur Mainline, Kuril Islands, Australia–Russia relations, Albania and the European Union and the Cold War, for example? -- Martin ( talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
@clerk, I addressed this question directly to the Committee. This is an important question also asked by Biophys above and concerns all 17 members of the list, not just Piotrus. Dr. Dan and Triplestop taunting Piotrus is just not helpful and should be removed from this thread. -- Martin ( talk) 05:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, but it doesn't quite answer the question. I know a "topic ban covers articles (and sections, and topics) about the topic", but as an illustration to aid understanding, are the following topics in/out/partially okay:
-- Martin ( talk) 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, if contentious areas are to be excluded then
In more general, if Google search on "[title of article] dispute" or controversy, returns anything related to EE, it should be excluded as contentious. Can't you edit pokemon instead?( Igny ( talk) 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC))
In relation to the above section it is clearly evident what broadly construed means, and much of what is written by list members is tantamount to wikilawyering, and it obvious from some arb member comments that this would be the case.
May i make the suggestion that list members contact an admin who would be responsible for WP:AE, perhaps User:Sandstein, and ask for his opinion...it is obvious from the mailing list archives that those being sanctioned believe that that admin does a fine job at arbitration enforcement, so they should value his opinion quite highly.
But it should be clearly obvious that an eastern europe topic ban includes anything to do with eastern europe, whether that be geopolitics, sport, people...everything. This is exactly what my "Russia" topic ban includes, and so it should be NO different for list members. Under my "Russia" topic ban i can not edit any article relating directly to Russia and i am also not able to include details in a non-russia related article which is linked to Russia. For example, Air Botswana is an article which i 5x expanded, and in it i was unable to include information related to a potential takeover by a russian businessman. In an article on an argentinian cargo airline i was unable to include information related to one of its aircraft being shot down in soviet territory after running guns from israel to iran as part of the iran-contra affair. I would also be unable to edit an article on kostya tszyu...an australian boxer...because he is of russian heritage.
I am fully aware of what my topic ban includes and it should be no different for list members. However a couple of further points:
Comments from arbcom members on the above points would be welcomed. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Igny, Russavia, Coren, and FloNight are correct in their clarifications here. If there is any doubt, it would be best to presume a topic/article is included. If some additional clarification is desired on a case by case basis, WP:ECN, WP:AE, and WT:EEUROPE are all at the disposal of editors seeking feedback. Vassyana ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal:
Rationale: Enforcement of the remedies should not require specialists. Also, block logs and sanction notes as outlined on the respective user talk pages must be accessible without an unreasonable amount of research.
Examples making this remedy necessary:
Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed.
Does it cover potential aspirations for adminship ? Say a editor who engaged in incivility in EE topics, had used sources about EE that were determined highly biased and discouraged by Wiki community(not on the list), had displayed striking POV in EE topics an so on, tries to be elected into an admin status. Are people covered by sanction prohibited from pointing out the problems associated with such editor, or is this sanction restricted to content writing only ?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Broadly construed means just that. If a need is felt to ask whether or not it applies, the chances are that it does. To be explicit, if I were an enforcing administrator, I would consider an RfA prominently featuring EE matters to be within the scope of the restriction. Vassyana ( talk) 19:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may, I'm at loss here: what's the point of this remedy? What kind of disruption have I caused to the Eastern European topics? Where's such significant misconduct? Look at my list of article created or just other contributions - this remedy doe not make sense in my opinion. I have always tried to maintain balance in those debated articles and to be as neutral as possible. I haven't created any battleground stuff and have done my best to get rid of such things when encountered. Banning me from EE topics would effectively mean that I cannot contribute to Wikipedia on topics in which I'm well-informed. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with seeing "remedy 2" (Piotrus 3 months siteban) currently pass with the absolute minimum "majority" of a mere 3 supports, with 1 oppose and 4 abstentions. Now, I can see how the math works out, but it just doesn't feel right. A remedy as serious as this one, on a major longtime editor like Piotrus (and with all negative and positive things that can be said about him, he doubtless has been deeply committed to the project) deserves at least the courtesy of a clear vote that every arbitrator has taken a considered stance on.
Risker, Carcharoth, Vassyana, FloNight: do you really not care whether a major figure of this project such as Piotrus is banned or not? You should.
I can understand how such a result could come about in such a large and messy case, and I know you guys must all be tired of voting and re-voting here, but please decide this properly. One way or the other. A lame non-majority with more abstentions than supports would risk looking cynical.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It probably would be good to see additional votes here, but the existing guidelines were quite clear before the voting started. If there is a need to change those guidelines I am sure there's an appropriate way to do so; intervening in an active case by changing the way votes are counted after the fact is not the appropriate way. Bringing up such changes after a vote because one doesn't like the vote result brings to mind the comment from Stalin, "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how." csloat ( talk) 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently canvasing FoF on EEML plotters sounds like this : user:X participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing. While from previous evidence it is clear cut that those activities were involved in order to influence the decision making and is disruptive. However, current FoF makes no direct assertion that such campaign was improper and later EEML plotters could argue that canvasing was allowed per outlined WP:CANVASS and that FOF dont state the nature of that campaign of canvassing. Therefore I suggest to Arbiters adding words like disruptive, improper to the original formulation of FoF in order to avoid wikilawyering in the future. M.K. ( talk) 08:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going to be traveling for the next week and a half or so. I have asked all of the other clerks to watch the case pages in my absence. If there is a problem, or you have a question, please email the clerks' mailing list at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. I wish everyone happy holidays.
KnightLago (
talk)
12:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I am posing this question principally for consideration of the Clerks and Arbitrators, and I preface it by saying I have no opinion about the editor who is the subject of proposed remedies 17 and 17.1. I have no idea about whether a sanction is justified; I am merely puzzled by the possibility that remedy 17.1 should be considered passing. My reason for raising this question is as follows:
Is there a standard practice established for situations such as this? EdChem ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just voted on the topic bans to help reduce the ambiguity. Rlevse is, however, on a Wikibreak until the 26th. — Coren (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth and FloNight, thank you for clarifying that the policy / practice is that only explicit votes are considered. I can see the practical desirability of such a position, even though it will lead (at times) to logical inconsistencies. In this case, it appears that Dc76 is very fortunate that Rlevse is on wikibreak and is unlikely to clarify his position (as Coren has now done) as it seems likely that clarification would lead to proposed remedy 17.1 passing. As an aside / observation, ArbCom should perhaps consider privately the issue of when an alternative would pass but for the missing vote of an arbitrator who is temporarily unavailable but supported a harsher formulation. EdChem ( talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled by passing remedies 11B and 11C for all members of the email list because I think that less harsh remedy would suffice. After I leave the Committee, I plan to watch the contributions of members and suggest that the 2010 ArbCom relax these remedies for some parties that are not otherwise named in the case and do not get into any further conflicts during the next 45 days. I know that some of you will not find this satisfactory because you think it is too harsh, but I think it is in the best interest of the Community to pass these proposals and close the case now. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
My preference was for editor specific sanctions. With the flurry of voting in the last day, more of these have passed and I'm now opposing the the remedies (11B and 11C) that I think are too harsh on some members of the mailing list. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the disruption in the EE topics will only stop when editors with battleground mentality like Skapperod will get some remedy too. Here he's again trying to get rid of all of his content opponents at once. What he says above it's not nearly true, many members of the EEML will get very long topic bans (some IMO too long), so it's very far from truth that the ArbCom is "giving invitation to continue as usual", quite the contrary. And the ArbCom will probably keep an eye on the situation closely in the future (and hopefully not just the ex-EEML members but also editors like Skapperod too.) Anyway the initial comment by FloNight in this thread is a completely correct and logic one, every editor should get a remedy exactly proportional to the things he has done. (Giving somebody a remedy for something he has not done is absurd). Frankly I am surprised that the ArbCom didn't choose this approach from the beginning. Dr. Loosmark 18:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 11B) and Coren's "and find new, less contentious, areas to edit in productively":
I have been studying Soviet actions and its legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe longer than any of the ArbCom members have likely been alive. In the absence of evidence presented of a disruptive on-Wiki edit, I wish to know why I should refrain from standing up to the edit-warring brought on by editors bringing attack content and unsubstantiated POV declarations regarding versions of history to an encyclopedia and go off to edit
Orange (fruit) and
Coffee. You've read the evidence (have you?) regarding characterizations of my actions presented by my detractors and my responses. This sort of editorializing commentary by a ruling ArbCom member is not only inappropriate but totally unacceptable unless ArbCom is now implicitly ruling on content, that is, my "EEML member" content is bad and disruptive (as it is being discouraged because I am being explicitly told to go elsewhere), and my detactors' content is good and their conduct collegial (as it is all that will be left if my ability to contribute is silenced).
PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►
talk
23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, "indefinite" restrictions are not sanctions, they are censorship. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 00:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion: should the sanctioned editors continue to edit collaboratively with each other, coordinate and discuss always on-wiki. Yes, it means that if anyone steps over the line they'll be put to task, but it also means that people will be able to trust that no backroom machinations are going on. Remember that this is what caused the whole mess: other editors lost trust that you weren't collectively gaming the system in order to win content disputes — until you dispel that impression with transparency, that trust will not return. — Coren (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If my privacy were not violated and my personal Emails weren't announced to the world as a majority of Emails out to get Russavia, then read, then people who know nothing about me create circumstantial evidence of timings that I responded to canvassing (as opposed to my explanation) then we wouldn't have accusations which led to editors "losing trust." This is the first conspiracy I've ever seen that (a) no one could point to any change in on-Wiki behavior and (b) no one could produce evidence of on-Wiki contributions which are less than reputable. Quite honestly, whatever opinion my detractors in these proceedings have of me has not changed, their having just putting Bandags on the same tired accusations. (Have you read the "evidence" regarding my alleged "edit warring?") Nor do I care about ingratiating myself to them as all that matters is fair and accurate representation of reputable sources. Who here that has actually dealt with me on content "lost trust" in me? All I see is budding opportunism outside these proceedings using "EEML EDITOR!" to deride editors; same tactics, different word for WITCH! At least on the surface it's not as patently offensive as "ethnofascist POV pusher" or denouncing authors as POV based on the spelling of their surname. And you want to ban me because I'm responsible for "continuing disruption"? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for the "three to six months" explanation, that is good enough. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 05:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. My detractors insist I push a nationalist POV; sadly, I only write what I find in reputable sources—it's much simpler that way, both in writing and in defending content. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 06:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what ArbCom generally looks for, but this three to six months means that time spent productively editing in other areas not simply idling as that time period elapsed? EdChem ( talk) 06:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I regret that I am still waiting for on-Wiki diffs supporting the draconian 18.1, i.e., which do not require mind-reading and interpretations based on assumptions of battlefield mentality, nationalist POV, and general bad faith on my part, that is, put me in a box and then punish me for being in the box. Is ArbCom really ready to travel down this course and set these precedents? PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
User Skapperod has engaged in copy and paste texting demands harsher sanctions to several Arbcom members and this board(I sincerily believe posting this here and to a specific admin would be enough)
Is this not a improper canvassing as defined under : [19] Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.
Could I request clarks in this Arbcom to politely react to this?
If my concern is not valid, then I have nothing against closing this, if it is I would welcome clerk reaction. Kind regards. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Coren's rationale in supporting this FoF: "given it is now known unequivocally that this has occurred at least once on that mailing list already — the presumption must be that the offer was serious like the other". Miacek's joke offer came in June [20090602-1428], before Tymek's offer in August [20090708-0445][20090814-0455]. Therefore Coren conclusion is mistaken. -- Martin ( talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Some comments regarding these FoF.
The first part of the Canvassing FoF: "Xxxxx participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing" is not a finding of fact but an opinion, because it makes the assumption that there was a planned campaign to begin with. Unless there is some email found that states, for example, "could you join our maillist because we want to conduct a campaign to influence AfDs", it remains an assumption. The second part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions" is a valid finding of fact. The third part of the FoF: "Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is not a finding of fact, it can never be detemined as fact if someone voted in response to an email (was it even read?) or because they checked the article/noticeboard/contributions of an editor. The problem here is that there is no acknowledgement that there are other means of becoming aware of a discussion, the presumption being that it was solely done through the maillist.
A better wording of these FoFs would be:
Xxxxx canvassed on the mailing list:
Now whether that canvassing was disruptive depends upon whether messages were written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, and whether the outcome of actual AfD was in fact influenced. But what ever is determined in this regard, it has always been the case that the canvasser is the one who is sanctioned, not the canvassee, because it cannot ever be determined with any certainty that the canvassee participated as a result of reading the canvasser's notice with any reliability. Putting Dc76, Miacek, Vecrumba under a one year topic ban for one single instance of emailing a notice is unduly harsh, given the lack of an explicit FoF in regard to disruption. -- Martin ( talk) 20:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I am sorry, but "We do not look for certainty, Martin. Arbcom's evidential standard is "perponderance of evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt"" is unacceptable. ArbCom has patently ignored my discussion regarding bulk reading Email after the fact. Assuming ArbCom's explanation of bad faith outweighs my explanation in good faith is little more than a campaign to justify preconceived guilt. Apparently, if one believes the evidence presented by my detractors, if I am attacked enough times by enough editors I must be the problem and the source of disruption. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing was a regular feature, even one of the dominant aspects, of the mailing list. The complaint about "campaign" doesn't seem to stand in this light, as it seems an apt description by definition. Statements or implications that this was undertaken to improve discourse instead of sway discussions are not credible given the secretive nature of the canvassing and the distinct targeted audience of the messages.
"Xxxxx has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed" is most certainly a valid finding of fact. The mailing list received a canvassing message. The person was part of the mailing list. Their participation took place after the message. Put that all together and saying they participated after being canvassed sounds perfectly accurate.
To be perfectly blunt, I'm starting to tire of the nitpicking responses and obvious searching for loopholes. That is not directed specifically against Martin, but rather is a general statement about the discourse taking place on this page and elsewhere about the forming decision. At the least, such responses are extremely counterproductive as they are leading to me doubt that lesser measures and topic bans will be effective. Indeed, they are leading to me believe that sanctions will be fought, gamed, and circumvented. Vassyana ( talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Does it include criticism of Communism or Soviet Union?-- Dojarca ( talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics. Eurocommunism, Chinese communism or Communism in Angola can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically. An example of a heated discussion is in front of us... Russavia, there's no wikilawyering here and the question is legitimate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to clarify. Are people under topic bans allowed to create and edit articles in their userspace - and move articles to the mainspace when their topic ban ends? As the topic ban is meant to punish some of the most active contributors with by far majority of their edits being absolutely noncontroversial, then allowing them to prepare such noncontroversial articles in their own space would be only beneficial to Wikipedia.
The reason I am asking is because Martin still owes me a promise to get Estonian Open Air Museum to GA-status - it would be perfect time to work on it and I sincerely hope that even most biased editor wouldn't find that article "McCarthist" or "nationalist". Other punished editors can certainly find similar topics in their field of interest.
-- Dojarca ( talk) 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that majority of arbs voted for closing this case long time ago. More then 48 hrs has passed since majority vote, but as I understand the case still opened. Can anybody predict then this case will be official closed? And who usually closing arb cases, clerks? M.K. ( talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Do I unsderstand correcty Biophys is left go without any remedy?-- Dojarca ( talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anything prevent outvoting an editor from Wikipedia by the EEML members?-- Dojarca ( talk) 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What if the EEML members tomorrow decide to community ban an editor?. That's nothing, what if EEML members decide to install a new Jimbo Wales? This arbitration doesn't prevent similar scenarios in the future! Dr. Loosmark 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The top of the Proposed decision page says that five support votes are a majority, however Implementation notes has several remedies passing with only four supporting votes, such as 4.2 (Digwuren banned), 8.2 (Tymek topic banned), 12 (Participants admonished, only 3 support votes), 17.1 (Dc76 topic banned) and 20 (Miacek topic banned). Does this mean the majority reference is wrong or clerk simply hasn't updated the implementation notes? The latter seems unlikely, as Mailer Diablo's last update to implementation notes is after any votes in most of these remedies. -- Sander Säde 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
So now "abstain" is support but with a caveat? This is not an arbitration this is a kangoroo court. Dr. Loosmark 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) To FayssalF, regarding: "To make it clear... We are talking about abstaining in the context of proposing or not proposing alternatives. Otherwise, a vote to abstain is interpreted to mean that the arbitrator has no firm opinion and is willing to allow that principle to be decided by the consensus of the other arbitrators." I am sorry, what "interpretation?" The current instantiation of abstention clearly (by reducing the majority required) confirms that the abstaining arbitrator has no decision for or against and actively defers the decision on their behalf, whatever it is, to the consensus of the other arbitrators. You appear to be splitting hairs to state something is an interpretation when it most clearly is not. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the ArbCom going to make any decision concerning these users? What to do with them now? Should we start general votings to lift their bans (where the EEML members could participate and make the move to fail)?-- Dojarca ( talk) 09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I would expect that if I wish to further my Russia studies in the meantime, topics such as Sino-Russian relations or the history of Russia not involving the Baltic or Eastern European region are acceptable. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 17:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) I addressed a question of ArbCom, my apologies I did not make that clear. This was not an invitation to Russavia to bemoan their ban or speak for Sandstein, or for Commodore Sloat to suggest I am wikilawyering.
In purchasing sources dealing with the Baltics and Eastern Europe, I have many reputable sources regarding Russia which, while they mention the Baltics or Eastern Europe, deal primarily with topics completely outside that sphere. I would like to put them to good use as a productive learning experience. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) Alas the proceedings are over, Igny, but feel free to continue your attacks. I have no confirmation bias. If by that you perhaps mean the GSE's version of history regarding certain events is not confirmed (this would be the encyclopedia that had pages pasted over as "history" changed), that is the position of reputable scholars on the topic, I simply (personal editorial opinion) agree. And Dojarca, thank you for chiming in with the rest of my detractors here (so far I count Russavia, Commodore Sloat, Igny, and yourself) with your personal interpretations on behalf of ArbCom.
As for "picking" sources, I research what are acknowledged as the best sources among scholars, then get those (e.g., King's book on Moldova and Magocsi's on Central Eastern Europe). I don't pick sources for them to agree with me, I'm too old and too poor to spend my hard-earned money on something I'm not going to learn from. I also make it a point to include works by scholars with whose conclusions I don't always agree, but whose work is acknowledged and cited (e.g., Pål Kolstø). Good articles require a representation of reputable scholarship, not reputable scholarship filtered based on the degree to which someone personally agrees. As for topic areas, I don't see why I should not be able to write about non-"controversial" areas, such as the history of the Pechenegs, but I expect that is part of EE "broadly construed" territorially although Eastern Europe did not exist conceptually at the time. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 14:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to put my sources to good use and learn something, that is all. Don't accuse me of personal attacks by demanding an apology—no one asked you to answer for ArbCom. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 15:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I want a clarification on the EE topic ban. If I want to engage one of the EEML members in a debate on the EE topic on his or my talk page, or user sub-page, is it covered by his EE topic ban? I believe that a constructive debate without personal attacks and with respect for each other should benefit Wikipedia, right? ( Igny ( talk) 23:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC))
While you may not be covered by the topic ban, Igny, the other person would. It would be inconsiderate and disrespectful for you to attempt to involve him in discussion on this topic if you are aware that he is under a topic ban. Repeated attempts to engage one or more sanctioned user(s) in an area from which he or she is restricted could be considered disruptive. Sanctioned users are be encouraged to point out that they are restricted from the topic area if another user attempts to engage them in discussion about the topic. Risker ( talk) 03:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Estonians are now akin to Goebbels here and Estonian-sourced information subject to summary deletion. I am enjoined from commenting thereupon. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ► talk 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)