Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision/Archive 5

This page is an current talk page .

Request to clerks

Could you please keep discussion here at least on topic of the section titles, if not the Proposed Decision. The Evidence and Workshop talk pages would be more appropriate. Thanks. --

talk

) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As per my note above, I have given all of the leeway I am prepared to give and strict topic enforcement in now in operation. If a comment is not directly related to the subject heading then it will be subject to either refactoring or removal. Thread drift is not being tolerated either - if you have a specific point to raise (which had also better be related to the general topic of "Proposed Decision") then create a new subject heading.

If things are a concern and a clerk does not appear to be around, please alert the clerks-l list clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Manning (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The FoF "Disruption", which deals with Martintg, is currently in a sub-heading under the section dealing with "Tymek". Could you fix the heading hierarchy please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I couldn't immediately make sense of this. Some links would be appreciated. Manning (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice there were several headings "Disruption". I was talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Disruption_3, currently section 3.2.10.2. It's a sub-section filed under the wrong parent section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suspect this is a drafting error by Coren. I'm not entirely sure of his actual intent here, so I shall bring it to his attention immediately. Thanks for alerting me. Manning (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Headings have been rectified by NYB. Manning (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the remedies which refer to two penalties, the words "consecutive with" are used in 3, 5, 7. This should be either "concurrent with" (i.e. served at same time as) or "consecutive to" (i.e. after the end of). I'm not sure which the framer intended. Orderinchaos 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note I have emailed Arbcom re this matter. Manning (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BTW good work with the clerking here - it's a job which, if done properly, probably attracts more brickbats than bouquets, and this case is probably one of the more challenging ones. Orderinchaos 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - grammar issues rectified by NYB. Manning (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Any newer time frame? Not much posted yet by the Arbs. Also, could we see some explanation about why quotes are not being permitted in the evidence section? Someone has pointed out that they were used in the evidence section of the CAMERA case, not by arbs. Why are direct quotes not preferable? Novickas (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why the usual Workshop process wasn't engaged I suppose. --

talk

) 05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - The time frame has now been updated to 27 Oct 2009. Because of the difficult nature of this case, the time frame may again be extended, should the Arbcom adjudge it necessary. Manning (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note = as per the OP, only replies by arbitrators (including former arbs who choose to comment) will be retained in this thread.

Given the findings of fact and the prior context, including multiple Arbitration cases with many editors on various topic restrictions, revert limits and other sanctions, the proposed remedies seem incredibly lenient. (I'm interested in the Arbitrators' rationales, other parties need not reply.) Thatcher 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If people purely consider politically correct conduct, political power and all that, yes. Whether being sanctioned correlates to POV-pushing, racial chauvinism or anything, I don't think that was considered. It would be the same if the tables were reversed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

While I realise Arbcom is all volunteers with busy schedules, it has been almost a week (give or take) since there was any Arb activity on this case and even then it consisted of rubberstamping the proposed principles. Could one or more of the Arbs (which have not completed voting) throw us a bone and let us know your still there? Perhaps even say a few words along the lines of, 'Having difficulty sorting out 'X' issue, expect to vote on 'X' soon'.

This is a complicated and unusual case, so obviously some patience is nessesary. The issue, however, is that leaving the 'participants' in this odd wiki-limbo is turning the talk page into a festering wound. There are what, four warnings for civility already? I'm not saying their behavior was justified, but that a little progress, and dare I say a conclusion, would settle a few matters. I don't think there is much value in having 5 more threads about how lenient/harsh arbcom is being to the list members/others and how unfair that is. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk comment - I fully appreciate your concerns. I can at least assure you that there has been enormous amounts of activity on this case in recent days - just most of it is behind the scenes. Due to privacy issues it was made clear from the outset that much of the deliberations would be offline. (I am not privy to the actual ArbCom discussions, but I am kept aware of the general workflow).

On one hand there is the overwhelming desire of the community for a resolution, but on the other there is the critical need to make balanced and well-reasoned decisions. Hence this case is a very difficult one for all concerned. The involved parties are in the situation of having to sit around and wait and no-one is pretending that is a good thing. In defence of everyone, given the difficult circumstances I feel that people have more or less conducted themselves with acceptable decorum, and that is to the credit of all.

I've got a request in to ArbCom for a revised decision date and as soon as I hear something I will pass it on. I wish I could offer more at this point, but I can't. Manning (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(od, edit conflict with the above) Hello, our anonymous friend dedicated recently (it appears exclusively, for more than the last month) only to making observations regarding the EEML case. Is there a train that's leaving the station that we're about to miss? Quite frankly, I'm glad to see there is not rush to judgement, this would appear to indicate arbcom is not just taking everything at face value, particularly all the a priori convictions of bad faith based on the mere existence of the list. When arbcom is ready, they will be ready. They are volunteers, after all, let's not make their task more thankless by badgering them for a response. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As to the threads about lenient and harsh, I find them quite revealing. No need to cut the debate off prematurely. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, Manning. They should take as much time as they need, and I do expect they would need extra time. Was just looking for a break in the deafening silence, is all. Your word is good enough for me that the activity is bustling. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Semantic: Dear anon, it's rather a deafening bang on the ears, not a "deafening silence". After a very serious bang, there is indeed an apparent silence: contusion. :) Dc76\^talk 12:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's from the English saying "the silence is/was deafening" :-) It's yet to be seen whether we end, per TS Eliot, with a bang or a whimper. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo Manning's comment above. KnightLago (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would request that ArbCom consider very carefully whether it is necessary to both desysop Piotrus and topic ban him. He has often been a voice of reason, restraining some of his co-nationals (and even if the evidence were to show that this was an act, it was still a service to Wikipedia). Furthermore, depriving him of the tools will be enough to prevent abuse of them; that seems to be the weight of the complaints against him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk comment Septentrionalis - this observation has been raised previously. I am not striking it as I believe it was made in good faith. However I will note that over the course of this case any statement that appears to be in support of Piotrus seems to open the floodgates for a wealth of "anti-Piotrus" comments.

So for the record:

1. it is openly acknowledged that there are numerous participants in this discussion who completely disagree with your position.
2. Any subsequent comments in this thread that breach the rules on civility will be dealt with severely.
3. I am disallowing the creation of any further threads that support/criticise the potential ArbCom actions against Piotrus unless they can convincingly demonstrate some new aspect not previously discussed.

Manning (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the 15 months might be more than a bit extreme. I could see imposing a 1RR or even 0RR restriction on him, but have to wonder if a complete topic ban will even be productive. I have to think that such a long ban would have the very real chance of inciting further off-wiki e-mail exchanges with other editors, and wonder whether that is really what we'd be looking for here. Piotrus, even though I have disagreed with him on occasion, and think such plotting is completely unacceptable, is someone I think we are probably in the long run better off with than without. And, well, as someone who has had a few run-ins with him (2 in think), I'd feel better seeing him posting comments to others on their talk pages where I can see them than wondering hom many e-mails might be getting exchanged off-wiki. I don't really trust many people much further than I can see them, and I really have to wonder whether making it impossible to see an editor who is not being permanently banned is in our best interests. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I could find examples of Piotrus' intervention towards compromise (it may vary by subject; I have seen much more about German-Polish than Lithuanian-Polish issues), but I would hope that ArbCom would consider the word of an editor, experienced in naming disputes, but not of any of the Eastern European national factions, and might prefer it to more evidence. Yes, this is in good faith; this section is my first comment on the case, produced by surprise at the proposed decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Piotrus has reached out to me on Lithuanian-Polish conflicts where I'm seen as not having any bias, so active there too but not in the same manner, as he realizes he is one of the involved parties. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to just look at which edits are problematic, POV violating etc on either side. Non-spontaneity is a very poor measure of POV/OR violations, etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that wikipedia only loses by banning Piotrus from everything Eastern-Europe related for so long period.--Staberinde (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From my own standpoint, and this I am sure is some sort of WP:CHARACTERFAILING, there is bait which I cannot leave unmolested if I believe ignoring an overt provocation will only encourage more of the same. This is a predilection which I have developed over years editing on WP, based on past experience, one which I believe is shared by other editors. To the question at hand: what would be suggested as a more appropriate and more constructive response to provocation? There seems to be little else, formally, other than filing arbitration requests or incident requests. Or requesting admin intervention—all of which can be attacked by the provocateur as "attack the editor to control content", or when editors show up along predictable lines to defend they get denounced as "it's the EEML web brigade/ cabal/ meatpuppets again, ban then all permanently this time." (I regret to draw the parallel to my first visit to Latvia, after independence, overhearing one individual speaking to another, in Russian, on the street in Rīga, "Next time we'll send them ALL to Siberia.")

There is a case of what I take as sheer provocation going on now where I (or anyone else) have been essentially invited to escalate through existing channels. I am intentionally NOT mentioning the article. If you figure out what the article is and who I refer to, I am asking that NOT to be discussed. I have bait dangling in front of me. What actions are appropriate next steps which will NOT be immediately decried as a "personal attack"? I'LL BE BACK IN A COUPLE OF DAYS TO CHECK, WEEKEND WIKIBREAK AFTER THIS EDIT. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Two words: step back. If that is not enough to cool the situation, offer a sincere apology for your contribution to the conflict. If you still wonder what to do next, take a deep breath. If you think something requires a strong response, calm down first. If you still think you have to respond, delete your first impulsive writing as inappropriate. In some cases delete your second attempt to write something as well before submitting. If after these steps you still feel the eagerness to write something, sleep on that feeling. In most cases, these actions are both appropriate and are not a personal attack. I hope that helps.(Igny (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Thank you, Igny, but this is regarding a discussion of article content which is has not turned personal, but which (my perception) tends toward the creation of attack content, hence my request regarding the proper avenue(s) to handle it. In these proceedings, removing or even balancing attack content has been characterized as disruptive edit warring.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To all concerned:

1. The arbitrators have been extremely active on this case for the last two weeks. However the discussion and debate is happening primarily offline, which explains their apparent absence from on-wiki.
2. The chief hold-up to a quick resolution is the sheer volume of the evidence. (I doubt that anyone is surprised by this). All the evidence must be read and (in some cases) cross-referenced against opposing claims, and then discussed (potentially at length) within the committee.
3. As it is impossible to predict what evidence discussion will need to occur, this makes supplying a firm "completion" date extremely difficult (possibly pointless). Regardless, Arbcom are working diligently to get through it all.
4. ArbCom has NOT told me that no further evidence is to be submitted. However on a personal (ie. "non-official") basis I would speculate that the addition of further evidence will only slow the process down further. Hence please be certain of the importance of additional evidence before submitting it.
5. For the time being I can only ask you to just be patient. ArbCom conveys its sympathy to all parties for the frustration and anxiety being caused by length of the deliberation process. However the project would benefit far more from a "slow" decision than an a "ill-considered" one.

Manning (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What a spineless and condescendingly-worded remedy. Totally pointless. I know it's the best the committee has to work with, but honestly: when I read things like this, I wonder whether it was even worth the bother in proposing it…

[Pours AGK a beer] I'm not sure whether I agree, but I'm proud of you for taking a strong position on the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(discussion deleted by clerk).

Clerk note - Deacon - I don't wish to interfere with your main point (about the ArbCom amnesty), however I would like you to tone down the comments about Radek. The same substance can be conveyed without the heat, and you're too close to incivility for my taste. Manning (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (subsequent note - the relevant discussion has been deleted).

Well, Manning, it's your show and I understand you're trying to keep things cool. If I post again on the matter, I'll try to keep your aims in mind. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Deacon, I'll upgrade that from a "request" to an "instruction" then. Please refactor. Manning (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being co-operative. You actually want me to change some of that text? Which bit? I don't see anything that ought to be removed, so I don't know what bits you want me to censor. Please "instruct" me ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Deacon, you are being deliberately obtuse. In light of your recalcitrance here, and your previous conflicts with Arbitrator RLevse over what is appropriate conduct on these pages I am instituting a one week topic ban from any Arbcom page. You may appeal this topic ban through emailing the arbcom-L mailing list. Manning (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a number of concerns expressed by Carcharoth in relation to findings of fact and remedies issued in past cases. I understand, the concerns stem primarily from RfA/Eastern European disputes case amended with great sense of relief on the part of our arbitrators and our community due to its complexity and exceptional length. – Who would have guessed things were going to get much worse soon enough. Not all remedies were followed up by actions especially those with lesser impact on the Wikipedia's daily grind. For example I was not assigned any mentors as per remedy concerning Poeticbent. That failure to act is not my fault of course, and I shouldn't be held responsible for it especially under the circumstances surrounding that case, because I would be happy to work with a mentor if one was found and made available to me. There were other motions passed about the need for Arbitration Enforcement reform, as well as the Content Dispute Resolution reform, however, everybody was totally exhausted and needed to rest. --Poeticbent talk 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I request that participants in this case be enjoined to desist from character assassinations on the pages of editors/admins unfamiliar with the case or editors involved.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - Vecrumba. As this occurs outside of ArbCom space I am unable to intervene obviously. You are of course (and with my full support) certainly free to request that all participants in this case behave in a civil fashion. Manning (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I trust the participants here will take note and conduct themselves appropriately. Labeling and accusing individuals and the resulting recriminations can only deteriorate into further conflict.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My advice: learn to live with it :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the actual remedy is missing. It only states;

8.1) Tymek (talk · contribs)

Should it not state something like

8.1) Tymek (talk · contribs) is banned for three months.

I'd fix it myself, but I don't wanna be told off for editing the PD page.

Clerk note - Good catch. I've read that page 1000 times before and never noticed that error. Now fixed. Manning (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes an external eye to look over things :). No problem.

^{The clock is ticking....}

07:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this account

AmateurEditor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

is suspicious of being a suckpuppet of one of the mailing list participants.--Dojarca (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified that editor that you are discussing them here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you naming accounts of being "suspicious", you should elaborate why, especially on ArbCom case pages as this. M.K. (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Please consider this: Martintg added a section to

Communist genocide [1], he has been reverted [2], Termer arrived and re-added the section [3], has been reverted [4], AmauterEditor arraived and re-added the section [5]. This was his first edit not only in this article but on Eastern European topic overall. Now his edits consist exclusively of EE-related battling. Note also that he appeared in Wikipedia just several days before Digwuren disappeared.--Dojarca (talk

) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that despite repeated malicious attempts to tie Termer to the mailing list, he was not a member, ever. So basically, you accuse editor (with whom you are having a content dispute) to be a sockpuppet because several people agree that the section should be in the article? --Sander Säde 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for this discussion. If you believe someone is violating

WP:SPI. Thanks. KnightLago (talk

) 00:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether they are too narrow or broad; perhaps if we look at specific articles that were disrupted we can find a reasonable compromise. I'd like to invite everyone to post here information on 1) what articles were disrupted 2) how 3) by whom and 4) when (I am in particular curious as to whether there was any disruption in the last ~2 month (since this case was opened). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as a disruption that I decided to stop editing certain articles to avoid battleground? (Igny (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Looking at your edit history I don't see you holding back from editing topics you have contributed to in the past, like

talk

) 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand Martin correctly, but I think that both of those Igny edits are fine. First one's pretty minor and the second one, seems like an attempt at discussing things honestly, which is needed. Maybe I'm missing something here - the only point of contention is that, Igny, we've all avoided a lot of articles and topics we normally spent a lot of time editing, researching and cleaning up, so this is just a general phenomenon.

talk

) 08:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Information on disrupted articles is already posted at the evidence page.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence page has everything but kitchen and sink in it. For that reason - as I and others asked before - it would be very useful to see diffs to disruption linked in FoF. As it is, the current blocks and topics bans are not supported by any on-wiki evidence in FoF, and the only official justification for topic bans on Eastern Europe seems to be the... official name of this case :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Three months for participation in harrassment of myself. There you go Piotrus. You asked for anything on wiki. Need anything else? --

I'm chanting as we speak

17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Piotrus, can you please confirm if it is still the intent of yourself and the web brigade to revisit articles in which you believe that others gained the upper hand, in order to turn the tide? After all, you proclaim that this is what should be done in one of the last emails in the archive, and if that is not treating Wikipedia as a battleground, then I don't know what is, and hence one can only think that bans on any single one of you can only be seen as preventative. --

I'm chanting as we speak

17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for

diffs. I am not seeing any. I'll let the clerk decide if the rest of your message can be replied to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop being so pedantic Piotrus. Editors have answered your questions, and this hang up on diffs is and ridiculous. I have shown you an entire thread of harrassment that you instigated. That is enough, and it is tedious to ask for diffs, particularly when diffs sometimes don't give context. --

I'm chanting as we speak

21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't see why a clerk would have to decide whether you can answer a question related to comments that you made on the list. Either you believe the brigade should revisit articles where you believe you lost the arguments in order to regain the upper hand in disputes, or you don't. It's a simple question, with a simple answer. Stop avoiding the issues, and attempting to hide behind a clerk. --

I'm chanting as we speak

21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing "pedantic" about asking for diffs. You have not shown anything of the sort you claim. Certain editors have not answered the question, they have instead made unsupported accusations. If Piotrus "harassed" you, provide the diffs showing where. There is nothing "tedious" about asking for diffs. Just because you might have trouble providing them, doesn't mean that it's "tedious" (a word which is unfortunately drudged up every time somebody doesn't have a real argument). Context is important, but without diffs showing actual wrong doing, there is no context.

And please DO stop using the term "brigade". The last thing you want to do is bring up

talk

) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to link to my evidence section for the 50th time? And provide links to individual emails, particularly one where Piotrus advises brigade members that they are missing out on an opportunity to deal with one of their major problems (i.e. ME haha). I live on planet Earth, and here on Earth, I and others regard this as typical harrassment of another editor. --

I'm chanting as we speak

21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the continual denial of any harrassment by Piotrus sickens me. All I am seeing is a bunch of wikilawyering by him and others, and linking to useless essays written by Piotrus (which if one looks at them, it is totally ironic that he has done the exact things his essays preach against). It is little wonder that myself and others don't see any reason not to place restrictions on Piotrus. The real issue is why more of the brigade members aren't being sanctioned. --

I'm chanting as we speak

21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who are not familiar, I will post the link to

I'm chanting as we speak

21:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean your evidence section that has no diffs in it what so ever ... oh, wait, ok, it does have one single diff ... apparently random and completely irrelevant diff in it in so far as it applies to Piotrus. Here, let me provide it here again so that anyone can actually go and read what Piotrus actually said [8]. Whoa. There it is. A single diff which you pretend is something which it isn't, and which you then follow up with completely out of place accusations of "deflection and lies" and pontificating about "zero credibility". Let me guess, you're hoping that no one will actually follow the link you provide and hope that the personal attacks you're making will suffice.

talk

) 09:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And I still see no diffs. To quote Radek: "an assertion is not an argument". I am happy to discuss diffs; I am not going to reply to baseless assertions (I've already done it once, in my evidence). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the link given above you will see plenty of diffs. Pantherskin (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I followed the "link above" and all I see is one pretty much irrelevant diff that Russavia's trying to stretch into something that it isn't. Even if that diff was somehow relevant or not being totally misrepresented, that still wouldn't make it "plenty of diffs" as you assert. Please stop trying to pile one mistruth on top of another mistruth in a hope that somehow a big ol' stack of mistruths will somehow magically metamorphosize into a truth, because that's not how it works, Pantherskin.

talk

) 09:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The amount of wikilawyering and deflection here is absolutely astounding. As Piotrus continues to engage in such, one can understand why he should be topic banned, but then one also has to ask why one of the obvious worst, Radeksz, escapes with absolutely nothing. I was harrassed by you guys, and your denials make me want to be sick. Anyone who would even consider putting me into the

I'm chanting as we speak

17:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who considers

WP:THOUGHTCRIME policy yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arbs need to examine the content issues very carefully before considering the surgical topic ban idea. In Eastern Europe, topics that an outsider might never think would be controversial end up with major disputes. Literally, anything that is part of the historical/linguistic/cultural/territorial heritage of more than one nation can potentially lead to battle. The name of a building in Lithuania (not even in Poland), was enough for Piotrus to start a battle over back in September (it's discussed in the mailing list). I know he's been requesting a topic ban on modern Russia so he can still edit the Slowacki article, but even that could easily create another Wilno dispute. I am not going to get into the merits of his arguments. Sometimes I agree with his side and sometimes I don't, but like Igny I usually just avoid the hassle of editing in this area (even though I'm very interested) because I don't want the battle. I'm just saying that if you want the topic ban to work, it will have to cover any and all articles related to Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, or Germany broadly construed. There will be little of Polish culture or history left outside the ban, but that seems to be the price to pay. Leo1410 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Leo, I don't recall you ever having edited anything in EE space, so I don't know why you would feel inhibited, most newcomers would just blunder in unaware of the history. I think you may be confusing normal content discussion with battle. I've looked at the history and talk page of the article

talk

) 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't see what the issues were on Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga? Perhaps call to arms on 09/07/2009 1.29 will ring the bell, no? Just minutes after mailing list members were “informed”, usual individuals starting to vote, with “rationales” per user:XX or per user:XX and user:YY. Thanks God, the outcome was no consensus on this article, numerous other articles wouldn’t be so lucky next time. M.K. (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin, if you check my contributions, my only edits in EE came a few years ago during the Jogaila naming fiasco. The Polish and Lithuanian editors will recognize by the date in my username that I joined wikipedia to edit in this area. I quickly realized that I wanted no part in the battlefield that existed then and has only gotten worse, so I chose to edit other topics. Now I really only have time to lurk on wiki, but I've chimed in here and there when I think the perspective of an outsider who has some familiarity with the content is missing. I think there are other editors out there who do know some of the content but aren't interested in editing because of the battle. Other rational, civil, intellectually-honest editors like Lysy, Balcer, Renata, Novickas, Linas, Igny, etc., who should be the most prominent voices in this area, have left the project, scaled back their involvement, or have gone out of their way to avoid certain controversial topics and editors, presumably because of the battlefield mentality.

Leo1410 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Renata and Novickas are quite active. On the subject of Jogaila, a good name to recall is User:Halibutt, who wrote most of that FA. He is also mostly inactive, like you, but has made a comment in this case - interested editors may read it here. For comments by Lysy, see here and here. Balcer, whom I greately miss, left completely, see his last post here. I've never interacted much with Linas, but certainly Halibutt, Lysy and Balcer were greatly hurt by the battlegrounds here (and I could add more names - Appleseed, Beaumont...). I will just say that at least Halibutt and Lysy who commented here don't seem to see me as a party that was involved in the battleground creation. I have proposed a set of solutions that need to be adopted to ending the battleground; yet I still fail to see why preventing me from GAing Juliusz Słowacki of FAing Stanisław Koniecpolski will help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have scaled back my involvement, largely because of one issue this arb is trying to address - battleground mentality. I see the time spent in countering arguments such as this, made by Piotrus a few weeks ago: "Some editors however try to argue that if enough scholars [my note: including EB's scholars] make an error the error is the truth and should be presented as such in the article" [9] as wasteful and dispiriting. These scholars' interpretations were never presented as the sole truth - always in the form of "while many historians see it thusly (multiple refs), Lossowski sees otherwise" and no one ever removed the dissenting interpretation. The mailing list's emphasis on numbers is also dispiriting. Their collective experience on WP is considerable; maybe they're not wrong about it. Novickas (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing any scaling back of your edits. My argument is valid,

WP:UNDUE is constantly being violated in this article, as an importance of a dedicated book chapter by a Polish-Lithuanian history expert is being diminished, and countered by a series of one sentence summaries of the treaty in general works ([10], [11]). "Not a sole truth? see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suwa%C5%82ki_Agreement&diff=319716422&oldid=319714280 this". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a move is not a battle, the last time I checked. I have not edited that article since April 17, 2007. Are any of my comments on that talk page inappropriate? PS. You are right, Leo, than almost anything can turn into a battle - particularly if some editors will try to bait others into it, which is possible when a topic ban has unclear definitions. This is why I am not fond of topic bans broader than on specific areas of very narrow and easy to define subjects. "Modern Russian politics" is, I feel, much easier to define than "Eastern Europe" (starting with the fact that some cannot even agree on which countries are in Eastern Europe :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a move is not a battle - theoretically yes, but you successfully proven, that it is not a case in practice.M.K. (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop me if this is bad faith, Piotr, but an experienced editor like yourself must have known that move request was going to be contentious. Maybe it wasn't a battle in itself, but it was certainly a skirmish in the larger battle that has gone on in Polish/Lithuanian topics for years. My point is that if the Arbs truly want to put an end to this battle, those kinds of actions cannot continue, and thus a topic ban on "modern Russian politics" or "ethnic conflicts" will just move the battlefield to foods, buildings, authors, scientists, zookeepers, geographic names, etc. I interpreted the Arbs' actions as wanting to keep you on as a content creator but eliminate the controversies. In my opinion, NYB's proposal won't accomplish that. Leo1410 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Leo, this is what RMs are for. Uncontroversial moves can be done by everyone. Those that may generate opposition should be discussed. A disruptive action would be to move the article and move war on it. A proper course is to start a move discussion. Yes, I agree now that such discussions should be only advertised on public, not private forums. But I disagree with an argument that such discussions should never happen; it smacks of some strange censorship - just as the idea that editors should be subject to wide bans or blocks, because 0.0001% of their edits are controversial. The community decided that the article should not have been moved and objected to my proposal? Fine. Shouldn't I have made the proposal in the first place? No, I disagree with that, the discussion was informative and constructive (I don't see any incivility, harassment, yes/no-man voting or such on talk). So what's the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you not get this? Under normal circumstances, you are right, a RM is the proper procedure. The mailing list is a game-changer. Any pretense of good faith is out the window. You are on the verge of a 15 month ban from all EE topics. People are trying to come up with ways for you to still be able to create content, but you are telling everyone that there are no issues with your editing style and that you aren't going to change. You're right, the Palanga museum article wasn't a huge dispute (though you did see the need to call for help on the list), but it shows that all EE articles can turn into a battle. If you aren't willing to agree to avoid those 0.0001% of edits for the next 15 months, I don't know how the community can allow you to edit EE topics at all. I'm not proposing censorship, (editors who aren't sanctioned by ArbCom for participation in the mailing list should continue to address controversies--hopefully a resolution to this case can bring back some of the lost good faith). I was wondering if it's possible to sanction you, and take you out of the battle, but still let you edit. I'm getting more and more convinced that it isn't possible. Leo1410 (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You are still failing to point out what the disruption to the article was, nor how the comments on talk were disruptive - other than the fact that some of them might have been attracted by an announcement of a private forum. I've noted above that we have a solution for that - such announcements will not be made on a private forums anymore, but on the public EE noticeboard. Isn't this enough to solve the problem? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you forgot [20090907-0129] and that canvassing is inappropriate. Pantherskin (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue solved over a month ago. PS. You can cite that entire email here, as the author if it I can give you such a permission. Let the light shine on its evil content for all to see... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So much for your claim that you are apologetic. If you still don't see that there was something wrong with canvassing to like-minded editors on a secret mailing list, then I really don't know. Pantherskin (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to post the entire email. All that needs to be noted that the only support votes came from brigade members, and all done after you issued an apparent call to arms via the list. It is plainly obvious to all of us, that such emails are a call to arms to the brigade, is it not? --

I'm chanting as we speak

22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to post the entire email - probably because there is absolutely nothing damning in that email, nor is it a "call to arms". It is not "plainly obvious" as much as you might want it to be. An assertion is not an argument.

talk

) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A reminder, no emails are to be posted on any cases pages regardless of whether the author gives permission. KnightLago (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. The author or the intended recipient(s) are fine. KnightLago (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is plainly obvious to anyone who isn't trying to deflect attention away from themselves Radeksz. It doesn't take a mensa members to realise that. :) --

I'm chanting as we speak

22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is quite interesting that particular email. The emails in the archive have in the subject [WPM], yet this one has [WPM] and [WMP]. Any of the list members care to enlighten us all as to what [WMP] is? --

I'm chanting as we speak

22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, invoked earlier, this is just another instance of straight up flaming and baiting by Russavia, of which we've had a tremendous amount in the past month and a half or so (DYK hook hijacking, repeated violation of his block and topic ban (and in fact, those two things together), retaliatory nominations of certain articles for deletions, etc, etc, etc). And yes, in a very significant way it's working as it's very hard not to loose one's patience when faced with these *real* instance of harassment (unlike the imagined instances in Russavia's mind).

talk

) 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Back on subject. Can somebody list articles that were disrupted here, and provided diffs to the disruption? Without such a list and without diffs, I am having trouble understanding the rationale behind the topic bans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, we were still discussing your disruption at Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga. An example that neatly illustrates why a broad topic ban is needed. The article is about a palce in Lithuania, a seemingly harmless and uncontroversial topic. And still there was disruption as you saw a need to canvas to like minded editors on the secret mailing list. And you and other mailing list members claim that there was no disruption, and that the new public EE noticeboard will solve the problem. As if you posted on the secret mailing list because you did not know where to ask for uninvolved third party opinions on-wiki. This makes it rather look that you are not willing to take responsibility for your actions, even when confronted with clear evidence. Pantherskin (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What disruption? What damage? Few interested editors voted, my proposal failed anyway. Comments were civil, there were no edits to the article in question. Yes, as I've stated month ago, I should've announced the vote on a public, not private forum. Now explain to me how what happened at Tiškevičiai Palace disrupted the article and how it justifies a 15 month topic ban. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As if Tiškevičiai Palace alone is the reason for a topic ban. Pantherskin (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to bring your best reasons. If the "disruption" to that article, which I have not edited in the past two years, and which RM vote was not shifted by participation of the mailing list members, is your best one... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Leo1410 on this one. “Members” of infamous list crated battleground all around various topics, starting from the articles, about Lithuanian building alike, and ending with possible copyright violations - wide preventative topic ban is the price they have to “play” now. M.K. (talk)

And we are still not seeing a single diff for that battleground... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, just three paragraphs above and plenty on the evidence page. You are not seriously expecting editors to repost evidence again and again I hope. Pantherskin (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly expect you to do so (as to the best of my knowledge we have never edited the same article, and our only interactions so far have been here). I expect, however, that if a topic ban is passed, it will be backed out by FoF that cite a sufficient body of on-wiki evidence to justify the need for it. To make it easier for the arbitrators, I am asking interested parties to provide such diffs here so we can discuss them, learn from them and include them in FoF if necessary. General directions to the evidence pages, containing everything but the wiki equivalent of a kitchen sink, are not very useful, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain "His recent back channel attempt to eliminate one or more arbs from voting in this case because of their participation in the upcoming 2010 Wikicup erased all the goodwill that he was manufacturing with his on site comments. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)"? What is this referring to? If this is a viable allegation shouldn't this be reported as an incident and dealt with through proper channels? Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Very mysterious indeed. Maybe Piotrus inquired privately with the involved Arbitrator whether a recusal was necessary over a potential conflict of interest?? Not entirely unreasonable for Piotrus to attempt to allay any fears if that was indeed the case, in my view. Flonight's rationale for rejecting of a more flexible remedy certainly does raise questions. --

talk

) 05:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the case[12]. Piotrus' suggestions, as applicable, of: 1) a ban on voting on all EE issues (AfDs, RMs) 2) a 1RR restriction (or a 3RR restriction applicable to all mailing list members treated as a single individual) 3) a topic ban from selected articles on which group members have shown to display repeated bad judgment 4) A civility parole 5) a ban from participating in AE / ANI discussions unless a team member is directly involved seem eminently reasonable. We do this for free in our spare time, it's not like there isn't other things competing with our time, like family and friends. All a broad topic ban will do is stunt the growth of Wikipedia in a particular topic area for a while, certainly my partner will be happier with the extra attention. When editors are committed to the goals of building an encyclopedia, and I'd certainly would like to achieve my first GA, and are willing to find ways to facilitate that in a way that benefits the project without disruption, why hinder that? --

talk

) 05:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this request for recusal was the most bogus claim of COI that I've seen on my 4 years associated with the Arbitration Committee as a clerk and arb. Piotrus joined WikiCup after this case opened, and after the arb voted. How could have Piotrus participation in the competition possibly influenced this arb's vote to sanction him. And when it was pointed out to Piotrus that the arb was unaware that Piotrus was in the competition, Piotrus did not let it drop. This type of heavy handed and manipulative conduct is exactly the problem that I saw in the emails and on site; and want to prevent in this topic area. So, no I'm not voting to loosen the topic ban. (See my vote for diffs.) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain. I waited till now as I didn't want to make the issue public, to avoid dramu and possible damage to reputation of some editors (this is why till now I've discussed the issue off wiki and only with ArbCom functionaries). I want to apologize to editor in question that I am bringing this up; I however believe I have the right to defend myself against accusations (made in public, and by an ArbCom member nonetheless).

WP:CUP

is a competitive project (a wiki contest). I've learned on it recently and joined it almost immediately. Some time later, I realized that among its participants are some arbitrators, one of whom has voted (both before and after I've joined the case) in support of my bans and other restrictions. I am hardly an expert in why arbitrators should recuse themselves, but John recused himself from this case because one of the parties is a member of the same wikiproject on meta, and Roger, because some of the parties are member of the same project here, which indicates to me that joint participation in a wiki contest may be a problem. I've inquired with a clerk if this may represent a potential CoI and grounds for a recusal, the clerk said that it is an unclear situation, he will contact other ArbCom functionaries to enquire about the issue (on theoretical grounds, while protecting the privacy of all parties involved) and recommended that I should ask the arbitrator in question for his opinion. Following clerks advice (which I now wish I haven't...), I an the arbitrator in question exchanged two emails around Nov 16. In first, I presented my case and the arbitrator replied he was not aware we were both part of the CUP. In the second I asked him if he will do anything now that he is aware we are; he said no and told me to drop the matter alleging my questions are "trying to poison the well" (a comment that scared me due to a possiblity of reprisals "from the top" if I pursue this matter further - not an ill-placed fear, as it appears). I have till now abided with his request - I have not contacted any other party about the issue, until FloNight (whom I have not contacted on that) suddenly made the issue public, using it as a justification for opposing a milder remedy.

On that note I am unclear whats the relevance of me enquiring about the issue outlined above and her objection to me be being able to create article in my userpace and take part in Featured Review process. I'd appreciate if somebody could explain this to me.

Further, I want to strongly protest the framing FloNight is using in her description of the situation.

• "Piotrus contacts an arb...and ask him to recuse on the case"; "Even after...Piotrus presses him to recuse". This is plain untrue. Nowhere in my emails I ask the arb to recuse; I present him with the facts he may be unaware of, I ask for his interpretation of the situation and what is he going to do. I will quote the relevant parts of my emails (and if anybody else in possession of those emails wants to quote them for fuller context, I am giving my permission for that - there is nothing in them I would want to hide other than diffs that would reveal the identity of the arbitrator in question (and I still respect his privacy in this case). First email: "Nonetheless, the current situation creates a delicate CoI. I don't want to suggest to you what you should do. I'll just say that I hope we can both contribute to the WC'2010 in our full capacity.". And email 2 (in response to the arb saying he was unaware we are both in CUP): :*"I am sure you didn't. What are you going to do now that you do?"
• "attempt to eliminate one or more arbs" - per my comment above
• "back channel" - suggests an improper way of doing things; I was using emails to arbcom functionaries to avoid public dramu and potential reputation damage (not to me, but the editor whose potential CoI is being discussed)
• "Battleground mentality" - ?!! Where? Where am I battling now and with whom?
• "attempt to manipulate outcome to his advantage" - see my PS note below

Overall, I am rather disappointed with how this issue is being handled. Public dramu that may damage certain editors reputation is being created, I see Bad Faith from editors that are expected to be neutral, and an impression is given that if a party dares to question if an arbitrator involved may have a CoI/grounds for recusal, the response are more severe sanctions for daring to raise such a question (privately!).

PS. Before this degenerates into some reputation-damaging dramu, I want to note that I believe the involved arbitrator in question when he says he didn't know about the COI and our joint participation in the contest (even through some of his votes were cast after I joined the contest). I certainly don't want him to withdraw from the contest because of me; and I could hardly expect that he would be required to change or invalidate his votes made before I joined the CUP simply because I joined it. I was hoping that by showing him the fact that we are both participating in it may be seen as an evidence of my uncontroversial editing, appeal to his sportsmanship ethics (judging by the levels of activity by this years' CUP finalists, and my activity, I would be very likely to be among this years finalists...I guess I won't be among the next years, though - not with the topic ban on the area I write 99% of my content in. But I digress) and strengthen the case for alternative remedies which would allow me to participate in the CUP. So yes, I was hoping to influence him to be more friendly towards me - but not by threatening him (or causing wiki dramu), but by showing we are both constructive editors who could compete in a friendly and uncontroversial manner. I guess I shouldn't have bothered, as being the evil cabalists means everything I do must be looked at with bad faith and seen as evil manipulation :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I became aware of the situation first from several clerks that you were approaching to discuss COI issues about an arb because of joint competition in the WikiCup. I have read the emails that you sent to the arbitrator in question. There is no doubt in my mind that you did not drop the issue after you were informed that the arbitrator was unaware of your participation in the competition. That you continued the discussion after being told that he was unaware was problematic and is the reason that I reacted so strongly. I'm sorry but I have seen too many of your manipulative emails to assume good faith about your comments to this arb.

You wanted to have back channel discussions that effected the outcome of the case, in your favor. But now you are complaining when the same emails are used as evidence in the case? So you wanted the private influence of this arb to not be disclosed and discussed on site? If nothing else happens, you need to leave the case with the message that canvassing is not okay. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, my message was limited, neutral, and nonpartisan. Yes, it was not public, but it was directed to ArbCom functionaries, and the first one I contacted, a clerk, told me to take it to the arbitrator. Are you saying that the lesson I should take from this incident is that I should have not dared to ask about this issue in the first place? Or that I should have done it publicly, here, ignoring potential reputation damage issues? And for mercy's sake, all I did after he told me he was unaware of the issue was to ask him if he will do anything about it. Are you saying that it was my second email to him (that I've quited in its entirety above) that was inappropriate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ok I have read the above discussion and from what i can understand my take on the situation is the following one:
Other arbitrators have reclused over similar issues, Piotrus had the right to inquire about the situation and he did it the proper way by asking the advice of a clerk which in turn adviced him to address the issue to the Arbitrator himself. Had this really been a "back channel attempt to eliminate an Arb" as FloNight claims then I think the clerk would immediately told him to either pursue this matter on-wiki or to drop it.
To clarify the situation to the community I think it would also be good that the other Arbitrator makes a statement on his view of the situation, whether or not he thinks Piotrus did anything wrong. Loosmark (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, are you actually saying, with a straight face, that you think that an arbitrator might have a conflict of interest because of some silly contest that you both happen to be entered in? Are you really suggesting that an arb would go to the ludicrous extreme of voting to ban you in order to increase their chances of winning this frivilous competition? If such a "conflict of interest" might be engineered by you joining the contest after the case has started voting, what a world of gaming-the-system this opens up. Get serious. Paul August ☎ 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying there is something wrong with asking a person if there might be a CoI? I asked that privately, first a clerk, than upon his advice, the arbitrator in question. Once I got a reply from him (along the lines described above) I thought the case was closed (and private). Till a third party brought it here, resulting in this dramu... PS. As I stated above: I am satisfied now that there is no CoI in this case regarding the CUP; what I am not satisfied with is FloNight's argument that me daring to ask about the CoI in the first place is a display of battleground mentality and a sufficient justification for opposing a milder topic ban. I believe that I was within my rights to ask a clerk and the arbitrator in question if there are sufficient grounds for CoI or not. If then, unsatisfied with their responses, I started creating dramu, this would be wrong - but please note that I didn't do anything (till third parties brought this here, to much of my suprise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your asking the question, nor as far as I can see does anyone else. What I do have a problem with is your feeling that the question needed asking in the first place, since it is patently obvious that any possible COI would be trivial in the extreme. It is hard to see why anyone would ever have thought otherwise, unless perhaps there were self-serving motives involved. Paul August ☎ 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did I feel the need to ask such a question? Simple: I sign for a competition a friend tells me about. Some time later, I go back to reread the rules and such, and glancing over the list of other participants I see who? A person who has just recently voted to ban me from that site. A bit shocked, I write an @ to a clerk asking him if this is acceptable, figuring that if he tells me I am overreacting (this case is very stressful to me), that's the end of the story. Instead, a clerk tells me the case merits further inquiry which he will perform and advices me to write an @ to the arbitrator in question while he considers the situation. I write the @ as advised, receive a reply, think this is the end of the story - and than a third party starts the dramu here (why?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You sign up for a bit of light fun called the WikiCup, discover that an arb who is also signed up for the contest has voted on this case, and you are "shocked"? Shocked at what? Paul August ☎ 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot answer you better than you answered yourself in the question above. Anyway, I've said all in this topic that I wanted to say, so I think I'll call it EOT for me here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say there is an amazing amount of, shall we say, dislike of Piotrus shown on this page. His content opponents have long bayed for his blood for what, in essence as far as I can tell, some stupid naming conflict over some towns for God sake. No sense of magnanimity, grace or acknowledgment of his 99% good contribution as been shown. I don't know if it is envy over his achievements or a sense of "the other" or what, but then I suppose it is unrealistic to expect his content opponents to put Wikipedia before their own narrow interests. That's why we have the ArbCom process, to rise above this personal vindictiveness and place the interests of the project foremost. I have to say I am struggling to see how opposing a narrower broad topic ban is related to asking a private question and how that would help Wikipedia grow. If gaming-the-system is the concern, slap an additional ban on participating in AE / ANI discussions; but banning content creation, how does that help Wikipedia? --

Am not certain which arbitrator FloNight refers to, but FloNight herself did not participate in the 2009 Cup and has not signed up for the 2010 Cup. She did argue rather strongly for Cup scoring changes for the upcoming year which appeared to be unfamiliar with certain difficulties that occurred in 2009. At best, her input was naïve. I worry that both there and here it could have the effect of unduly politicizing a competition that does undeniable good for the site's core mission of presenting quality content to the public. Surely, if some misunderstanding occurred, there would be an easier way of resolving it without casting a cloud over that worthy project? Respectfully submitted, Durova³⁶⁶ 23:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin, this proceeding is not about the dislike (sic) of Piotrus, an administrator who denied the existence of a cabal, and was in fact was a blatant participant in it, but something more significant. Try to understand what this proceeding is about. No one has "long bayed for his blood" and this proceeding is not about "some stupid naming conflict over some towns for God sake". Did you mean this for example [13]? Sorry, but this proceeding is also definitely not about envy and most certainly has a lot more to do with the idea of "placing the interests of the project foremost" than your argument. It is precisely because of his previous contributions and his position as an administrator that he is more responsible for his actions than a "newbie" would be. Please understand that what happened here was a very ugly moment for the Wikipedia project, all things considered. Please do not attempt to suggest that this is a "tempest in a teapot". It is not. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think everything that needed to be said about Dr. Dan's contributions to this project has already been said, for example , long time ago, here [14]. Same goes for a couple of others.

Anyway, I'm out of here. Topic ban, 1RR, no topic ban it doesn't matter. The outing and the vicious slimy attacks were bad enough. But strangely, I actually find that I simply don't have the fortitude to watch this stomach churning hypocrisy, where somebody like Dr. Dan, 90% of whose edits constitute of obnoxious trolling along nationalist lines on article's talk pages (recently Dr. Dan has tried his damnest to stir up trouble between Polish and Jewish editors on Jedwabne pogrom - apparently he got worried that the two groups were actually working on the article in a cooperative manner) pontificates and finds it proper to lecture one of the most productive Wikipedians on what "the good of the project is". Blech.

I'm not even gonna go into PasswordUsername's smearing completely innocent editors who were not on the list for the sake of his own POV pushing and no admin having the guts to do anything about it (oh no! They might get called "EEML allies" then!)

Or FloNight proposing a ban on me not for anything I actually did wrong (and yes, I did do stuff wrong), but apparently for the fact that I dared to question an arrogant admin's judgment five months ago.

And it's true, enough has been said about Russavia already, so I see no point in restating that which is blindingly obvious.

I just can't bear to watch this circus anymore. I'm out.

talk

) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to the proceedings but rather to some of the opponents who seemingly have taken advantage of this proceeding to settle old scores. To be honest I find this conflict between Lithuanian and Polish editors edit warring^{both sides are equally to blame} over place names of towns of your common history rather lame, but to seek the severest sanction over it is even lamer in my view. At least Igny has the good grace to state below that he actually enjoyed our discussions despite our differences and would prefer us not to be given a broad topic ban. --

talk

) 06:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Martin, it's too bad you couldn't stay focused on the proceedings. What an interesting edit. "(recently Dr. Dan has tried his damnest (sic) to stir up trouble between Polish and Jewish editors on [the] Jedwabne pogrom)", really? Maybe you should ask Jayjg his opinion on that claim. I don't believe you've ever made one edit to that article, nor that you are on it's talk pages either. Funny that you should notice me and make such an outlandish claim considering that fact. You wouldn't be stalking me, would you? What I think is more interesting however about your above edit, is since I actually am totally unfamiliar with you, nor do I remember even interacting with you positively or otherwise to any extent, how could you know so much about me. Especially to be able to assess what 90% of my input has been. Perhaps your associates from the EEML have filled you in. If I'm not mistaken there are a couple of emails specifically mentioning me, some plan to get rid of me. Oh, well. Sorry you're out of here. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)