Active:
Away or inactive:
If I may, a few suggestions:
I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision. Sandstein 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear arbitrators,
I ask you not vote for section 3.3.13 here.
More experienced than someone who has edited since 10 April 2004? More experienced than someone who has been an administrator since 25 January 2005? More experienced than someone who has made 86953 edits, started about 2000 articles and shepherded 25 articles to featured status? While there must be some editors who meet these requirements, they can't be all that common. When you add in the need for wisdom and for being trusted by P., the pool gets even smaller.
Now if you read the RfA, nearly four years ago now, either it is a great steaming pile of bollocks from beginning to end, or there was once a time when none of the behaviours which are said to require mentoring were a problem. That suggests to me that mentoring is not needed. What's necessary is the acceptance by P. (a) that there is a problem now, (b) that there was a time when there was no problem, and (c) that he, and he alone, can alter his behaviour from today's unacceptable habits to 2004–2005's acceptable ones.
Thanks for your time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan, raised a valid points here. I think that possible mentor (if he/she will be appointed), perhaps should have predefine by Arbiters specific duties as such. M.K. ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I fear, that due to very intensive works Arbiters may missed one of my queries, which I find very important.I think, that provided remedies for Deacon of Pndapetzim, Lokyz are rather unwarrantable compared to Piotrus involvement: [2] [3]. Can Arbiters deliver a rationale ?Thanks in advance. M.K. ( talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Kirill, are you wielding some sort of elephant gun? Do try not to swat the bystanders, OK? -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
After I make my first sweep through all the evidence and vote, I'm going to look at the alternative proposal suggestions in more detail. My votes are not set in stone, if a closer look at the situation shows that other methods are for the best, I'll change my vote. This case is much larger than most, so I can't respond as quickly as I would like to every one wanting a response. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the first statement is undoubtedly true, does the second follow? Is there really a "limit" because of this, and if there is, is that "limit" significant? And what is the evidence for any of this? Logs of the channel have certainly occasionally leaked to non-admin wikipedians and on a couple of occasions I'm aware of these have got into the public domain. Those leaks have caused drama and disruption, because they've sometimes been taken to show alleged missuses of the channel and inappropriate discussion of established users.
However, given that the private purpose of the channel is/was not discussing established users, but dealing with "sensitive situations", requests from OTRS people, and BLP issues best not discussed in a very public place, is there any evidence that these types of appropriate discussions have ever leaked? And if so, is there any evidence that they have leaked in a significantly damaging way? Does A follow B?
I used the channel often when I was doing OTRS, and still routinely bring BLP problems to admin attention in it. It seems to me still highly useful for that - and never once am I aware of any of that information leaking. And even should it leak to a few, how much does it matter? The utility of the channel is not that it is airtight, but that, in contrast to posting on wiki, it is not "viewable by the world for all eternity". And so even if the disclosures do, in some undefined way, "limit" some aspects of the usefulness - is the limitation significant?
The FoF 31.2(a), indicates that the channel was set up in order that matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed, covers a wide range of sins. Matters needing "discretion", or being "unsuited for on-wiki", do not neccessarily need total and airtight privacy. Indeed, if they did, then a channel which is open to anyone of 1400 admins (few of which the Foundation know anything about) would be a wholly inappropriate venue even without leaks.
Frankly, and to be blunt, I've never seen any proper use of the channel for a discussion, that I would not have been entirely happy happening in the presence of say, Giano. But saying that its useful discussions could be open to users like Giano, is not the same as saying "they might as well be conducted on-wiki". ("On wiki" does not just mean that the community could be party - it means anyone in all the world can see) Some disclosures of material unrelated to sensitive uses do not significantly limit the channel's utility for its true purpose. In this case, I think we can be "a little pregnant".
Why does this matter? Because this finding will be taken as evidence that the channel's utility is marginal - and undermined by leaking. And this finding rests on nothing but an assertion, which does not stand examination. Whilst I'm sure it's intentions are pure, it contains an unproven logic jump, and perhaps a little weasel wording.
Indeed the proposed remedy 20.1) The Committee recommends that use of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel be discontinued seems to rest on this point. The logic seems to be that the ills mentioned in other findings cannot be offset against the benefits envisaged by the original founding, since these are negated (or "limited") by the leaks. But that the leaks are significant in regard to the purpose has not been shown (and indeed I'd say is not the case), let alone any real cost benefit analysis of the limits verses the benefits. You really can't generate policy on a couple of assertions.
-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
These follow from the unanswered post above
I note that Krill and Newyorkbrad (and now Sam) have supported 31.4. So I am wondering if either of them can answer these questions:
I hate to push the point, but as the as can be seen from the section bellow, this is often asserted, but never explained or evidenced. -- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this needs some tweaking but please consider this proposal for the present case.
JodyB talk 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)These suggestions for some kind of public logging suffer the weakness that suggestions to depreciate the channel suffer: #wikipedia-en-admins is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee's authority. Any decision to log would be purely voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. As this and other cases seem to demonstrate, the issue is the attitude, intents and motives of individual users and not the existance of an IRC channel. Disruptive users will always find a way to communicate with sympathizers whether by IRC, AIM, email or telephone. Attempts to use brute force to somehow change the channel only moves the discussion a bit further away and fails to accomplish one wit. JodyB talk 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your abstination on findings of facts that regarded people for whom there were no actionable evidence. Your rationale is that you feel it does not warrant a finding. While I technically do not disagree with that thought, please consider that this case was particularly complicated. I expect that many editors watching did not have the patience to sift through the evidence as thouroughly as the arbs have. A lot of mud was thrown in a lot of many directions. Some of it was warrented, some of it was misunderstanding, and some of it outright slander. Most of it, however, is difficult to identify.
I understand that you feel if nothing was done wrong by a person, then they should simply not be mentioned. But it should be noted that persons on every side of this conflict has asked for some kind of identification of not only who was at fault... but also who was not. There IS value to arbcom standing up and saying "this person was involved in a complicated issue, and we see no evidence they acted improperly". I know that it is implied by a lack of finding, but in many cases a lack of finding only leaves room for continued speculation. By clearly stating someones innocence, instead of implying a lack of guilt, you would take great strides towards clearing the air around what is obviously a murky issue.
Please reconsider your position. 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the voting going on, and still not a single comment is made on the way the diffs used against me have been presented. This I find truly depressing. Am i to take it that what i wrote in my Evidence reply to Molobos evidence section and all that's been written on the workshop pages is so uninteresting? Both my presence here and faith in the entire project is at stake.
To recap, I blew my lid on January 4, for which I'm very sorry, and for which I'm rightly put on the Digwuren list. I feel I was baited by Molobos deliberatly talking about a different topic than the one I asked about, but I really should have been grown up to be able to keep my cool despite the situation and not have let past interactions influence. As to the rest of the diffs please look at them in context, and please do something about the way they were presented. At least provide a FoF linking directly to individual diffs that you find to be of relevance. I've already asked Newyorkbrad for comment and I urge you to please review the responces to the diffs and charges. [4] [5] [6]
If you have questions about individual diffs, please just ask. -- Stor stark7 Speak 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Frustrated? Er ... yeah! ;) But it's kinda getting replaced by cynical amusement and resigned indignation. I'm now having to point out that this essay is satire, because it apparently "worries" an arb. Well, sorry guys, I ain't getting defensive about that. Either you know it's satire or you don't. I feel like I'm in some Larry David sit-com; but it ain't a sit-com, it's actually reality, and coming from the place on wiki you'd most expect to respect.I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this has come out in a hearing that marks out 7 reverts in a two week period in an editing area where such a thing is nothing as "edit-warring" and worth a FoF and "remedy", when the editor in question [me] is virtually uninvolved in the general area and was only trying to enforce wiki content policy in a particular article where several others were also participating. It would be hilarious if it weren't so appalling. As every intelligent observer will realise, it's only happening because I launched a case, and basically what you are saying is that outside editors and admins will be punished for filing arbcom hearings not just by the libel of the "defendants" and their allies, but through the callous contempt of the arbs themselves who'll feel a need to preserve social balance over most modern ideas of justice by embracing that libel in a indirect manner. I guess if you are, then, sorry I got involved and tried to help here, and I'll slap myself on the face with a trout as I should have known this per my earlier assertions about medieval courts. I guess you know how things work but kid yourself. Or else, you know that to do anything to "help" more direct than just sit on the sidelines being strong, silent and judgmental on AN/I, AE threads and ArbCom outside observations was always going to be a mistake if a person wanted to avoid that kind of thing; but you never know how it really works until you test it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There are three reasons that this "recommendation" is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, bad idea doesn't cover it. This has to be one of the most absurd things ArbCom's ever proposed.
It is in everyone's best interest for this proposed decision to be shot down, quickly and overwhelmingly. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 01:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite several times there were noted that #wikipedia-en-admins lies outside wikipedia encyclopedia and, as I understand, outside Wikipedia Foundation; if so - is it allowed by law to have IRC under name wikipedia? This makes an illusion that channel is owned by WF. Therefore wikipedia name usage on IRC channel should be withdrawn. Also Arbiters did not presented FoF of was there actual abuse of admin IRC involving this case's individuals or not; my experience and, presented evidences by others, allows to say that there was abuse, but we need proper Arbitration FoF on this matter, otherwise we will see quite many speculation surrounding this issue. M.K. ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Greg has never been blocked in the past and I am not sure if he got any warnings about his behavior (from neutral parties). In light of his pledge, which does seem to indicate to me he is willing to admit he made errors and try to improve his behavior, I wonder if a less drastic measure couldn't be considered? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Greg's pledge to be voluntarily banned from Polish-Jewish related topics is honest. Everyone makes mistakes here but not everyone is capable to be honest about it. Perhaps Greg should be given a chance. What about to have the pledge (clearly written) as a opening statement of his user page during that time??-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Far from it for me to defend Piotrus, but when did expressing views about living individuals on article talk pages become a violation of BLP policy? Biographies of living people policy is wikipedia policy on biographies of living people, not a policy on editorial commentary on talk pages, which are signed by individuals entitled and in many instances obliged to express opinions and point out certain known opinions and information [and shouldn't be any issue unless an individual is innovatively harming someone's safety/privacy or claiming to be a source of information, libelous if false, against a living individual]. The diff in question is certainly not a nice thing to say, but it is a signed comment carrying no authority beyond the user and the non-wiki link cited. I'm not sure if this diff represents misunderstanding of the policy (which will confuse normal admins and editors no end) or is an attempt to extend BLP policy. If the former, then this can be forgiven, as the confusing assertion in italics These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. , might be responsible, though the clearer non-article space section would definitely not, interpreted reasonably, lead to this belief. WP:TALK suitably confines itself to condemning "libel and personal details". I suppose just as likely is that is it genuinely seen as a violation. This in practice is the same as extending BLP policy. Such an innovative interpretation of BLP is already being used (by Piotrus himself no less) to attempt to silence discussions on the reliability of sources. Among the swathes of ignored evidence, this evidence may have relevant article-space diffs to replace the one given in the proposed ruling. I think however the possible misunderstanding here, and future potential misunderstandings, should be addressed by making a clearer distinction between BLP and talk page policies regarding real world libel and privacy intrusion (we have WP:LIBEL and WP:TALK already). But certainly many editors and admins cannot be expected to distinguish accurately between libel and professional criticism, any more than they many fail to distinguish editorial criticism from mere incivility, if ArbCom proceed like they do in FoF 25.2. So can we do something to tighten this up? Everything else aside, we don't need another rule than helps gamers over good-faithed academic editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 06:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
While evidence of Molobo recently manipulating sourced content in mainspace and evidence of Molobo manipulating evidence in this arbcom has been presented (both I consider capital offenses against the project), this was not yet formulated into a finding / proposed remedy. For other editors, the treshold was much lower. How can Molobo, given his disruptive history and the recent manipulations pointed out above be trusted to edit properly, especially concerning quotes of sources, taken in concern also his use of Polish sources that are impossible to verify for non-Polish speakers? I regard this matter somewhat more serious than "edit wars" over disputed-tags, and year-old statements at talk pages - those however were merited with a finding and proposed remedy. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It would help to have a clear policy on the limits of "free speech" in WP. After reading policies here, I got an impression that any relevant discussions (e.g. wikipedia-related problems) would be clearly a legitimate subject, as long as such discussions do not include unsubstantiated accusations of individual users or BLP violations. Obviously, some of such discussions may be unhelpful (in fact, all discussions that do not result in a positive outcome might be defined as unhelpful). Obviously, one should not make senseless inflammatory comments and remember about WP:DICK. This is understood. But the limits should be defined more clearly. For example, this is a common practice to talk about nationalism problems in WP. But how about debating chauvinism, racism, influence of private corporations, or agents of influence in WP? Where is the boundary? I am not talking about personal accusations, but about debates of such problems in general. What is allowed and what is not? Some formal rules would help. Biophys ( talk) 17:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
We all know that wp:trolling is a vengeful little habit frown upon by the community. – Why is it, than, that trolling is not being acknowledged by our arbitrators as a good enough reason for some sort of nominal sanctions especially against the users repeatedly engaging in trolling and relentless stalking of their content opponents... and initiating procedures. One user that comes to mind is M.K ( talk · contribs) whose only memorable contribution to Wikipedia is that of collecting evidence of any brain activity whatsoever on the part of his adversaries and than constructing far-fetched claims based on them, and dragging it from one board to the next every now and then.
Is M.K free to do it again, a few months down the road? Is his attitude beyond scrutiny? I’m asking – would this ArbCom be willing to look into his behaviour based on a pattern of distractions over prolonged periods of time going beyond the scope of these proceedings? I’m just one of a number of Polish editors constantly stalked by this user, including Piotrus. [7]
Here’s what Piotrus had to say about his schemes: M.K, you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one? ...all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators.
M.K’s pro-Lithuanian revisionist editing is usually aimed at darkening the content created by his Polish adversaries, such as Piotrus. Even when his claims are proven false, they usually meet their objective in creating a sense of threat to content stability. Here, for example, M.K makes an unsupported claim that a Polish national hero Józef Piłsudski “could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation…” which was “highly significant...” according to M.K. – Please keep in mind that M.K is not impartial to these proceedings while – at the same time – getting a free ticket in Proposed decission in spite of his EE battlefield editing pattern.
Meanwhile, all failed ArbCom cases are a tremendous drain on the resources of Wikipedia administrators and content creators who are already in a critical minority
(one-tenth of 1 percent). Can you see M.K as a possible problem user gaming the system? Because if you could, you would certainly not be alone. I cannot imagine another case like this being initiated again in a forseeable future by User:M.K who is known to be
spreading false accusations (
Halibutt) and for the second time around, attempting to
slander an inconvenient content disputes opponent (
Lysy).*
*) Above two citations originate in the first ArbCom case against Piotrus initiated by M.K.
[8]
--
Poeticbent
talk 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I ask myself, what is the point in continuing about M.K's manipulations and his repeat gaming of the system exemplified in his Evidence section, while in fact, he is getting a free ticket anyway in Proposed decision. The avalanche of links provided by the parties makes it all too easy to miss a white lie told by a vengeful content opponent. Even I don't pay attention to every little lie told about me in seemingly dispassionate commentaries, so why would the arbitrators care to devote any time and energy into revealing hidden violations of policy committed by M.K and than act upon it here.
Virtually the entire Evidence section provided by M.K is a mindless copy-paste job from other cases which were long closed and long resolved. I can only hope that the arbitrators will be able to devise a system which will prohibit this kind of manipulation repeated in the future. Take as an example the following statement made by M.K: "Poeticbent's IPs made shameful personal attacks ( [9] [10]) etc." – Upon close examination however here's what his two links reveal? On 23 April 2008 an anonymous IP 217.184.150.67 renamed four Polish cities and one Polish river (which in the article about the Polish town Ustka were spelled in the English and Polish languages) into the German language. The places were known by their German names under the German occupation of Poland so the implications were pretty clear. Using a proxy (just like the other party) I reverted these changes with the following edit summary: "(Undid revision 207599063 by 217.184.150.67 (talk) rv geopolitical revisionism)" Did I make a "personal attack" by saying what I said? And against whom, against another nameless IP? How was is "shameful" that I called a spade a shovel?
Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity... and this is what M.K does, by giving it a proper spin. He makes his opponents' efforts of fighting cases of geopolitical irredentism and bad faith sound like "personal attacks" for the arbitration. He takes advantage of loopholes to smear the reputation of his adversaries from one ArbCom case to the next. -- Poeticbent talk 06:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to stay out of this, but really this is simply too much to ignore. "Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity..." See hear, this entire sub-section of yours, Poeticbent, attacking M.K., both falsely, and in the ad hominem style constantly employed by the editors that are being investigated by this ArbCom is quite humorous. But it's as arrogant and egotistical as your writing an article, Richard Tylman, about yourself and placing it in Wikipedia. Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Poetic and Piotrus it is highly ironic to accuse an editor of incivility by making personal attacks on him especially on the very Arbcom that consider your own behavior. Please change your tone down a notch or two. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how 6.1 is overboard. Not only was there a FoF in the Digwuren case against Irpen as to the long history of personal disputes with Piotrus, but there was an additional specific FoF against Irpen for assumptions of bad faith. This current case has demonstrated that Irpen has continued this behaviour in spades, while there is no evidence presented that Piotrus has behaved similarly towards Irpen. So I don't see how reciprocity, as embodied in 6.1A is justified, given the FoF in previous cases and the evidence in this case. Martintg ( talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the findings/remedies should be more clear that it was Irpen who jumped into my case, not the other way around, and that it was a pattern that lasted for years... (him commenting on me, not me commenting on him). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Instructing one editor not to comment on another, who violating basic WP rules and principles, would not solve any EE related problems, I think. Besides, we already having editors who are voicing concerns over freedom of speech. M.K. ( talk) 11:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
To those who see no evidence that "Sciurinæ has treated Wikipedia as a battleground", I present some fresh new evidence: Sciurinæ appears on ANI in a thread not involving an article he has edited, simply to criticize me for "canvassing", "Wikilawyering", and "IM" cabalism, later assumes bad faith about my use of Polish language. It is exactly this kind of behavior - defending one another combined with personal attacks and bad faith towards others - that is a reason I presented evidence against certain editors. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I don't care if you ban me for one year for nothing but the finding of fact is grossly incorrect, misleading and tailored to misrepresent me as a Nazi and please, please, please reconsider it, taking my new comments on it into account.-- Stor stark7 Speak 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears pretty clear from the arbitrators' votes that the proposal to ban Stor stark7 will not be adopted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I finished voting based on the original evidence and comments. Now I'm going back and looking at the new evidence and statements. I'll make changes as needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not about greg, and certainly not about anyone else, simply about myself. Overall, I think the arbitrators are doing a fine job in this complicated case, and overall, as far as findings and remedies involving my person are concerned, that applies as well. I do however have a comment to make, regarding finding 25.6. I have been contributing to this project for over four years, and I like to think I was a little useful along the way. However, for years I have been a target of various uncivil remarks and in extreme cases, harassment campaigns. Could by any chance a finding along the way "Piotrus has been a target of wiki-harassment/uncivil remarks/bad faith assumptions/unjustified accusations" be considered? I think it it important for the background. I am, simply put, tired and wikistressed, and it is not because I am imagining attacks on my person (or am I? current findings don't say...). That's one thing.
Second (and last). In the end, most us contribute to this project not because they want to be vilified, and I increasingly question why I am still dedicating time to this project, if my "reward" is an ongoing string of ArbCom proceedings. In all the torrent of hate whirling around here for several months, it would be nice if a few kind words were said. It's not like the ArbCom has never done so before: [27], [28], [29], [30]. There are some relevant proposals in the workshop that may be useful, in particular: [31] and [32]. Please note I am not asking for some stellar endorsement. I am not perfect, and thus we have some findings/remedies that showcase my shortcomings, that's only reasonable. But if I am not guilty of most of the things I have been accused of for years, and if in fact I am helpful to this project and the project would benefit from my future contributions as it had in the past, it would be a nice thing to say so, every few years or so...
Of course, I am rather biased here, and the Committee may have reasons for summarizing 4+ years of my activities with some (deserved) admonishments and reminders only. Perhaps indeed I don't deserve anything more, and once the case ends the Signpost summary should indeed say only: "In Piotrus 2 case, editor Piotrus has been admonished to avoid edit warring and not to abuse his admin status". In any case, I'd appreciate if the arbitrators would take a minute or two to consider this. I will await the arbitrator's thoughts. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The previous activity has been restarted in the past few days [33]. Example: [34] Starting with "The polish astronomer claim"-another series of incivil rants, nationalistic claims and opinions inflaming the discussion is started completely disconnected to the article discussed-- Molobo ( talk) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the high quality of Boodlesthecat's actual edits, I'd like to propose mentorship, rather than banning. I have proposed that two experienced editors, User:Avraham and User:Durova, act as mentors, and discussed it with them. Boodlesthecat has himself agreed to such mentorship, and shown himself to be highly responsive to mentoring. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
High quality indeed... I don't think he has started any articles yet, and content edits were definitely partisan. In any case, a mentorship may be considered for users who recognize their errors and admit they could use a mentor, like greg did. Has Boodlesthecat gave any public indication of recognition of his errors? Btw, Jayjg, I know I've asked you before to mentor Boodleshetcat and moderate him, and up till now you have ignored my requests... what made you change your mind? In particular, do you think Boodlesthecat made errors? What were they and how can he improve? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
*Strong Oppose Boodles has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep with a NPOV in many of his edits.
Redman5578 (
talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of Wikipedia's toughest disputes and has a lot of history; it was not an easy decision to agree to this offer. Foremost, the purpose of mentorship is not to shield an editor from the consequences of poor decisions. The purpose of mentorship is to generate a feedback loop that improves the quality of decisions.
For the past year I've mentored Jaakobou, one of the editors in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. He's broadened his editing horizons, contributed DYKs and featured content, and hasn't needed a block since spring. Another editor I've mentored is Cirt--who had collected 7 edit warring blocks on a previous account before he came to me. Cirt turned around to become a prolific featured content creator, an administrator on three WMF projects, an OTRS volunteer, and a member of the arbitration committee on Wikinews. Both of them looked like they were on their way to topic bans before mentorship started.
Not every mentorship turns out so well; I recently walked away from one and certified a user conduct RFC. What Boodlesthecat will get if the Committee accepts this offer is a set of challenges, a sounding board, and a place to blow off steam. Respectfully submitted. Durova Charge! 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair is fair. Nobody can hold Boodlesthecat responsible for the amount of insults thrown at the Polish people by the older generation of Jewish scholars. All he does, is find and repeat them without much of a thought. The lack of perspective in how these quotes are being used in Wikipedia is the hardest to take, but Boodlesthecat's diligence in bringing them in helps to see also the extend of anti-Polish sentiment inside the Jewish community. Links to specific pages in books (which might have escaped prior attention) reveal passages by the accomplished Jewish writers claiming for example that the Poles "were generally unhappy at seeing even a fraction of the Jews still alive" after the war (emphasis mine). Or, that "Polish priests did not save even one Jewish life." I wonder, how could anybody say such a thing with a straight face. And yet, these sort of monstrosities are featured in books by the animators of Jewish life throughout over half a century. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not pre-designed to uphold the balance of truth or weed out extremism supported by reliable sources while giving a green light to quote-farms of biased and normative opinions, added here under the pretext of expanding the articles’ content. I don’t know if anybody can coach any Wikipedian to understand that sort of thing. -- Poeticbent talk 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What about discussing mentorship for a user who has expressed remorse for his past actions and admitted willingness to work with a mentor? See this thread for more details. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
These look to be stretching the definition of edit warring, and I don't think they warrant the same wording as that of findings stemming from 3RR blocks. The bright line is there for good reasons. In Deacon's case, the reversions were spread out over a two-week period at a single article, involved discussion, and revolved around Piotrus' inclusion of matter from a newspaper that contradicted an academic source. In Irpen's case, which involves Denial of the Holodomor and the Holodomor template, I would like to draw an analogy. If someone were to create a US war crimes template, and then include Highway of Death in that template, would it be inappropriate to contest that article's inclusion until the article and template reached some semblance of consensus? Full disclosure: I have edited Highway of Death; I inserted some references which speak of it as a war crime; but it is not by any means ready for inclusion in such a template. Irpen's alleged edit wars at those articles were likewise spread out over several weeks and were discussed. More seriously, the articles concern what is, by the word's definition, a crime against humanity. It was not unreasonable to seek more discussion and more consensus there, and not unreasonable to ask that the Denial article be extremely high quality before being included in the template. Novickas ( talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Novickas. What is next? Admonishing people for edit warring if they revert tripling of elephants meme? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, with all due respect to the author of this remedy (and I absolutely do have utmost respect for his work on the committee): what is this remedy supposed to accomplish? The users of the channel have been reminded time after time not to do all the negative things mentioned in the remedy (it's pretty much there when you join the channel each time). I don't see why this should work if none of the other previous reminders have. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that some findings would pass with even 1 more abstention - I therefore disagree with the assessment that the Committee has made as much progress as it reasonably can in this case. I've again pinged Charles Matthews on certain sub-findings/findings that lack his votes entirely. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) - Interesting point: are there 11 or 12 active arbitrators on this case? This makes an enormous difference in what does or does not pass. Risker ( talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad and I, both prior ArbCom Clerks, knew that it was important to look at this before the case was officially closed because of the potential miscommunication about abstains and the amount of case proposals. By looking at it now, we can answer questions and make any fixes (if needed) before the cases closes. :-) In the few past days, Newyorkbrad and Charles both sent emails to the Committee about the case closing. There was a reminder to look at the alternative proposals by Newyorkbrad. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It says that Deskana is inactive at the top of this page, making it 11. Is that wrong? -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
OK, that screwed with my head. If anyone wants to do the remedies for me (just do the left-hand side, then go into notepad and convert all "acnrow" to "acnrow-alt" using find and replace), it'd be much appreciated. Daniel ( talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Active:
Away or inactive:
If I may, a few suggestions:
I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision. Sandstein 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear arbitrators,
I ask you not vote for section 3.3.13 here.
More experienced than someone who has edited since 10 April 2004? More experienced than someone who has been an administrator since 25 January 2005? More experienced than someone who has made 86953 edits, started about 2000 articles and shepherded 25 articles to featured status? While there must be some editors who meet these requirements, they can't be all that common. When you add in the need for wisdom and for being trusted by P., the pool gets even smaller.
Now if you read the RfA, nearly four years ago now, either it is a great steaming pile of bollocks from beginning to end, or there was once a time when none of the behaviours which are said to require mentoring were a problem. That suggests to me that mentoring is not needed. What's necessary is the acceptance by P. (a) that there is a problem now, (b) that there was a time when there was no problem, and (c) that he, and he alone, can alter his behaviour from today's unacceptable habits to 2004–2005's acceptable ones.
Thanks for your time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan, raised a valid points here. I think that possible mentor (if he/she will be appointed), perhaps should have predefine by Arbiters specific duties as such. M.K. ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I fear, that due to very intensive works Arbiters may missed one of my queries, which I find very important.I think, that provided remedies for Deacon of Pndapetzim, Lokyz are rather unwarrantable compared to Piotrus involvement: [2] [3]. Can Arbiters deliver a rationale ?Thanks in advance. M.K. ( talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Kirill, are you wielding some sort of elephant gun? Do try not to swat the bystanders, OK? -- Relata refero ( disp.) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
After I make my first sweep through all the evidence and vote, I'm going to look at the alternative proposal suggestions in more detail. My votes are not set in stone, if a closer look at the situation shows that other methods are for the best, I'll change my vote. This case is much larger than most, so I can't respond as quickly as I would like to every one wanting a response. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst the first statement is undoubtedly true, does the second follow? Is there really a "limit" because of this, and if there is, is that "limit" significant? And what is the evidence for any of this? Logs of the channel have certainly occasionally leaked to non-admin wikipedians and on a couple of occasions I'm aware of these have got into the public domain. Those leaks have caused drama and disruption, because they've sometimes been taken to show alleged missuses of the channel and inappropriate discussion of established users.
However, given that the private purpose of the channel is/was not discussing established users, but dealing with "sensitive situations", requests from OTRS people, and BLP issues best not discussed in a very public place, is there any evidence that these types of appropriate discussions have ever leaked? And if so, is there any evidence that they have leaked in a significantly damaging way? Does A follow B?
I used the channel often when I was doing OTRS, and still routinely bring BLP problems to admin attention in it. It seems to me still highly useful for that - and never once am I aware of any of that information leaking. And even should it leak to a few, how much does it matter? The utility of the channel is not that it is airtight, but that, in contrast to posting on wiki, it is not "viewable by the world for all eternity". And so even if the disclosures do, in some undefined way, "limit" some aspects of the usefulness - is the limitation significant?
The FoF 31.2(a), indicates that the channel was set up in order that matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed, covers a wide range of sins. Matters needing "discretion", or being "unsuited for on-wiki", do not neccessarily need total and airtight privacy. Indeed, if they did, then a channel which is open to anyone of 1400 admins (few of which the Foundation know anything about) would be a wholly inappropriate venue even without leaks.
Frankly, and to be blunt, I've never seen any proper use of the channel for a discussion, that I would not have been entirely happy happening in the presence of say, Giano. But saying that its useful discussions could be open to users like Giano, is not the same as saying "they might as well be conducted on-wiki". ("On wiki" does not just mean that the community could be party - it means anyone in all the world can see) Some disclosures of material unrelated to sensitive uses do not significantly limit the channel's utility for its true purpose. In this case, I think we can be "a little pregnant".
Why does this matter? Because this finding will be taken as evidence that the channel's utility is marginal - and undermined by leaking. And this finding rests on nothing but an assertion, which does not stand examination. Whilst I'm sure it's intentions are pure, it contains an unproven logic jump, and perhaps a little weasel wording.
Indeed the proposed remedy 20.1) The Committee recommends that use of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel be discontinued seems to rest on this point. The logic seems to be that the ills mentioned in other findings cannot be offset against the benefits envisaged by the original founding, since these are negated (or "limited") by the leaks. But that the leaks are significant in regard to the purpose has not been shown (and indeed I'd say is not the case), let alone any real cost benefit analysis of the limits verses the benefits. You really can't generate policy on a couple of assertions.
-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
These follow from the unanswered post above
I note that Krill and Newyorkbrad (and now Sam) have supported 31.4. So I am wondering if either of them can answer these questions:
I hate to push the point, but as the as can be seen from the section bellow, this is often asserted, but never explained or evidenced. -- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this needs some tweaking but please consider this proposal for the present case.
JodyB talk 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)These suggestions for some kind of public logging suffer the weakness that suggestions to depreciate the channel suffer: #wikipedia-en-admins is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee's authority. Any decision to log would be purely voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. As this and other cases seem to demonstrate, the issue is the attitude, intents and motives of individual users and not the existance of an IRC channel. Disruptive users will always find a way to communicate with sympathizers whether by IRC, AIM, email or telephone. Attempts to use brute force to somehow change the channel only moves the discussion a bit further away and fails to accomplish one wit. JodyB talk 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your abstination on findings of facts that regarded people for whom there were no actionable evidence. Your rationale is that you feel it does not warrant a finding. While I technically do not disagree with that thought, please consider that this case was particularly complicated. I expect that many editors watching did not have the patience to sift through the evidence as thouroughly as the arbs have. A lot of mud was thrown in a lot of many directions. Some of it was warrented, some of it was misunderstanding, and some of it outright slander. Most of it, however, is difficult to identify.
I understand that you feel if nothing was done wrong by a person, then they should simply not be mentioned. But it should be noted that persons on every side of this conflict has asked for some kind of identification of not only who was at fault... but also who was not. There IS value to arbcom standing up and saying "this person was involved in a complicated issue, and we see no evidence they acted improperly". I know that it is implied by a lack of finding, but in many cases a lack of finding only leaves room for continued speculation. By clearly stating someones innocence, instead of implying a lack of guilt, you would take great strides towards clearing the air around what is obviously a murky issue.
Please reconsider your position. 198.161.173.180 ( talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the voting going on, and still not a single comment is made on the way the diffs used against me have been presented. This I find truly depressing. Am i to take it that what i wrote in my Evidence reply to Molobos evidence section and all that's been written on the workshop pages is so uninteresting? Both my presence here and faith in the entire project is at stake.
To recap, I blew my lid on January 4, for which I'm very sorry, and for which I'm rightly put on the Digwuren list. I feel I was baited by Molobos deliberatly talking about a different topic than the one I asked about, but I really should have been grown up to be able to keep my cool despite the situation and not have let past interactions influence. As to the rest of the diffs please look at them in context, and please do something about the way they were presented. At least provide a FoF linking directly to individual diffs that you find to be of relevance. I've already asked Newyorkbrad for comment and I urge you to please review the responces to the diffs and charges. [4] [5] [6]
If you have questions about individual diffs, please just ask. -- Stor stark7 Speak 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Frustrated? Er ... yeah! ;) But it's kinda getting replaced by cynical amusement and resigned indignation. I'm now having to point out that this essay is satire, because it apparently "worries" an arb. Well, sorry guys, I ain't getting defensive about that. Either you know it's satire or you don't. I feel like I'm in some Larry David sit-com; but it ain't a sit-com, it's actually reality, and coming from the place on wiki you'd most expect to respect.I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this has come out in a hearing that marks out 7 reverts in a two week period in an editing area where such a thing is nothing as "edit-warring" and worth a FoF and "remedy", when the editor in question [me] is virtually uninvolved in the general area and was only trying to enforce wiki content policy in a particular article where several others were also participating. It would be hilarious if it weren't so appalling. As every intelligent observer will realise, it's only happening because I launched a case, and basically what you are saying is that outside editors and admins will be punished for filing arbcom hearings not just by the libel of the "defendants" and their allies, but through the callous contempt of the arbs themselves who'll feel a need to preserve social balance over most modern ideas of justice by embracing that libel in a indirect manner. I guess if you are, then, sorry I got involved and tried to help here, and I'll slap myself on the face with a trout as I should have known this per my earlier assertions about medieval courts. I guess you know how things work but kid yourself. Or else, you know that to do anything to "help" more direct than just sit on the sidelines being strong, silent and judgmental on AN/I, AE threads and ArbCom outside observations was always going to be a mistake if a person wanted to avoid that kind of thing; but you never know how it really works until you test it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There are three reasons that this "recommendation" is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, bad idea doesn't cover it. This has to be one of the most absurd things ArbCom's ever proposed.
It is in everyone's best interest for this proposed decision to be shot down, quickly and overwhelmingly. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 01:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Quite several times there were noted that #wikipedia-en-admins lies outside wikipedia encyclopedia and, as I understand, outside Wikipedia Foundation; if so - is it allowed by law to have IRC under name wikipedia? This makes an illusion that channel is owned by WF. Therefore wikipedia name usage on IRC channel should be withdrawn. Also Arbiters did not presented FoF of was there actual abuse of admin IRC involving this case's individuals or not; my experience and, presented evidences by others, allows to say that there was abuse, but we need proper Arbitration FoF on this matter, otherwise we will see quite many speculation surrounding this issue. M.K. ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Greg has never been blocked in the past and I am not sure if he got any warnings about his behavior (from neutral parties). In light of his pledge, which does seem to indicate to me he is willing to admit he made errors and try to improve his behavior, I wonder if a less drastic measure couldn't be considered? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Greg's pledge to be voluntarily banned from Polish-Jewish related topics is honest. Everyone makes mistakes here but not everyone is capable to be honest about it. Perhaps Greg should be given a chance. What about to have the pledge (clearly written) as a opening statement of his user page during that time??-- Jacurek ( talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Far from it for me to defend Piotrus, but when did expressing views about living individuals on article talk pages become a violation of BLP policy? Biographies of living people policy is wikipedia policy on biographies of living people, not a policy on editorial commentary on talk pages, which are signed by individuals entitled and in many instances obliged to express opinions and point out certain known opinions and information [and shouldn't be any issue unless an individual is innovatively harming someone's safety/privacy or claiming to be a source of information, libelous if false, against a living individual]. The diff in question is certainly not a nice thing to say, but it is a signed comment carrying no authority beyond the user and the non-wiki link cited. I'm not sure if this diff represents misunderstanding of the policy (which will confuse normal admins and editors no end) or is an attempt to extend BLP policy. If the former, then this can be forgiven, as the confusing assertion in italics These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. , might be responsible, though the clearer non-article space section would definitely not, interpreted reasonably, lead to this belief. WP:TALK suitably confines itself to condemning "libel and personal details". I suppose just as likely is that is it genuinely seen as a violation. This in practice is the same as extending BLP policy. Such an innovative interpretation of BLP is already being used (by Piotrus himself no less) to attempt to silence discussions on the reliability of sources. Among the swathes of ignored evidence, this evidence may have relevant article-space diffs to replace the one given in the proposed ruling. I think however the possible misunderstanding here, and future potential misunderstandings, should be addressed by making a clearer distinction between BLP and talk page policies regarding real world libel and privacy intrusion (we have WP:LIBEL and WP:TALK already). But certainly many editors and admins cannot be expected to distinguish accurately between libel and professional criticism, any more than they many fail to distinguish editorial criticism from mere incivility, if ArbCom proceed like they do in FoF 25.2. So can we do something to tighten this up? Everything else aside, we don't need another rule than helps gamers over good-faithed academic editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 06:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
While evidence of Molobo recently manipulating sourced content in mainspace and evidence of Molobo manipulating evidence in this arbcom has been presented (both I consider capital offenses against the project), this was not yet formulated into a finding / proposed remedy. For other editors, the treshold was much lower. How can Molobo, given his disruptive history and the recent manipulations pointed out above be trusted to edit properly, especially concerning quotes of sources, taken in concern also his use of Polish sources that are impossible to verify for non-Polish speakers? I regard this matter somewhat more serious than "edit wars" over disputed-tags, and year-old statements at talk pages - those however were merited with a finding and proposed remedy. Skäpperöd ( talk) 10:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It would help to have a clear policy on the limits of "free speech" in WP. After reading policies here, I got an impression that any relevant discussions (e.g. wikipedia-related problems) would be clearly a legitimate subject, as long as such discussions do not include unsubstantiated accusations of individual users or BLP violations. Obviously, some of such discussions may be unhelpful (in fact, all discussions that do not result in a positive outcome might be defined as unhelpful). Obviously, one should not make senseless inflammatory comments and remember about WP:DICK. This is understood. But the limits should be defined more clearly. For example, this is a common practice to talk about nationalism problems in WP. But how about debating chauvinism, racism, influence of private corporations, or agents of influence in WP? Where is the boundary? I am not talking about personal accusations, but about debates of such problems in general. What is allowed and what is not? Some formal rules would help. Biophys ( talk) 17:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
We all know that wp:trolling is a vengeful little habit frown upon by the community. – Why is it, than, that trolling is not being acknowledged by our arbitrators as a good enough reason for some sort of nominal sanctions especially against the users repeatedly engaging in trolling and relentless stalking of their content opponents... and initiating procedures. One user that comes to mind is M.K ( talk · contribs) whose only memorable contribution to Wikipedia is that of collecting evidence of any brain activity whatsoever on the part of his adversaries and than constructing far-fetched claims based on them, and dragging it from one board to the next every now and then.
Is M.K free to do it again, a few months down the road? Is his attitude beyond scrutiny? I’m asking – would this ArbCom be willing to look into his behaviour based on a pattern of distractions over prolonged periods of time going beyond the scope of these proceedings? I’m just one of a number of Polish editors constantly stalked by this user, including Piotrus. [7]
Here’s what Piotrus had to say about his schemes: M.K, you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one? ...all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators.
M.K’s pro-Lithuanian revisionist editing is usually aimed at darkening the content created by his Polish adversaries, such as Piotrus. Even when his claims are proven false, they usually meet their objective in creating a sense of threat to content stability. Here, for example, M.K makes an unsupported claim that a Polish national hero Józef Piłsudski “could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation…” which was “highly significant...” according to M.K. – Please keep in mind that M.K is not impartial to these proceedings while – at the same time – getting a free ticket in Proposed decission in spite of his EE battlefield editing pattern.
Meanwhile, all failed ArbCom cases are a tremendous drain on the resources of Wikipedia administrators and content creators who are already in a critical minority
(one-tenth of 1 percent). Can you see M.K as a possible problem user gaming the system? Because if you could, you would certainly not be alone. I cannot imagine another case like this being initiated again in a forseeable future by User:M.K who is known to be
spreading false accusations (
Halibutt) and for the second time around, attempting to
slander an inconvenient content disputes opponent (
Lysy).*
*) Above two citations originate in the first ArbCom case against Piotrus initiated by M.K.
[8]
--
Poeticbent
talk 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I ask myself, what is the point in continuing about M.K's manipulations and his repeat gaming of the system exemplified in his Evidence section, while in fact, he is getting a free ticket anyway in Proposed decision. The avalanche of links provided by the parties makes it all too easy to miss a white lie told by a vengeful content opponent. Even I don't pay attention to every little lie told about me in seemingly dispassionate commentaries, so why would the arbitrators care to devote any time and energy into revealing hidden violations of policy committed by M.K and than act upon it here.
Virtually the entire Evidence section provided by M.K is a mindless copy-paste job from other cases which were long closed and long resolved. I can only hope that the arbitrators will be able to devise a system which will prohibit this kind of manipulation repeated in the future. Take as an example the following statement made by M.K: "Poeticbent's IPs made shameful personal attacks ( [9] [10]) etc." – Upon close examination however here's what his two links reveal? On 23 April 2008 an anonymous IP 217.184.150.67 renamed four Polish cities and one Polish river (which in the article about the Polish town Ustka were spelled in the English and Polish languages) into the German language. The places were known by their German names under the German occupation of Poland so the implications were pretty clear. Using a proxy (just like the other party) I reverted these changes with the following edit summary: "(Undid revision 207599063 by 217.184.150.67 (talk) rv geopolitical revisionism)" Did I make a "personal attack" by saying what I said? And against whom, against another nameless IP? How was is "shameful" that I called a spade a shovel?
Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity... and this is what M.K does, by giving it a proper spin. He makes his opponents' efforts of fighting cases of geopolitical irredentism and bad faith sound like "personal attacks" for the arbitration. He takes advantage of loopholes to smear the reputation of his adversaries from one ArbCom case to the next. -- Poeticbent talk 06:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to stay out of this, but really this is simply too much to ignore. "Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity..." See hear, this entire sub-section of yours, Poeticbent, attacking M.K., both falsely, and in the ad hominem style constantly employed by the editors that are being investigated by this ArbCom is quite humorous. But it's as arrogant and egotistical as your writing an article, Richard Tylman, about yourself and placing it in Wikipedia. Dr. Dan ( talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Poetic and Piotrus it is highly ironic to accuse an editor of incivility by making personal attacks on him especially on the very Arbcom that consider your own behavior. Please change your tone down a notch or two. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how 6.1 is overboard. Not only was there a FoF in the Digwuren case against Irpen as to the long history of personal disputes with Piotrus, but there was an additional specific FoF against Irpen for assumptions of bad faith. This current case has demonstrated that Irpen has continued this behaviour in spades, while there is no evidence presented that Piotrus has behaved similarly towards Irpen. So I don't see how reciprocity, as embodied in 6.1A is justified, given the FoF in previous cases and the evidence in this case. Martintg ( talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the findings/remedies should be more clear that it was Irpen who jumped into my case, not the other way around, and that it was a pattern that lasted for years... (him commenting on me, not me commenting on him). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Instructing one editor not to comment on another, who violating basic WP rules and principles, would not solve any EE related problems, I think. Besides, we already having editors who are voicing concerns over freedom of speech. M.K. ( talk) 11:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
To those who see no evidence that "Sciurinæ has treated Wikipedia as a battleground", I present some fresh new evidence: Sciurinæ appears on ANI in a thread not involving an article he has edited, simply to criticize me for "canvassing", "Wikilawyering", and "IM" cabalism, later assumes bad faith about my use of Polish language. It is exactly this kind of behavior - defending one another combined with personal attacks and bad faith towards others - that is a reason I presented evidence against certain editors. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I don't care if you ban me for one year for nothing but the finding of fact is grossly incorrect, misleading and tailored to misrepresent me as a Nazi and please, please, please reconsider it, taking my new comments on it into account.-- Stor stark7 Speak 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears pretty clear from the arbitrators' votes that the proposal to ban Stor stark7 will not be adopted. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I finished voting based on the original evidence and comments. Now I'm going back and looking at the new evidence and statements. I'll make changes as needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not about greg, and certainly not about anyone else, simply about myself. Overall, I think the arbitrators are doing a fine job in this complicated case, and overall, as far as findings and remedies involving my person are concerned, that applies as well. I do however have a comment to make, regarding finding 25.6. I have been contributing to this project for over four years, and I like to think I was a little useful along the way. However, for years I have been a target of various uncivil remarks and in extreme cases, harassment campaigns. Could by any chance a finding along the way "Piotrus has been a target of wiki-harassment/uncivil remarks/bad faith assumptions/unjustified accusations" be considered? I think it it important for the background. I am, simply put, tired and wikistressed, and it is not because I am imagining attacks on my person (or am I? current findings don't say...). That's one thing.
Second (and last). In the end, most us contribute to this project not because they want to be vilified, and I increasingly question why I am still dedicating time to this project, if my "reward" is an ongoing string of ArbCom proceedings. In all the torrent of hate whirling around here for several months, it would be nice if a few kind words were said. It's not like the ArbCom has never done so before: [27], [28], [29], [30]. There are some relevant proposals in the workshop that may be useful, in particular: [31] and [32]. Please note I am not asking for some stellar endorsement. I am not perfect, and thus we have some findings/remedies that showcase my shortcomings, that's only reasonable. But if I am not guilty of most of the things I have been accused of for years, and if in fact I am helpful to this project and the project would benefit from my future contributions as it had in the past, it would be a nice thing to say so, every few years or so...
Of course, I am rather biased here, and the Committee may have reasons for summarizing 4+ years of my activities with some (deserved) admonishments and reminders only. Perhaps indeed I don't deserve anything more, and once the case ends the Signpost summary should indeed say only: "In Piotrus 2 case, editor Piotrus has been admonished to avoid edit warring and not to abuse his admin status". In any case, I'd appreciate if the arbitrators would take a minute or two to consider this. I will await the arbitrator's thoughts. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The previous activity has been restarted in the past few days [33]. Example: [34] Starting with "The polish astronomer claim"-another series of incivil rants, nationalistic claims and opinions inflaming the discussion is started completely disconnected to the article discussed-- Molobo ( talk) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the high quality of Boodlesthecat's actual edits, I'd like to propose mentorship, rather than banning. I have proposed that two experienced editors, User:Avraham and User:Durova, act as mentors, and discussed it with them. Boodlesthecat has himself agreed to such mentorship, and shown himself to be highly responsive to mentoring. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
High quality indeed... I don't think he has started any articles yet, and content edits were definitely partisan. In any case, a mentorship may be considered for users who recognize their errors and admit they could use a mentor, like greg did. Has Boodlesthecat gave any public indication of recognition of his errors? Btw, Jayjg, I know I've asked you before to mentor Boodleshetcat and moderate him, and up till now you have ignored my requests... what made you change your mind? In particular, do you think Boodlesthecat made errors? What were they and how can he improve? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
*Strong Oppose Boodles has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep with a NPOV in many of his edits.
Redman5578 (
talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of Wikipedia's toughest disputes and has a lot of history; it was not an easy decision to agree to this offer. Foremost, the purpose of mentorship is not to shield an editor from the consequences of poor decisions. The purpose of mentorship is to generate a feedback loop that improves the quality of decisions.
For the past year I've mentored Jaakobou, one of the editors in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. He's broadened his editing horizons, contributed DYKs and featured content, and hasn't needed a block since spring. Another editor I've mentored is Cirt--who had collected 7 edit warring blocks on a previous account before he came to me. Cirt turned around to become a prolific featured content creator, an administrator on three WMF projects, an OTRS volunteer, and a member of the arbitration committee on Wikinews. Both of them looked like they were on their way to topic bans before mentorship started.
Not every mentorship turns out so well; I recently walked away from one and certified a user conduct RFC. What Boodlesthecat will get if the Committee accepts this offer is a set of challenges, a sounding board, and a place to blow off steam. Respectfully submitted. Durova Charge! 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair is fair. Nobody can hold Boodlesthecat responsible for the amount of insults thrown at the Polish people by the older generation of Jewish scholars. All he does, is find and repeat them without much of a thought. The lack of perspective in how these quotes are being used in Wikipedia is the hardest to take, but Boodlesthecat's diligence in bringing them in helps to see also the extend of anti-Polish sentiment inside the Jewish community. Links to specific pages in books (which might have escaped prior attention) reveal passages by the accomplished Jewish writers claiming for example that the Poles "were generally unhappy at seeing even a fraction of the Jews still alive" after the war (emphasis mine). Or, that "Polish priests did not save even one Jewish life." I wonder, how could anybody say such a thing with a straight face. And yet, these sort of monstrosities are featured in books by the animators of Jewish life throughout over half a century. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not pre-designed to uphold the balance of truth or weed out extremism supported by reliable sources while giving a green light to quote-farms of biased and normative opinions, added here under the pretext of expanding the articles’ content. I don’t know if anybody can coach any Wikipedian to understand that sort of thing. -- Poeticbent talk 17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What about discussing mentorship for a user who has expressed remorse for his past actions and admitted willingness to work with a mentor? See this thread for more details. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
These look to be stretching the definition of edit warring, and I don't think they warrant the same wording as that of findings stemming from 3RR blocks. The bright line is there for good reasons. In Deacon's case, the reversions were spread out over a two-week period at a single article, involved discussion, and revolved around Piotrus' inclusion of matter from a newspaper that contradicted an academic source. In Irpen's case, which involves Denial of the Holodomor and the Holodomor template, I would like to draw an analogy. If someone were to create a US war crimes template, and then include Highway of Death in that template, would it be inappropriate to contest that article's inclusion until the article and template reached some semblance of consensus? Full disclosure: I have edited Highway of Death; I inserted some references which speak of it as a war crime; but it is not by any means ready for inclusion in such a template. Irpen's alleged edit wars at those articles were likewise spread out over several weeks and were discussed. More seriously, the articles concern what is, by the word's definition, a crime against humanity. It was not unreasonable to seek more discussion and more consensus there, and not unreasonable to ask that the Denial article be extremely high quality before being included in the template. Novickas ( talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Novickas. What is next? Admonishing people for edit warring if they revert tripling of elephants meme? Alex Bakharev ( talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, with all due respect to the author of this remedy (and I absolutely do have utmost respect for his work on the committee): what is this remedy supposed to accomplish? The users of the channel have been reminded time after time not to do all the negative things mentioned in the remedy (it's pretty much there when you join the channel each time). I don't see why this should work if none of the other previous reminders have. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note that some findings would pass with even 1 more abstention - I therefore disagree with the assessment that the Committee has made as much progress as it reasonably can in this case. I've again pinged Charles Matthews on certain sub-findings/findings that lack his votes entirely. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) - Interesting point: are there 11 or 12 active arbitrators on this case? This makes an enormous difference in what does or does not pass. Risker ( talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad and I, both prior ArbCom Clerks, knew that it was important to look at this before the case was officially closed because of the potential miscommunication about abstains and the amount of case proposals. By looking at it now, we can answer questions and make any fixes (if needed) before the cases closes. :-) In the few past days, Newyorkbrad and Charles both sent emails to the Committee about the case closing. There was a reminder to look at the alternative proposals by Newyorkbrad. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It says that Deskana is inactive at the top of this page, making it 11. Is that wrong? -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
|
|
OK, that screwed with my head. If anyone wants to do the remedies for me (just do the left-hand side, then go into notepad and convert all "acnrow" to "acnrow-alt" using find and replace), it'd be much appreciated. Daniel ( talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)