Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: KnightLago (Talk)  Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Archives

1, 2

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

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

Comment on tag team evidence

I find interactions like this to be very suggestive of tag team editing. But then again, the same names frequently occur on both sides of the debate. I would also appreciate if the anti-Russian non-Russian side presented similar "tag-team" evidence from the other side so that they can be compared. Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you did not refer to one side of the debate as the "anti-Russian side". Nobody here, AFAIK, is anti-Russian. This kind of naming is insulting.

talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm very sorry. I'll try not to do that again. Feel free to substitute non-Russian, or "those against Russian nationalism" or whatever. Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So their opponents are Russians or 'those who support Russian nationalism'? Not all of them are Russians and the word 'nationalist' has some negative connotations we should avoid, imho. Alæxis_¿question? 09:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHL: the forces were too uneven; with this or that pro-Soviet editor block occassionally, there was simply no team, at time leaving Russavia all alone. Which brings back the old conflict of consensus vs. NPOV vs. lack of editorial program: if again, as in previous arbcom rulings, the committee uphelds the comtemporary Polish viewpoint, would not it be fairer to openly speak it out at policy level ("yes, American wikipedia shares Polish nationalist POV and the others can take a walk") rather than covertly remove their opponents one by one?

NVO (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Offliner, Russavia and PasswordUsername comprise the core team of the most aggressive tag-team wiki-warriors, for evidence, see Offliner's evidence and you will see these three present in most instances. HistoricWarrior007, Igny, FeelSunny, Shotlandiya and Vlad fedorov also are team members, but aren't as aggressively combative as Offliner, Russavia or PasswordUsername. I'll post additional evidence, but after the weekend, as I'd rather to spend my time in more pleasurable endeavors during the weekend break. --
  talk) 05:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I did not want to present such evidence as not to fuel the wikidrama, but since Cool Hand asked to provide it, this should be possibly done.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely no tag team of the so-called Eastern European mailing list. For example, I've been named as party to this case and consequently a participant of that list, however, more often than not I have voted contrary to the people listed there by Offliner at workshop as main 'culprits'.
It's as clear as day that

criminals has been disseminated and is now 'investigated'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's possible that Miacek has been behaving better than the others. For example, he does not always vote the same way as the others. However, the names listed here always seem to vote in the same way. I think is is highly suspicious when someone like Radeksz (who normally only edits Polish and WWII topics) suddenly appears in an AfD of a Russian article (which he never edited before), and starts voting the same as the other members of the list (often without giving much argumentation for his vote.) The same goes for edit warring. The most disruptive editors in the list seem to be Digwuren, Martintg, Piotrus, Radeksz and Biophys.

Offliner (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That type of behaviour can easily be explained by the use of a watchlist or if users have the habbit of occasionally reading each others work. No maling each other is required for that.

talk) 12:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, that's why I want to get a sample of the "other side" as well. If the baselines are similar, it might be that potential mailing list communication didn't cause more tag teaming than would naturally exist. Or it might be tag teaming on both sides. I'm not sure what closer scrutiny might show. Cool Hand Luke 14:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object calling me "non-Russian" (first thread). But "another side" also can not described as "Russian". "Pro-Putin" - yes. I fixed my evidence statement accordingly.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be talked about, since I'm pretty sure that it's going to. This is potentially the largest scandal since the Essjay thing. Jtrainor (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't let The Media know about this... and we'll be fine. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly enough, Monty Python is not with us anymore... Nobody expects the Polish Cabal!.

NVO (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Except there is no "Polish Cabal" - I'm not even sure if PasswordUsername, Offliner or Russavia ever edited a single article directly related to Poland (Russavia did edit

talk) 02:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Your case.

NVO (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This should not be a scandal because no one in the outside world cares about people sending emails. Just another mailing list? Who cares? But stealing the private emails (apparently by one of wikipedians), posting them publicly, and the willingness by the Arbcom to examine such evidence creates some "juicy" stuff that might be of interest for the journalists. Unfortunately.Biophys (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vague legal threat towards the arbcom. Strange, it's been dozens of posts like the previous one from the team members. Strange, because they do not see it's quite a senseless thing to threat anyone now, when the emails are already used as an evidence. Also quite a provocative thing - to threaten people when you are to blame for trepassing the rules.FeelSunny (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the behavior of these people is quite bizarre. They continue to insist that none of them has done anything wrong and they continue to represent themselves as the sole experts on all topics Eastern European. When explosive evidence of organized and collective deception and rule-breaking on your part appears, that is really not the time to be boasting about how great your edits are and about how even a temporary sanction will be an irreparable loss to all of Wikipedia. I think that's the biggest problem here at this point - not just that the cabal existed or that it used unacceptable amounts of deception to manipulate Wikipedia articles and harass other users, but that they continue to do it, and on top of it they self-righteously insist that their manipulations have actually benefited Wikipedia! It's as if they were caught red-handed on hidden camera robbing a bank and rather than acknowledge that what they did was wrong, they point the finger at the "illegal" actions of the cameraman and then insist that the robbery was justified because they would make better investments with the money than the bank officers. csloat (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like they have learned nothing from all this case so far, no regrets, no remorse. Moreover, they have taken a very agressive stance, and, I beleive, are going to start another mailing list, if not started yet. FeelSunny (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it hits the media, and the media refers to it as a web brigade, well look at

It all depends what kind of media this is going to be. If this is something published in Russian media... would be interesting to read anyway (Please keep me informed; I have seen already something about the Traitor in the internet).Biophys (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Byophys, it's an interesting point: do you consider yourself to be a part of a

Dostoyevsky pen. FeelSunny (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Any hope I had for WP is gone seeing how this unfolds. I will do my best to lever the social media to cover this in any way I can once this ends. At least all those potential editors out there should be aware of the crap they get themselves in with getting involved with WP. I mean, WP considers itself entitled to pass judgment on peoples private e-mails. So stay out of WP if you want to be able to hold opinions and discuss it in private without contempt and a banhammer. This is a message that should be heard. And as a boon, there will be fresh people picking up where the ban hammer struck people fell--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not passing judgment on private emails. This was a semiprivate list, one of whose members made the emails available because the list was being used to orchestrate harassment and manipulation on Wikipedia. Nobody is complaining that the cabal members called other users bad names in their emails to each other; the problem is when they organized harassment campaigns and revert wars and blockings and vote manipulation. csloat (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are the media. Our visibility is greater than many of those who cover us. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all concerned parties: Clerk Daniel is on real-life vacation and hence has withdrawn from clerking this case. Clerk KnightLago is his replacement, assisted by trainee clerk Manning. Manning (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-KnightLago (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Badger Drink

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

A certain meme has already started to spread with regards to this case, stating that the mailing list archive was hacked, then falsified, before being leaked. This meme is catching on through sheer force of repetition, and has already made a sucker out of at least one outside participant above.

At this point in time, the only supporting evidence for this claim is the following line of reasoning: "Certainly nobody from this list would leak its contents with an outsider! The list has been leaked to an outsider, therefore it was leaked by somebody who was not a member of the list! Therefore it was hacked!".

Unfortunately, the premise here (that nobody on the list would share its archive with a non-participant) is completely unverified. Whistle-blowing is hardly a new phenomenon - no matter how gung-ho all members of a group may feel on day one, there's always the chance that eventually, one member will feel disillusioned.

It is my sincere hope that ArbCom not be taken by this smokescreen until substantial, valid evidence is offered to back these claims of hacking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and up to this point there has been no proof of these extraordinary claims of hacking and forgery - no extraordinary proof, no proof at all.

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

What's to be done

Every single remedy and FoF in Piotrus 2 case is outdated and many of them now look not only ridiculous, but positively cruel. The entire case should be declared void. If not, then at the very least victims like Irpen, Lokyz, and perhaps Boodlesthecat, should have their punitive remedies lifted. Ghirlandajo should be praised for his former contributions, and a remedy should be passed urging him that his return to content-editing would be welcomed. And lastly, I, Thatcher, and the few others who now appear in all the ArbitrationEnforcement threads to have credibility should be praised for the effort we've put in and the stress we have endured. The Digwuren case, the plaything of this email list, should similarly be put to the sword and the bad book burned. An all-encompassing new case with a new set of remedies in light of ArbCom's lucky new wisdom should be enacted.

What's more, ArbCom needs to reform itself in certain regards. Beyond the miscarriages of justice, the biggest frustration was the reason these miscarriages happened: the arbs didn't read the evidence, or if they did there was no on-wiki evidence they did, and there was no opportunity to challenge the arbs before they acted. Besides the fact it was obvious to me they didn't from their remedies, there was no participation in any of the workshops, despite the fact the designers knew this was necessary and signaled their intention for this by having separate (in practice almost always empty) arbitrator sections. This is beijg changed anyway if I remember correctly, and if so this is good. That's not the only reason it went wrong though. Just like I said they would, the users in question filled the evidence section with slander and misleading diffs, increasing the workload to overwhelm the arbs ... forcing them to rely more on weak heuristic techniques, such as punishing both sides equally from a sense of "natural justice". At worst, two handfuls of active arbs merely read Kirill's remedies and voted with only cursory glances, trusting Kirill. At best, all of them read the evidence, and few of them understood it, most miraculously coming to the same conclusions as Kirill. All the arbs are intelligent hard working people, but they need to give themselves a chance to avoid normal human frailties which, although safe elsewhere, can be damaging with this kind of power.

Then there's the issue of off-wiki co-ordination. It's not likely that this is the only group, though it is probably the most disreputable and most skilled, and we are very lucky here to have uncovered it. I suggested a while ago on that Arbitration reform thread that admins be allowed to classify the edits of multiple users as one at their discretion (following ArbCom remedies of course, not generally). It wasn't much heeded at the time, being apparently over the top. But with this evidence now, is it really?

Statement by Lysy

I've been involved in Eastern European topics for years here, took part in many contentious disputes, edit wars etc. and never heard of any mailing list so far. My bias is Polish. --Lysy^talk 02:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmabel

I'm remarking here only because I notice User:Biruitorul, whom I've always considered a first-rate and evenhanded contributor, is on the list. Checking the evidence above, the only allegation against him is that he said a user ought not to be blocked for his earlier edits to an article from which he had withdrawn, which sounds reasonable to me in almost any circumstances. Surely it is not a reason for a ban from editing on Eastern European topics, the proposed "remedy".

In fact, I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be the problem here. What is the basis for saying that this particular list of users are involved in a conspiracy? - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, have you taken a moment to actually read the evidence page? Your message makes it sound like you have not. For what it is worth, I found the mailing list comments by Biruitorul extremely disturbing and offensive, particularly his comments about the Kishinev pogrom in message [20090607-0440] where he says (paraphrasing) that the killing of Jews was understandable since they obviously killed Christ, acted prideful, were somewhat distant as a social group, took advantage of other people, and were pro-Stalin and pro-Soviet. But Biruitorul's personal beliefs about Jews is the least of our concerns. Biruitorul used the mailing list to scheme against his perceived opponents on Wikipedia, and posted lists of enemies in messages like [20090609-1540], [20090613-0001], and [20090613-1548]. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be responding to you on this in my evidence. Your evidence is all about wanting to convict someone and nothing about personal anti-Semitic beliefs. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the distractions. This message is a reply to Jmabel regarding Biruitorul. Please feel free to address Biruitorul's comments in message [20090607-0440] if you can, and more importantly, his use of enemy lists in messages like [20090609-1540], [20090613-0001], and [20090613-1548]. Please address this issue. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your own business. Biruitorul is free to think whatever he wishes. I don't share his sentiment, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia and that ArbCom. If you are so disturbed and offended by the messages you were not supposed to read, probably the best solution for you would be not to read them in the first place. Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Same for enemy lists as long as they have no on-wiki ramifications. Colchicum (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formation and use of enemy lists by the Eastern European mailing list has everything to do with Wikipedia, ([20090609-1540], [20090613-0001], [20090613-1548]) especially when those same editors are repeatedly targeted by this group. And, Biruitorul's comments about the Kishinev pogrom ([20090607-0440]) reveal an ongoing and outstanding dispute concerning Polish revisionism in pogram articles like Jedwabne_pogrom, where we find the same editors and issues cropping up. At least we understand these issues more clearly with the benefit of Biruitorul's opinion. It's good to know where you folks really stand. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'm forced to ask: what the hell are you talking about??? What Polish revisionism??? Biruitorul's not even Polish!!! And AFAIK he's never edited Jedwabne pogrom! And by same editors engaging in Polish revisionism I guess you're referring to edits such as this one [8] (again, I note that Viriditas failed to provide any diffs what so ever to justify his rants - so please actually review the diff I'm providing). And quit making up this nonsense about "enemies list" - IIRC there was one instance of an inside-jokey "enemies list" which most people on the mailing list didn't respond to or take seriously.

And I also want to note that you're very very tangentially related to this case, but apparently out of some vendetta based on a bruised ego because some editors here had the gall to disagree with you once or twice in the past, and point out your atrocious behavior at "Human Rights in United States" (where you violated WP:OWN and civility) or your hounding (real hounding, not imagined) of other uninvolved editors, you've appointed yourself as some kind of busy body lynch mob leader.

talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

More distractions. Jmabel asked what the problem was with

User:Radeksz) to target certain editors named on "enemy lists" and to track them down on Wikipedia. Further threads on this topic show that list members tried to find out private information about these users, and in some cases, discussed interfering with their personal lives. We also see how comments by Biruitorul about the role of Jews in the Kishinev pogrom have some currency in continuing disputes related to this list, namely on Jedwabne_pogrom, where allegations of polish revisionism have been made on the talk page. So we see that the Eastern European mailing list was not used for posting photographs of cute, furry bunnies, but for tracking down and eliminating opposition to the EE POV. This includes filing harassing ANI reports, attempting to get editors blocked, stonewalling talk page discussions, trying to find out personal information about editors they disagreed with, discussing ways to harm these editors in real life, and using Wikipedia as a battleground to promote a single POV over others - to the detriment of Wikpedia's core policy of NPOV. During this arbcom evidence-gathering period, we see a tactical strategy by the editors named in this case to delay, deny, and defend their poor behavior, and to date, there is no indication that the Eastern European mailing list will cease to continue functioning in the same way before this case was opened. In other words, nothing has changed. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What "single POV"? Myself and most others hardly have Polish POV. "Trying to find out personal information about editors they disagreed with". How? By reading their minds? But we have real outing of another side. "Discussed interfering with their personal lives"? What exactly do you mean? But there was real interfering with personal lives of another side.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In [20090624-2218] letter your were very specific in your attempts to out Offliner: "he regularly travels to country A", "connected to company B", "may be one of people X, Y or Z". You suggested to nominate for deletion one of the articles, started by Offliner and follow his reaction. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, but discussing who someone might be in private emails is not "outing". If Offliner got "outted" here, it's by the person who got hold of and released the file.

talk) 05:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I submitted an SPI request about Offliner on-wiki because he and Petri_Krohn edited as IPs from two adjacent small towns in South Finland (see the case). Hence my email talk about his travel.Biophys (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the initial issue about User:Biruitorul. I am against using this email archive, but if someone is looking at it, he should simply compile all email threads initiated by this user to see what he was actually doing on the list and why. I should not continue, as not to fuel speculations.Biophys (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Grey Fox-9589

On the tag-teaming

Some of the nationalist users above have provided supposed evidence on how the mail-list users have disrupted articles with tag teaming, other users have attempted to show how this wasn’t always the case and how it was mostly the nationalist camps that had been tag-teaming. I’m not going to go through the effort of debunking all of their evidence, but I just want to clarify some points:

1) Russian nationalist users have been tag-teaming and/or backing each other a lot more extensive than any of the mail-list users.

2) Some of the articles provided by the nationalist users as evidence quite obviously experienced tag-teaming not from the critical users’ side but from the nationalist users’ side. These include articles where these users would start editing the articles much later than the others. I ask the clerks to review their evidence very critically.

3) Many of the nationalist users above have attempted to provide evidence on how disruptive user User:Biophys supposedly had been. It’s important to know that most of this evidence had nothing to do with the mail-list. From the brief look I took in the archives of this list Biophys never really broke any of the rules other than signing up for the list (if that’s a violation of policy). These users are now using this arbcom case to try to get rid of a user who they don’t like. Biophys has in the past been the subject of much harassment / stalking himself. I’m using his case as an example because most of the evidence provided by users does not correspond to the evidence which is the mailing list itself, and only that evidence, I think, should be judged by clerks.

On the outing and future sanctions

So how exactly did the archives leak out to non-admin users? Whoever it was quite obviously acted in the interest of the pro-Putin camps. It should also be considered that User:Alex Bakharev acted unfairly when he sent the mailing list to several administrators, instead of just to Arbcom, and thereby increased the chance that the archives would leak.

All the users who accepted an invitation to the mailing list now have all their private details circling around. Should we just ignore that because the person responsible can’t be caught? At least one of the mail-list users is not going to use his account anymore and question is if he ever wants to edit on wiki again, all because of that.

I ask the clerks to certainly take into account how the mail-list users have already been punished quite severely by this, when deciding on possible sanctions.

Clerk note - To prevent confusion, clerks do NOT decide sanctions. Only the Arbitration Committee can decide if sanctions should apply and what nature they should take. Manning (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future of wiki in this field

Please note that if many of the mail-list users are going to get severe sanctions it could severely undermine the wiki project. Russian-related articles are going to remain unreliable for a long time. New critical users won’t stand a chance against nationalist tag-team users who would have a free hand on the projects. This is something several administrators have pointed out and it should definitely be taken into account.

That doesn’t mean I believe sanctions shouldn’t be handed out to some. I just think that it should be confirmed / taken into account that the mail-list users have been editing under a very difficult climate and that Russian projects are going to need a lot of arbitration in the future.

What is the deadline for submitting evidence? I think it should be indicated at the top of the page. Colchicum (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - Arbcom has not yet decided on a deadline. As soon as it is known to me I shall post it at the top of the page. Manning (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There never is a strict deadline per se; no evidence will ever be excluded because it arrived part a certain point (though, obviously, by the time the case has been decided it's too late for the case itself).

In practice, however, by the time voting on the decision starts it's less likely that new evidence will be seen by the arbitrators unless it is both compelling and pointed out to the committee; more as a factor of where attention is than because of its specific value. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of this case, there is now a lot of evidence about the evidence (meta-evidence) and I'm curious if this is acceptable for inclusion on the evidence page in the form of diffs. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally any on-wiki diff that you can argue is relevant is permissible. Evidence from off-wiki sources (eg. specific messages from the alleged archive) have thus far been permitted as long as no personal information is divulged and readers are not given information on how to access the archive. General argument and non-specific rebuttals are less likely to survive. Manning (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I submit a motion about removal of all references to off-wiki evidence from the public display? I do not mean personal information, but any reference to the potentially stolen private archive in Evidence section. I would tell the following:

Dear arbitrators, I know that you do not like reading other people's emails. You do it because you believe this is your duty. But it is not. You have now enough on-wiki evidence to ban or restrict any user actively involved in this case. By not referring to private emails you will only make your decision and this project less prone to the future criticism by the press or any other sides. Please look at last comment by Durova in Evidence section.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk response: The best approach would be to lodge it as a request for a motion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop. I recommend you draft it in the language of a formal motion (see examples at the Workshop page) and then request an arbitrator to consider putting it forward for a vote. I have no opinion as to whether an arbitrator will agree to do so, however. Manning (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to draft it better. Maybe someone could help? There are other related questions involved. For example, someone made unsubstantiated claims/opinions about certain WP editors [9], but the claims were made privately in emails, and they did not result in anything on-wiki. Would Arbcom penalized people for making such claims privately? We need some clarification about this. If Arbcom wants to consider such claims, then the person who made them will make even more claims about said editors during this case, which leads to unnecessary escalation of conflict. I also tried to discuss this here. Biophys (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that one would attempt to remove all references to what this case is actually about. I say don't do it-- keeping them from actually being quoted in full on the wiki is sufficient. This strikes me as being in the same bad taste as all the other proposals and attempts to attempt to exclude the emails as evidence. I'd say concerns about outing at this point are pretty much moot-- the chicken's flown the coop and the emails are publically available in multiple locations on the internet at this point. As long as people arn't obnoxious about it on-wiki, I don't see the need to change how they're being displayed now. Jtrainor (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Then I will not file the motion. Of course, the concerns about outing are pretty much moot at this point because the outing had already happened. But I would like to have a clarification about the email talk that did not result in anything on-wiki. Will this be considered by Arbcom as something incriminating? My first reaction is not to answer anything of that kind in Evidence.Biophys (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a particular discussion isn't about something wiki-related, I don't see why it would be posted as evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's "wiki-related" mean in this context? Is email talk that did not result in anything on-wiki "wiki-related" or is it just talk?

talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I provided already a diff (see above) to make crystal clear wht I mean. Here it is again: [10]. Should I respond to this? I do not think so, but I want to know what Arbcom thinks.Biophys (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I am not going to respond because everything I said in private emails was my private business. I did not "conspire" against editors in the diff, and I would be happy to collaborate with them in the future.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I was unblocked by

Dojarca: Radeksz: you can add any reliable source, but not Dyukov - of course I said no such thing. And Dyukov is not a reliable source. Ugh - just click the diff he provides to see what I actually said [11].

Re: Termer -- a quick search of the archive reveals that Termer, while not on the list, was considered by listmembers a co-conspirator -- while I don't see evidence that Termer actually WAS used to get around the rules, but in 20090610-1054 and 20090606-1024 it appears that that is exactly what is being contemplated. Whether that's actually evidence for anything is another question but it is telling that listmembers will blow off such things as "just talk" without ever acknowledging that they agree that what they are talking about doing is destructive to the Wikipedia project. That's what is overall most disturbing here. csloat (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this comment was removed from the evidence page. Manning (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not a member of the EE mailing list and I am not a part in this case. I therefore request that the "evidence" presented against me by Dojarca, which has nothing to do with anything, is removed from this page. If he thinks I have caused oh-so-terrible disruption on some page because I have reverted back from "German" to "Nazi" he can report me on the ANI board or wherever is that appropriate. (But frankly it's not even clear to me why the word "Nazi" troubles him so much, I have a million books about WW2 and i can provide million examples that the word "Nazi" is used very often especially for the German officers who, as everybody knows, even saluted with the right arm extended and the famous Nazi greeting: "Heil, Hitler!"). Loosmark (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk response: The chief purpose of all of the evidence given for this case is to examine the actions of those who are alleged to have participated in off-wiki coordination. For this purpose the evidence by Dojarca that you have cited *may* have relevance and so will not be struck.

If it came to pass that ARBCOM decided to independently review this alleged misconduct of yours, you would be formally notified in advance and given every opportunity to present your case. However until such a time comes about, I do not see any reason to distress yourself over this. Manning (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the accusations that I have caused disruption to wikipedia and that I have broken my topic ban have nothing to do with this case. It also puts me in some sort of Kafkaien situation that i'm being accused of sth but I am unable to answer it, something which I would be able to do had the accusations been raised in an appropriate venue. Please at least remove the false allegations that I have edit warred and broke topic bans. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark - If I were to attempt to go through these pages and remove every false allegation that had been made against just about anybody by just about everybody else, I would be at it for days. My advice to you is simply to relax and to ignore the allegations against you as nothing more than more noise in a very noisy case. Manning (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information who suscribed, protected information or not?

And:

Is the information who was discussed, protected information or not?

I am not interested in the real-life names of these people. Neither do I want to know where they live, (I did find it funny that they accused me of being a Western intellectual who did not know what he was talking about, considering the majority of the participants in this debate on both sides obviously does not live in the country they are defending) or what their job is.

I think I would like to know whether I was discussed. The problem with this arbitration is that one side cannot possibly give evidence in a good way, because they do not know who to give evidence against.

Perhaps giving evidence is silly, because it shows you care, and therefore are not uninvolved. I know some people who have been involved in sideways related discussions with people who are (or seem to be) subscribers and who probably have no idea that this sort of thing was going on.

Paul, you claim in your evidence that I was instrumental in "driving you off the project", yet I don't recall having interacted with you very much in the past, except for an ANI report in which you piled on in support of Irpen in an attempt to game the system to get a conviction[12]. Do you have any understanding of

talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As of today, my email accounts that I used to connect to wikipedia have been disabled (I stored my wiki password there).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - Arbcom is now aware of this. Thank you for advising. Manning (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.K. wrote this on the evidence page: Soon his associates user:Jacurek, user:Loosmark chimed in with "complains". Admin Sandstein noting that Polish opponent made unfortunate comment, rebuked Polish cabal members:Jacurek, Loosmark and Radeksz, you contribute to the battleground atmosphere by loudly taking offence at trivia of this sort instead of assuming good faith and carrying on with the substantial discussion. By this conduct, all of you are causing that discussion to generate more heat than light.

What happened is that I found Matthead's comment outrageous and when I went to Sandstein's talk page to bring that to his attention but Radeksz already made a comment there. There was absolutely no "coordination", just several people independently finding the remarks about Nazis really bad taste. And personally I think admin Sandstein made a mistake back then, trying to make the Nazis look better, even if indirectly, should not be tolerated in any shape or form. (Also looking at it now it's not even clear to me what Sandstein meant with assuming good faith comment as Mathead's statement was ludicrous regardless of any assumptions.) Loosmark (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that Anti-Nationalist's recent activity per my introduced evidence be examined. These proceedings are still under way and I can only take this sort of (my perception) affront as (my perception) a premature declaration of open hunting season on individuals of Baltic heritage. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This generalization is at least as bad as "EEML members were attacking editors of Russian heritage". (Igny (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't start these proceedings, Igny. But as long as my edits are presented in edit warring when I consider them countering attack content, when I see (what I consider) provocations continue, I regret I am bound to respond when editors express their content "concerns" in the form of WP:OR accusations of Nazi collaboration.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain what the fact that I used to edit Encyclopedia Dramatica has to do with anything? I used to edit there as an IP a while ago. Is this more bad-faith of some sort? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to edit Encyclopedia Dramatica as an IP, you have to be a registered user. What was your Username on Encyclopedia Dramatica?--

talk) 19:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it? I haven't edited it since 2007 or so. Biophys asked about my Wiki experience – I told him that I'd edited as an IP for quite a while, and that I'd enjoyed making some edits to other Wikis. (It might have been Uncyclopedia, for that matter: it was one of the parody Wikis.) What's the great evil I've done now? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to ignore any inquiries regarding your off-wiki activities, especially inquiries being made by those who aren't in any authoritative position and who you feel may have unfriendly motives. Such questions are inappropriate and irrelevant to anything related to wikipedia or this arbom case. LokiiT (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only provided this diff [13] because Anti-Nationalist accused Martintg of outing at the ANI. Was it relevant to the case? If it was not, what was the reason for starting this thread? Biophys (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that Martintg went as far as to put my old answer to you in his evidence page, and I'm really puzzled why that is, like what exactly my admission of editing at other Wikis is supposed to prove. I am still waiting for an explanation of how this is relevant. Are you just digging up any material you can besmirch people with – even if it's some old work at a humor wiki? That dredging this crap up passes for evidence is saddening – and I honestly didn't expect some to be going as low. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of Encyclopedia Dramatica, which features a cesspool of expletives directed against the mailing list participants. Please tell me how can such a thing be treated differently from the illegally obtained off-wiki archive being discussed here, in terms of ethical standards of our own editors contributing there. As far as I'm concerned, the verbal abuse and their outings ought to be mentioned in ArbCom Evidence along with monikers such as Bantustan, Doctor Da, and Challenger (seemingly untraceable), because of how it reflects on the moral climate of this case (also triggered by a single external source). With ED entered into evidence, this arbitration could be thrown out entirely on ethical grounds, providing that our real lives mattered. --Poeticbent talk 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And that has what to do with presenting Dramatica as evidence against myself? Shit, I thought you guys were against guilt by association. Well, in some cases, then! I once said I'd edited Encyclopedia Dramatica, and so... so... Go on, explain yourself, Poeticbent. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about you. This is about Encyclopedia Dramatica per section title above. Please don't take it personally. --Poeticbent talk 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha – but then if it's not about me, I can't see why it was brought up by Martintg and Biophys. If you're saying that I posted some crap about you guys on Encyclopedia Dramatica, it should go entirely without saying that you do need to show some evidence, for I have a hunch that the great lot of us Wiki readers are as nonplussed by the unimpressive rhetoric of "proof by mere assertion" and "proof by innuendo" as I am right now. No such content was posted about you by yours truly. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Nationalist, I suggest you take your issue to Martin. Regarding Poeticbent' remark, I want to say the ED article is precisely why ArbCom can not toss this case out, exactly because lives of WP contributors are at stake. The final decision should worded harshly enough to prevent others repeating your mistake. Ignoring the issue by ArbCom (what you seem to suggest) would only create more drama on ED and could make WP a laughingstock for all. Pity you still do not realize the damage you have unwittingly done to WP credibility. (Igny (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Any "damage" to WP by ED is not my fault or that of any other EEML participant. Let's not go there.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) To anti-Nationalist's/PasswordUsername's (increasingly far) above, perhaps a finding of "no guilt by association" on either side of the conflict would be a good start at engendering an assumption of good faith.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ED cesspool and the EEML case

I’m wondering whether anybody here is planning on entering ED into evidence, and whether ArbCom is willing to accept that? The similarities in terms of what is, and is not acceptable as evidence drawn from external sources are striking. Both links: one to EEML download, and the other to ED relevant page ought to be excluded in these proceedings due to Wikipedia’s own sense of moral responsibility. Meanwhile, some of our colleagues with whom we interact here on daily basis have gone on a terrible rampage similar to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on-and-off wiki. They are taking a despicable revenge on their own EEML opponents. – We cannot assume the NIMBY attitude here and pretend not to notice the pathological nature of their actions and the real scope of damages they inflict. Likewise, we cannot carry a discussion here about diffs as if nothing happened.

The main contributor to ED cesspool of expletives is User:Long_term_abuse ("throw these Jews in the oven", adding telephone numbers) followed by Party_shaker exposing real names and addresses of list members, User:Wikistalin posting their headshots and places of residences, User:Bantustan who adds how we sign our emails exactly (there's only one way to know that) and provides daily updates, User:Doctor Da (explaining why personal info matters: "So They Can Be Killed"), and so on. Please try to wake up people! --Poeticbent talk 19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? The fact that crap exists on ED is completely irrelevant to this case. I would expect they would make similar hash and venom out of any private communication that ended up in their hands however the means ("for the lulz!"). I completely fail to see how that could be germane to the case at hand, however, save perhaps as a dire warning that disclosing personal information on the 'net is never entirely safe— there is no such thing as inviolate anonymity. — Coren ^(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any WP editors are engaged in rabid off-Wiki slander of EEML members that would be significant. It's germane because EEML members are being accused of planning the personal harassment of individuals in evidence in these proceedings—a wholly ridiculous charge, while those same EEML members are being harassed, for real, on the Internet, in their personal lives, in the most vile terms imaginable.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re to Coren: Until we know exactly who and why committed the outing of EEML members, it remains possible that Arbcom members are being used by certain outside and possibly inside players you know nothing about. Let's assume for a second that I am right in the Evidence section (and I simply know more than anyone of you on the matter), would not this influence the outcome of the case? Biophys (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's relevant to the decision in this case (or, at least, I fail to see how it could be): what is under examination is behavior that occurred before the leak. That doesn't mean that there is nothing that could be done, however. Certainly, if we had evidence of a Wikipedia editor having committed the bile to be found on ED we might want to do something about it; but in all honesty, short of an admission, that's not very likely to happen. — Coren ^(talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken, but if the proceedings are regarding the integrity or not of individuals, that is, was the EEML created in good faith for off-Wiki discussion or in bad faith for on-Wiki disruption (note evidence largely presented along the lines of past conflicts), then yet another attack on the integrity of those individuals rather speaks to the ends some have been demonstrated to go to in order to smear the individuals in question—and taken pains to do it in real life.

     For example, I would like to see some assessment as to the merits of Offliner's characterization of my edits versus my characterization (in response) of those same edits. Am I edit-warring per Offliner or is Offliner creating attack content which I removed and/or balanced? I see a lot of disparaging of EEML members including dismissing them as a bloc of meatpuppets—all absent of any characterization of whether their individual or collective editorial positions are reasonable or "disruptive."  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the answer by Coren was "no". It would not really matter if the archive was hacked, intercepted or whatever. That could be any kind of evidence: phone calls taped or papers from my desk faxed. This is good to know but too late. I am sure even Piotrus did not realize that. We are not agents of outside influence organizations like CAMERA. One must place a big banner for every newcomer to see: "Arbcom does not respect the privacy of your communications. All your personal correspondence can be stolen and publicly debated as evidence if you made at least one edit on this site. Please continue editing at your own risk". Only after doing this you have moral right to publicly consider our private correspondence as evidence.Biophys (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again we run in circles. Could you present an evidence proving that the archive was "hacked, intercepted or whatever"? From which end should we break eggs? Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about hacking. I do not even dispute the view by Coren that it does not matter who and how placed this archive in the open access outside this project (although that makes some difference). Anyone can read this archive now including arbitrators. But I object to using and discussing our private correspondence during these public hearings because none of us gave permission to do so. I am not talking about any legal problems, but about the fairness and moral aspects of this, at least without the banner described above. If someone must be sanctioned, please do it only based on the on-wiki evidence, but it would be then very difficult to justify so severe punishment of Piotrus and Martintg.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding hacking, I did note that the mailing list was broken for some period of time right after the last message which appears in the archive (the only time I ever received a notice of same).
   Regardless, Biophys' point is:

• on-Wiki conduct is the only evidence that means anything (for example, I've already indicated that accusations that EEML members were seriously planning to harass individuals in their personal lives is a truly preposterous leap of bad faith, accusations of lesser offenses are no less egregious leaps of bad faith)
• whether the list existed or not or what was stated in personal correspondence or not is immaterial

So, given that:

• there was no perceived change in on-Wiki conduct as compared to prior (based on the numerous accusations EEML "proves" there's been a list for years, blah blah blah when there wasn't)
• there was no on-Wiki conduct which requires off-Wiki coordination to explain it (given how many editors watch how many articles and keep tabs on activities, that is, the "simplest" answer is not a "conspiracy")
• the existence of off-Wiki communication is being summarily branded as having come into existence to disrupt Wikipedia with no evidence to support that conclusion ("private communications means you MUST be conspiring")

let's just stick to the evidence of edits done on-Wiki and declare who is being disruptive. Period. Trashing individuals based on interpretations based on a priori assumptions of bad faith is what is immoral.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - I've erased a completely unnecessary discussion between vlad_fedorov and Vecrumba. I've also decided to case ban Fedorov for a week and formally warn Vecrumba as a result. Vlad is being banned for a whole series of inflammatory statements, which inevitably lead to conflict. Vecrumba is warned for participating in this unecessary exchange, despite knowing better. Please note that any comments or criticism concerning a banned user are strictly forbidden until the ban is concluded and the user can return to defend themselves. (Affected editors may alert me via my talk page). Manning (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grow thicker skin

The fact that ED is involved is irrelevant, chummers. Fuck, I even have a page there. But do I bitch out every person who ever edited that page and accuse them of outing me? No. ED is a nonissue. Grow thicker skin and get used to it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if we all grew thicker skins the ArbCom's case load would be cut in half. However see

talk) 19:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any evidence that WP editors are disparaging or outing the list members on ED? If not, it's a nonissue. Being mentioned on ED is not, in and of itself, harassment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - Jeremy: you seem to be a newcomer to the discussion pages for this case, so you may be unaware of what an *extremely* tight leash I run in terms of civility and appropriate conduct. I do not tolerate even remotely inflammatory language.

I have no issue with the content of your comments above, but to maintain decorum in this highly emotive case I have had to clamp down even on seemingly trivial things such as overly sarcastic comments. I won't make you refactor any of the above, but consider yourself advised as for future conduct. Manning (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've commented on the discussion pages for this case shortly after it started, but I will bear in mind my tone, Manning. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Manning (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one needs very thick skin. I could not even read ED after looking at their images of assholes, naked children, and Kangaroo fucking with real people names on them, not mentioning so called "fagots" and fascists. I went to a similar Russian site called "wikireality" and found numerous attack pages on ruwiki checkusers and administrators who are not working there anymore. The site explains who slept with whom on wiki (with suggestive photo of people involved) and provides a list of alleged homosexuals on the project. It is harassment. But to be objective, the outing did not happen in ED site. It took place right here.Biophys (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be even more objective, some of the editors who were outed, decided to bend

WP:COI. The Internet's a rough place, like the Wild, Wild, West, and not everything that's said in Wikipedia City, stays in Wikipedia City; whether that's fortunate or unfortunate, depends on how much one likes WWW, and one's lifeviews. But ArbCom need not be blamed for the mistakes of editors who leave their personal data all over Wikipedia, edit in controversial articles, use what other editors perceive as inflammatory tactics, gang up on other editors, and then wonder why they're exposed. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but it needs to be said for the newer editors so that they don't suffer the same fate. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On this, I'd actually go the other way; putting your own real name behind your Wiki edits, and taking the risk of revealing enough information so that unscrupulous persons can harass you in RL should be a clear message about how seriously you take your reputation and hence how seriously you take working on the encyclopedia and its goals. In a way you're right - given my Wikipedia username, anyone with a basic knowledge of Slavic languages could've tracked me down anyway. At least that's what I like to tell myself in the light of the massive outing of personal info that's occured here. But this brings up another point - the fact that quite a few members of the mailing list were willing (had the guts, to be precise, given the current Wiki climate) to edit Wikipedia under their real names (or under names which could be easily "deciphered" into real names) says something substantial about who's operating under good faith here. I note here that the only person I notice "on the other side" who is doing anything remotely similar is, um ... Vlad Fedorov. Everyone else could be just ... anyone else.

talk) 08:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Only 4 out of 17 people used their real names from your side, not that it matters to me, because I'm from the debating school where your arguments count; not your votes, not how you sign your arguments, but the sheer quality of your arguments is what truly matters. The rest is just decoration. 68.164.150.133 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain people who don't want busted tactics exposed. My proposal is this: the Cabal E-mails show a myriad of clever tactics. Why don't we allow the publication of these tactics? No names; no mention of how the tactics were used. But just the tactics themselves, like for instance the 3RR rule.

Tactic: pick an editor; revert his edit without any reason. He comes back and reverts you. Then have another person revert it, and provide a B/S reason. He comes back and reverts it. After this another editors posts on his talkpage, to avoid breaking the 3RR rule. Then have yet another person revert it, and provide a semi-silly reason. If that editor doesn't revert, he feels like shit in RL. If the editor reverts, he gets nailed with the 3RR rule, and look, he ignored the warning too.

Why not expose all of these tactics? Or am I getting a 2 month topic ban for exposing that tactic too? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, Offliner presented plenty of evidence of myself and others "edit warring" conveniently leaving out that it was his edits that started chains of events with his attack content. I'll be glad to discuss "tactics" with you when you next return here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not trying to say that his edits "started" a chain of reverts with you guys because you showed up together to fight Offliner..? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note - @Anti-Nationalist: I have struck your comment because Vecrumba will not be able to respond to it, due to being under a case ban. Manning (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be a joke. Of course the most "clever" tactics was to create an email list and invite some barely known people, instead of simply talking over the phone as any normal conspirator does. Someone even suggested to invite

User:NVO to the list. When I said in April that everything may be public one day, the consensus was that we are not doing anything illegal, so let's continue.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I said exposure of all tactics, I never said anything about "clever" tactics. Good try Biophys. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barely known people or some of the most virilent anti-Russian Baltic/Polish nationalist editors out there? Also, what type of conspirator uses the telephone to talk on? --

I'm chanting as we speak 04:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, don't go around calling people "nationalist".

talk) 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Russavia. Please understand this, finally. None of the mailing list members are anti-Russian, in any way, form or shape. Anti-Soviet, yes, but very definitely not anti-Russian. Claiming the anything else is just bad faith slander and insult. --Sander Säde 09:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sander - didn't you guys try to claim amnesty on the basis of countering a super-duper-secret pro-Russian Organization, that you have yet to prove exists? And now you're claiming you're not anti-Russian? You're just here to counter a pro-Russian Organization, but you are clearly not anti-Russian, riiight. Anyways, since no one in ArbCom is objecting to me exposing tactics, I'm going to make a nameless compilation. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SanderSade, noone is calling you a racist. When they call you list guys anti-Russian, they mean you are against Russia as a country, not Russians as an ethnos.FeelSunny (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend creating it in your user space and linking to it here for discussion. Otherwise, it might be deleted. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no such claim for amnesty has been done, please link the diff or apologize. I think it would be rather dumb to do so, as if it were true, our "opposition" would be... you know, smarter and not so childish - and not openly racist. And you seem to be mixing up anti-Soviet and anti-Russian in a very bad way - can you actually distinguish between the two? Soviet Union is not Russia. --Sander Säde 09:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that people react to this whole "exposing tactics" thing far too seriously. HistoricWarrior007 recently thoroughly "busted" and "exposed" my supposed "Kamikaze tactics" in this interesting comment [14]. Despite all the accusations he made against me (I listed most in my reply [15], both comments were later removed by admin), I still find his whole comment pretty amusing. I suggest people to treat any similar "exposing" by HW007 with some healthy scepticism and humour, instead of getting all defensive ;) --Staberinde (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At

Regardless of Durova's involvement, it would appear that the group may be targeting current arbs who voted against them in the proposed decision and candidates in the ongoing election that they have issue with. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? How in the world do you get that?

Radeksz, you should ask for oversight on the evidence diff immediately. It looks like the subsequent one was deleted, but this one wasn't. There is personal information there that shouldn't be here. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cut the "it would appear that the group may be targeting current arbs" speculation. Perhaps let's just add plotting the downfall of western civilization as we know it. Because ArbCom has not yet ruled we're lacking drama?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia is correct. About 26 hours ago I received an apology from Radeksz for the accidental cut and paste from his gmail screen. I promptly contacted the Arbitration Committee because that little molehill ran the chance of getting mistaken for a mountain. Of course it would be ridiculous for the EE mailing list to be inviting new members now, or for anyone to accept if they did. Durova³⁷¹ 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"* Starting from 16 November, the team members are discussing Arbitrators and recursals. On 18 November, FloNight says that Piotrus has launched a back-channel attempt to eliminate an arbitrator from voting. [16]. Was this assault coordinated on the secret list? If Piotrus launched his attack after 16 November, this may be evidence that they did."

Introducing comments already made at the proceedings by someone else as evidence couched in speculation is a bit much.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]