Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence

I am not involved in this dispute but I feel the need to respond to Wikipedia's antisemitic troll, Greg park avenue. I would like to point out that I am not a "mirror account" of User:Boodlesthecat (whatever that means). As far as Greg being an antisemitic troll, res ipsa loquitur. (If further evidence is needed that he is an antisemitic troll, take a glance at his contributions to Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz.) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my statement in this arbcom, I agree with Malik that he is not any puppet, but an independent and constructive editor, whom I respect and with whom I and other editors were able to work peacefully and constructively. I asked greg to refactor his statement (he has been inactive since he posted it few days ago). That said, any accusations that greg is an antisemite are baseless and defamatory. And yes, I believe that analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where greg was baited (not by Malik!) into certain too flowery statements, is certainly useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been alerted to this ArbCom case off-wiki. I'd encourage the arbitrators to read that page as well, where I tried to get discussion back on track at a couple of points. It's a little hair-raising. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I don't really have any evidence to offer that seems to fit within the scope of this ArbCom, but a couple of people from various "sides" have asked me to weigh in, so I might detail my peripheral involvement in one or two disputed articles a little later if I have the time. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is absolutely nothing "anti-semitic" in his statement. To the contrary, he speaks up against "edit warriors" who "antagonize Polish, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, Jews etc against each other" in WP. So, Greg objected the strong "anti-national" claims, and ... here they are: User:Boodlesthecat comes and blames Greg of ... antisemitism. Biophys (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, appreciation also to User Vecrumba and others. I never was anti-Semite or racist, as the bugger, who seems to keep more puppets than any Gypsy wagon could ever hold and still be able to move onward, implies. I may provide more diffs, but only on request. Wanna keep my entry concise and to the point and won't feed the troll(s). BTW, never had an encounter with User Irpen, but his allegation that collecting evidence by User Piotrus (black book) is against

WP:AGF is just silly. After two ArbComs against me I would do that too. greg park avenue (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Moved thread from evidence page

Can an admin please refactor greg park avenue's anti-semitic rant above?

Or explain to me just WTH "Boody and his obvious supporters/sockpuppets who seem to play Jew but they don't sound like that. My impression is they try to impersonate the negative stereotype of Jewish people. That must end once and for all, at least here on Wikipedia" is supposed to mean? The ranter above is, btw, the same greg park avenue whom Piotrus protected and threatened to block me for removing one of his previous Jew-baiting rants. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed one of your "Jew-baiting" accusations (Greg park avenue comment and entire thread) and that accusation did not hold water. "Jew baiting" and "anti-Semitic" would appear to be any sentence in which Greg park avenue uses the word "Jew"/"Jewish" whose contents you disagree with. Please deal with your content disputes without making libelous accusations. —PētersV (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments; however, greg was asked by this page's clerk to refactor his comment because it "was clearly antisemitic." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I read through the entire thread containing the "Jew baiting" you referred to in your diff and while Greg park avenue's frustration level throughout that discussion is palpable, that is all. Perhaps you or this page's clerk might indicate an exact phrase which is explicitly anti-Semitic as opposed to expressions of editorial frustration which you are characterizing as anti-Semitic. —PētersV (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most explicitly anti-semitic part was removed, per the demand of the clerk. It is cited above in my comment. The whole post is typical of Greg's wiki oeuvre (he actually adds zero actual article content to wikipedia)--a race and ethnicity obsessed nasty ranting (and one that has no apparent bearing on this arb--I dont even know one of the two parties.) So Greg somehow, typical of many of his posts, considers me to be the cause of whatever problems Piotrus has run tnto (despite the fact that I had zero involvement in the dispute covered in this arb--can you spell S-C-A-P-E-G-O-A-T?). Peruse Greg's history. by and large what you will find are a compendium of rude insults, nasty comments, spiced with ethnic and Jew baiting. Why he is even on Wikipedia is a mystery to me, other than to try and support, in some perverse way, the team edit warring of Piotrus and his allies. As for your comical claim that I am making "libelous accusations", like they say, so sue me. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 01:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments were refactored, this is now moot and not relevant to the evidence page. — Coren ^(talk), for the arbitration committee, 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus_and_Boodlesthecat_edit_warring_on_Controversies_of_the_Polish.E2.80.93Soviet_War. If someone could make this a permanent link, I would appreciate it. I am posting this here for the information of all. Risker (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link added per request. --Irpen 02:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone enforcing the 1000-word limit in this case? Renata (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. During opening of the case one of arbitrators asked to allow sides to have as much space as they need.Biophys (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to Biophys' claims here for now. As I said, I am now under severe time pressure due to issues that have no relation to Wikipedia. So, I will respond briefly for now but will try my best to elaborate in a greater detail with diffs:

On Holodomor denial article

In response to Part 2. A case when tag-teaming is more obvious I would ask anyone to actually take a look at the history of this article and its talk page. The article was started by

.

The subjects of these so called "articles" was neutrally covered in Holodomor article and lack of any scholarly research specifically on the issue of denial does not allow to create encyclopedic articles on the denials themselves. What these articles remain to this day is an ORish hodge-podge of disparate stuff Horlo and a couple of other editors managed to google by searching for any string that would include words Holodomor and denial in one text. Talk pages contain multiple objections by myself, Relata refero and several other editors which are brushed aside. With the objections not being answered at all, several editors are taking turns in removing the tag from an article. From time to time, they demand for a tag explanation all anew, ignoring the objections stated multiple times at talk pages. In fact, behavior that consists in "continual questioning with obvious or easy-to-find answers" is widely considered to be a sign of obvious trolling.

Relata refero, who stated that many times, is completely neutral and uninvolved in any EE spats. In fact Gatoclass, another respected editor and admin, expressed the very same concerns about this article in its early stage and later left the issue due to exasperation. I would welcome his comments on the issue. --Irpen

Reply. My point was not about the content, but about behavior (including teaming up and edit warring) of certain users. No, Horlo is not an SPA by any means. As about content, anyone can look at Holodomor denial to see if it is consistent with WP standards. Perhaps this not such a notable subject, but this article is at least a "B" level or better and very well sourced, including books by academic scholars, and so on.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Relata refero and I happen to agree with each other on something, it does not amount to us "teaming". I never asked him to revert for me and neither I was asked by Relata to do a revert for him. --Irpen 21:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did not ask him to revert. You asked him to help. You only discussed the article. But what you both actually did were a series of reverts, which happened after your conversation (one can check time in the diffs provided as evidence). Hence

WP:DUCK.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Biophys, please make sure you carefully check all the facts before posting anything to the ArbCom pages. This is Relata refero's first edit to the Holodomor denial article. Note the timestamp: 07:04, February 12, 2008 (UTC). He arrived to the article and posted his objections that were largely similar to my own objections completely independently from me. I do not recall ever interacting with Relata refero before he joined this article last February. Can this be honestly called as my asking him for help? I invite anyone to check what I actually said. Calling this "asking for help" is a rather skewed way of describing my post. And in any case, I posted at 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC) after he started editing. --Irpen 02:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The point about time is important. I will reduce and rephrase this.Biophys (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biophys, I must ask you to withdraw this accusation and that section of ArbCom or I will have no option but to request some sanction on you -- not just for tendentious, unsatisfactory and unencyclopaedic editing, but for truly extraordinary assumptions of bad faith, apparently intended to win a content dispute. Forgive me for my bluntness, but it seems necessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed this per comment by Irpen above. Better? Note that I do not have any serious content disputes with you. It is you who has a content disagreement with a large group of people who edited Holodomor denial. Biophys (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However if I and let's say Halibutt (or some other Polish editor) agree to something, it is "teaming" and cabalism according to you. How is that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring Hali in here. Despite our many disagreements, I consider him an honest person and hold him in high regard. He may be biased, but he is honest. As for "some other" editor, Polish or not, it is teaming, yes, if you ask for a revert at

Gadu Gadu. --Irpen 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And your proof that Polish editors do so is based on what, exactly, other than bad faithed speculations? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have no access to your

Gadu Gadu logs. However, even without direct evidence, there is enough circumstantial evidence (a very established term even in RL law) in my view that several editors regularly reverted for you upon your off-line requests. I will let others to decide whether this is convincing. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Following Piotrus claim

On this section I have two comments. First, I stated multiple times that I do not follow Piotrus. I only get to editing the articles that I see on the new article's announcement board or if they are attempted to be pushed to a main page through a DYK-path. I challenge anyone to find a single article created by Piotrus to which I got before its being announced on one of these boards. I had to watchlist the DYK submission page after this incident because while it is not my intent to follow Piotrus' articles per se, I care what appears on the Wikipedia's main page because I care for the reputation of this project.

Second, regarding the

Reply. I provided only a couple of examples. Yes, this is not enough to establish WP:STALK. But my point was actually different: interactions of Piotrus and Irpen are counter-productive, as was mentioned in previous ArbCom cases. One possible suggestion: ask Irpen not to edit any articles that were edited before him by Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My interaction with Piotrus is strained, yes, and I take no pleasure in that, but I would not call it counterproductive. My catching of his DYKed articles and NPOVing them before they got to the main page was certainly good for the Wikipedia overall.

As for establishing of WP:STALK, it is easy. Find one article Piotrus created to which I got before it was announced at DYK or a new article announcement board. In fact, Piotrus asked me this question before and even he was satisfied by my explanation. But you are welcome to study my contributions to prove the contrary. OTOH, I can easily show my articles that Piotrus noticed before I announced them anywhere. I did not think it is necessary for the evidence but I can compile such list. --Irpen 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied? In as so far that it is next to impossible to prove otherwise (albeit I could just copy certain editors and spew bad faithed accusations). But - do tell us more about your articles, and your encyclopedia-building content contributions in the past year or so. Do tell.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Piotrus, I fully agree that in the absence of

edit warring collusion, that I assert is taking place for a long time, can only be proven indirectly (I have neither access no interest in your IM logs), if you claim that I am lying when I say that I do not follow your contributions please find one article by you that I got to before it was announced.

You asked me this question already and more than once and, yes, every time you received an answer that even you found satisfactory. IIRC it was some time in 2007 when you last time asked what brought the particular article to my attention. If you insist on resurrecting that issue, I am sure you can find it in the history of your own talk faster than me, but I can do it myself if you want.

I stated many times that although you follow my edits meticulously, as shown at the evidence section, I do not pay you with the reciprocity. I have enough stress without looking for more that I would get from seeing all your edits. As for additional proof that you follow me around (besides your black book) I will compile it too, since you seem to insist. --Irpen 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced info claim

On this claim, I believe I have addressed the problem with using Conquest's numbers in Holodomor here. Conquest published his book in 1986 and the formerly classified archival data on the Soviet demographic statistics was made open to the researchers only in 1990s.

If significant new data becomes available the research published after such breakthrough cannot be countered by a research whose author simply had no access to such data. This would be similar to discussing the Egyptian hieroglyphs but using the works written before the discovering the Rosetta Stone. Conquest's book can be discussed in the context of the history of progress on the subject but it cannot be used to "counterbalance" the modern academic research. In fact, I added several modern calculations to the article, two of them western, one Ukrainian. They do not even come close to the outdated number given by Conquest. --Irpen 20:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will address evidence by Piotrus on the main page. --Irpen 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's comment assumes Soviet archives are (a) complete and (b) truthful. That is, that the translations on his "Rosetta Stone" are accurate reflections of each other. If someone goes out at the time of the event and counts, say 100 bodies and recounts that to a researcher, and someone 50+ years later checks official archives just opened and it lists 10 bodies, which is the more "correct"? If someone recounts that all the grain was requisitioned from a silo and taken from the Ukraine, and another author writes there was a famine because of drought and there was no grain, which is the more "correct"? It is not our prerogative to determine what authors have been discredited, as when Irpen advocates that Davies and Wheatcroft (as a source) has done so with reference to Conquest--while D&W (the authors) in their book acknowledge Conquest's research. It is far from as definitive as Irpen posits. —PētersV (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, I believe we had a discussion on this topic at the article's talk page. Additionally, you also discussed it with Fkriuk up to the point when you ran out of arguments and stopped responding to him on topic. Talk:Holodomor has several references to the statements made by several researchers, both Ukrainian and Western, that the information released from the archives is both credible and sufficient to estimate the number of victims. The extent of its accuracy and the completeness of the release may be discussed but many historians said many times that what they have is enough to make an estimate and neither you nor Biophys brought up a single complaint from a respectable scholar who studied the archives that there are any hurdles for the researchers to do their work, both in terms of the information's accessibility or of its credibility. Also note that archival research is bread and butter of any serious historian and their conclusions, unlike yours, Biophys' or mine, carry significant weight. Additionally, multiple modern scholars have shown that Conquest's research is outdated based on the data they have seen while not a single scholarly source was brought up by you or anyone to question the integrity of the research of D&W or of the Vallin's group or of the Kulchytsky's group by questioning their credibility, sources or the research technique. Additionally, not a single calculation based on the post-1990s data was made that would produce the result that would stray significantly from the data obtained by these three scholars independently.

But this is really off-topic here. This arbcom is not the place to decide the content of the Holodomor article. The charge that I "remove sourced info from articles" is an arbcom matter only if there is an allegation that I do so in bad faith while in fact I explained in every detail why Conquest cannot be used to "balance" modern research made both in Ukraine and in the West. I would appreciate if you continue this discussion at talk:Holodomor rather than clutter the arbitration pages.

Posting irrelevant stuff to the ArbCom pages is a known tactic used to derail the cases. If you think you have credible evidence of my misconduct at the Holodomor-related articles, please post it to the evidence page, with diffs, just like Biophys has done when he alleged my "tag teaming" on these articles (an allegation to which I believe I answered right above.) If you just want to discuss the situation with the Holodomor research, please use a page designated just for that but make sure you read past discussions. Thank you. --Irpen 19:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, case in point: being accused of a known tactic to derail the cases -- just one of the many times Irpen has accused me of bad faith, vicious (his emphasis) personal attacks, rather than simply responding to what I said. The last attack paragraph was clearly not required. —PētersV (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, I cannot make sense why you chose to try to bring a normal content dispute to the arbitration page. You did not really think that it belongs here, did you? So, what other reason than cluttering this page you had in mind? Or are you saying that you truly think that the ArbCom page is a proper place to post your opinion about the truthfulness of the Soviet archives and the completeness of the information released to researchers? You are here long enough to know what discussions belong to what page.

I want this case to bring an outcome that would help improve the climate in EE topics and bring the environment of writing content to some minimum level of comfort for the writers. This requires all its participants to pinpoint the exact problems that stay in the way of harmonious editing climate. My view is that the main obstacle is that some editors engage in dishonest conduct and this is what I am trying to show in my evidence. To maximize the chances that this case brings any good solution, we must try our best to keep it structured and not stray off-topic. At the same time, your post was so shockingly off-topic that I simply cannot see a good reason for it to be here. --Irpen 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Reply. I was discouraged by Piotrus and by one of Arbcom members to go to any "good-faith"-"bad-faith" content issues (see Workshop). But if this is required, I can easily prove with sources that (a) Conquest published other books in 2000s with the same numbers; (b) Relevant Soviet archievs were never opened; (c) refs by "contemporary" Russian/Ukrainian scholars are much worse sources for WP than scholarly books by Conquest.Biophys (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, I do not act based on abstract truth but based on my knowledge and sources presented by all sides. As far as I have read, multiple researchers stated that the information now open is sufficient to estimate the number of victims. Also, if Conquest published any numbers later, you never brought them up to the article's talk. I am not invoking just some Ukrainian scholars. I am using specific researchers of highest academic standing, both western and Ukrainian. This discussion belongs to talk:Holodomor. Here, I simply explained by objections to Conquest which you seem to present as malicious. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, if you don't follow me, how do you explain that in your "stressed for time" current situation, you still find time to participate in this ArbCom, even through you were not listed as a party? Particularly in light of

this? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss other editors. Wouldn't a more constructive use of one's time be to create content? Do I follow you around and criticize you like that? Why have you never replied to my ceasefire proposal here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Piotrus, I participate in this arbcom, because I find your conduct a big hurdle in my ability to work productively for this project. You are entitled to claim the opposite, fair enough. This is what this arbcom is for. I posted my first comment to the case when it was considered for acceptance and, naturally, I am willing to follow up on this since, while I was away, you started to post evidence alleging my misconduct, similarly to how you did it in a different arbcom to which you even had no relation [1].

My main problem with your conduct lies in your off-line activity: your black book and using off-site communication to get help in your editing conflicts. As long as I have to edit with the thought that you scrutinize my every edit for your black book, I cannot edit comfortably and I want ArbCom to address it. It should either be said that you are doing nothing wrong when you log my edits (and in this case I will strongly consider leaving this project to which I contributed a lot of my time and dedication) or it should make a finding.

As for your "ceasefire proposal", the thing you never proposed was a promise to stop logging and to stop recruiting support off-line for revert wars and for your opponents blocks despite I begged you to do all of this. I can live with us disagreeing on content but I am not comfortable to edit and expect being stubbed in the back all the time. --Irpen 21:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I had to post evidence against you; however I had to do so once you indicated you will be involved here and posting your own evidence. I became involved in Digwuren's arbcom because I was somewhat familiar with harassment of Digwuren's and other Estonian editors, harassment which was very similar to that of several Polish editors. And I did so AFTER several other users mentioned my name (ex. Ghirla's "User:Piotrus steps up to defend Digwuren" and dispute resolutions procedures mentioned by Vecrumba).

Regarding the "black book" (what a biased way to frame the issue...), one has the right to collect evidence (based on publicly available diffs) for dispute resolution procedures which actually REQUIRE evidence to be presented, and one has the right to do so over extended period of times if one wants to document long-term editing patterns and trends (like a harassment campaign stretching for years). My only fault, year ago, has been to do so publicly, as it could have been interpreted as an attack page. I have fixed this long time ago and now my evidence is no different from yours or anybody else who is collecting them in Word documents or such. I have no problem with such evidence and drafts and so on required to be private and not-googlable to avoid offending/slandering people.

As for "Piotrus is the cabal leader", really, you could give it a rest after all those years...

In any case, I do hope that this arbcom will finally address those issues and tell us if they are true/ok or not. After the last one failed to do so, I predicted we will be back here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing, Piotrus. I have no log of your diffs anywhere, on English, Russian, Ukrainian or Polish Wikipedia or on my hard drive. Logging your (or anyone's) activity for the purpose of collecting diffs to use them at the opportune time is something I consider unseemly. This is why it would take me a couple of days to write up my evidence section and, I am sure, it won't be all-inclusive. --Irpen 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "invented" evidence collection, I simply started keeping better records after I was repeatedly targeted by dispute resolutions where I was required to present such evidence. Setting aside the fact that as anybody can see in my logs, I don't update them that often, we only have your word for the claim that you don't collect evidence... despite your past claims that you have started collecting evidence against me. But I have no problem with you collecting that evidence - I believe you (as all other editors) have the right to do so when and in whatever format you deem necessary (just as I respect the privacy of your correspondence). That you believe I have no right to it (or you requested that I reveal my private correspondence on my talk some time ago to disprove your accusations of my cabalism), however, is what I find troubling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, please do not misquote me. In the diff you cite above I said nothing about "collecting" evidence on you. I said that I was writing it up. I do not have a log on you. I am not interested in your private conversations and, yes, I find logging with the purpose to gain upper hand in content disputes through pushing for sanctions of the targeted editors a malicious activity. Please see my evidence for why. --Irpen 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys started a new section, "Intimidation of witnesses?". I'd like to chip in a few words here. There are indeed many users (on all sides) who could present evidence and haven't. I am however not familiar with any overly attempts of intimidation (albeit there is fear that one's involvement may lead to it); the lack of evidence I am familiar with (based on replies I got from several users on why there are inactive here) comes from following rationales:

• misunderstanding of arbcom policies (some users presented diffs in outside statements and expect it to be treated as evidence)
• fear of being targeted by mudslinging after becoming involved here
• dislike of mud slinging ("I am not here to do this") combined with "I prefer to spend my time creating content" (an attitude I greatly sympathize with)
• belief that enough evidence was presented in past ArbComs so that 1) Arbcom should have enough evidence already or that 2) ArbCom will issue another set of pointless general guidelines ("so why waste time becoming involved?")
• lack of time (this is important factor - the longer we wait, the more evidence will be presented... but the longer the current problems will continue, of course)

I find statements by

to be of relevance here.

That said, as I've noted before, there are editors (Halibutt, Balcer, Lysy...) who have been intimidated (chased away) and are unlikely to participate mainly due to past harassment by tag team. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, wild and deliberately broad accusations of tag teaming are both uncivil and offensive. So, could you please be a little more specific on the compositions of the "teams" that chased away these editors. Preferably with diffs. Because as far as I am concerned, I believe I addressed many times [2] [3] your attempts to hold me responsible for misconduct towards Balcer and others have commented on that as well [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. As for Halibutt, I spoke highly of him many times, including on this very page. And my interactions with Lysy are very rare and perfectly polite despite it was him who long time ago made to me a remark that I consider the rudest thing ever said to me on Wikipedia. --Irpen 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, to keep this short: the users in question claimed you are partly (varies from user to user) responsible for them leaving. You deny it, claiming you were right in accusing them of things like 'intellectual dishonesty' and so on. Who was right, this is for ArbCom to judge. I certainly find your accusations against me (ex. Piotrus has no right to complain about others, edits tediously, leads the Polish cabal, etc.) offensive, increasing my wikistress and making it more likely that I leave. Whether this is your intention or not, this is the outcome of your behavior. Whether it's acceptable or not, this is for ArbCom to decide. Please note I'd not be complaining about it if you haven't made yourself involved here, thus proving that you still are willing to harass me (and presumably, others, like Biophys). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible stuff, Piotrus. Now, I am harassing Biophys (whom I in fact most staunchly defended against harassment.) Any diffs for that you got? You may find my accusations of yourself stressful, yes, but there is no harassment whatsoever. Your slandering me by misusing this very strong and specific but very offensive, when misused, term is exactly the type of dishonesty in you that I have a problem with (more at my talk). Now, you say "users in question claimed". Which users? Balcer, who first accused me in no less than sympathizing with antisemitic views, may claim what he wants (while diffs are there for anyone to see) but this is the first time I hear that I was harassing Halibutt and Lysy. Can you show me where they claim that? Or got any diffs of me harassing them in your black book? Of course you can't. Looking through your black book this comes across as the only diff that relates to Halibutt at all. Does our perfectly normal discussion you logged there even remotely resembles harassment? Just throwing out stuff hoping some would stick. Unhelpful. --Irpen 06:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about this, but not sure this is helpful. Strange things are happening around here. Let's consider these bare facts:

1. So far, only two users supported you with evidence: Greg and me. Greg was immediately and unfair accused of antisemitism, which resulted in frustrating discussions at several talk pages.
2. An attempted outing of me took place by User:Miyokan, almost simultaneously with opening your case [9], and it was predictable that I am going to be active here.
3. When I provided some evidence here, this campaign accelerated, with already two Russian users involved. Of course Miyokan was talking previously with Irpen in WP, but so did many other Russian users. There is nothing suspicious here.
4. After coming back, Irpen protected Miyokan at the ANI which resulted in this summary even though all other administrators (excluding Alex Bakharev) commented otherwise.
5. Irpen came to my talk page and suggested to use my right to disappear - please see a conversation here (these threads were accidently deleted). I am not sure he correctly interpreted WP rules about this. ("Abandon this account and start editing from a different one ... you don't even need to notify any admins of your actions.", said an experienced administrator Irpen - is that a good advice?). If I followed Irpen's advice, I would not talk here now.
6. He later also issued this warning. ("outlandish remarks like this in public fora are completely outrageous."). This is my "outrageous claim" he is talking about [10]. What he probably means are my words "(although probably true)".
7. Relata Refero issued me this ultimatum. Relata Refero collaborate with Irpen, as I presented in evidence.
8. Some people are talking that I am paranoid and talk too much about Russian state security services. Of course I talk, because I expanded a number of articles here on this subject including
   Russian apartment bombings, SVR, FSB, GRU and many others. However when I used word "KGB" simply as a figure of speech (a quote of a famous Russian journalist who was poisoned by the FSB) [11], Irpen took it very personally [12], although I did not mean him at all [13]
   . Please note that my first statement was not directly addressed to Irpen, but I simply expressed my frustration from this witch hunt in general. But he decided to answer in this manner. The quote of the journalist tells: "we", it does not tell "you". "We" means: "we all". We all do not want such trials as this one.

Now you get the picture. I strongly feel, especially after the statement by Relata Refero that next their target is possibly me, and I do believe that you also has been a target of unfair accusations. But bringing such stuff to your case would probably be adding an insult to injury. So, I deleted this segment.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, please do not use ambiguous and veiled language. What are you trying to say here? Besides, several issues in your itemized list are outrageously wrong.

On (3), I never ever talked to Miyokan outside of Wikipedia by any means whatsoever. I welcome you to study every entry I left at his talk. They were all calls for him to change his conduct.

On (4), the claim that I "protected" Miyokan is diffless for a reason. Because there in no way in hell to interpret anything that I have said about him as "protecting" him. Was there a voice more damning than mine about Miyokan's joking about outing you? Did I ever call for allowing him to get away with it?

On (5), this is a completely bizarre claim you are making. Despite all the stuff you said about me, I came in to help because I do not tolerate harassment and I saw that you were harassed. I've got an impression from your reaction that the possibility of your being outed worries you and I came to give you my best and the most sincere advise on how to deal with this problem in a way that would allow you to continue editing. I should learn from a mistake I made by sincerely trying to help you.

On (6), again, what a stunning way to spin my comment as the "last warning." I gave you my best advise thinking only about the unfortunate situation you faced.

On (7), your claim that I "collaborate" with RR has been addressed in a sufficient detail right above as well as by RR himself [14].

On (8), it is difficult to understand what you actually imply, especially by putting it together with the rest of your statement. It very much seems that you persistently see a hand of direct Russian security apparatus involvement in these Wikipedia conflicts and often make veiled suggestions about individual editors. It is not the first time it comes across this way. --Irpen 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only answered to a question by Piotrus (as bare facts), and this is it. I am not proving anything here. No further comments. I had enough of that.Biophys (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, why do you introduce my name to these proceedings when I have not made any complaint against Piotrus and am not a party to the RfA? It seems to me that you are just looking for an excuse to accuse me of trolling and of being a sockpuppeteer. You have no evidence of my being a sockpuppeteer because I am not one but since you have made the accusation please provide your evidence. As to my message on your talk page, it was a very civil response to your anti-Semitic comment. And you not only refused to apologize you simply made more insults. Wikipedia is large and there is some wriggle room for anti-Semites with you (yes, anyone who thinks the word "Jew" is an insult is an anti-Semite) but trust me, sooner or later people will lose patience with your anti-Semitism. My advice to you is to start acting civilly, and not look for excuses to insult other editors. Now, can you put your money where your mouth is? You just accused me of sockpuppetry. Please provide your evidence (or if you retract the accusation you may strike it out and apologize) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.K., Irpen, and I all have real-life issues to deal with. Jobs, family, etc. We don't feel obligated to explain the details. Piotrus has described M.K. as "Curiously Inactive" and pointed out that "all but one of (Novickas) edits from September 2 to September 25 are related to this arbcom." [15] Are we in fact obligated to disclose, discuss, or otherwise justify our personal reasons for absences or limited participation? How about interpreting this focus as using our limited time to address what has been a problem to us for several years? - hoping that some sort of reproof from this committee will help? Novickas (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The committee tries to be understanding about these things. If parties and others closely connected to cases have a time when they are busy and unable to give full attention to the case, then we are willing to hold on and wait for them, within reason. As members of the committee have these times just as often - perhaps more often - than editors generally, we can't hold others to different standards. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have noticed that you cut people slack in regard to ArbCom participation, and I appreciate that. My question was more towards P's comments on the evidence page, diffed above; whether is it fair to criticize us for being "curiously inactive" or inactive in other areas. Novickas (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also have limited time to dedicate to Wikipedia, and this arbcom (as the previous ones) have eaten significantly into time I can dedicate to this project (directly translated into less content created). For obvious reasons, I have however little choice but to join these proceedings. I do find it very strange that some editors who were not named as parties editors discussing other editors to creating content. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not discuss others; if one cannot find time to do something constructive, why is one here? The length of this proceedings has to be balanced with two considerations: the longer it takes, the more evidence various parties can present - but also the more time of other parties will be wastedconsumed, and the longer stressful, battleground environment will continue. This case has already gone for weeks, I for one hope it will end as soon as possible, and I will freely admit that the time of each arbcom case, with tons of slander coming may way, are the least favorite of my wiki times, and in fact they are the times when I dread to log on and check my watchlist, for fear of what more slander I will see on those pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case was unanimously accepted, no dissenting votes, so the committee members did not feel it was a waste of time. Re slander - in the evidence section I have focused on directly and exactly quoting your own statements and on quoting other admins, eschewing the temptation to use my own rhetoric. If you feel slandered by other admins, you could take the issue up with them. Novickas (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. If the case will put an end to harassment that has been going for years and resulted in deterioriation of certain topic areas into battlegrounds and good editors leaving, it will not be a waste of time in the long run. It is, as any dispute resolution, still a waste of time compared to the ideal situation in which editors would be peacefully creating content instead of bickering with one another. I have addressed your section

here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think everyone had a lot of time to provide evidence. The sooner this case will be taken for voting the better.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate that the case will move to a proposed decision within the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, Piotrus 1 took 4 months... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newyorkbrad that this case will move forward soon, likely within the next week. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why were no Fofs and remedies posted on the workshop page by any arb? I've been waiting on them for sometime, and I think I made a note at some point in Sam's principles too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to post some Fof and remedies on the workshop page later in the weekend or early next week unless another arbitrators does them first and I feel that they are complete. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cough* (unhealthy editing between some of these parties, even during this case, makes me think that this needs to move towards a proposed decision soon - so, still waiting on workshop proposals of Fof and remedies by an arbitrator) Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, hurry it up. For now, I am withdrawing from some of the content articles. The flaming is getting too much even for my thick skin on some of those issues.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had an urgent family situation that caused me to be out of town off and on for the past two weeks, so I was not editing with any regularity. Now that I'm back, I need to get up to speed on the case. Expect some proposals from me within the next few days, unless another arbitrators beats me to it. If another arbitrators post some Fof or remedies (or a complete case), then I might comment on them rather than write my own. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked into Biophys's entries to the Evidence page and I am astonished by the concentration of the bad faith assumptions here. The case is not about Biophys but if he could reconsider or retract something it might help. A few notes to

:

• The history of
  WP:OWN
  that fixing the staff required so much of effort is a clear indication of the problems we have with Eastern European articles.

The point is not about qualification of Deacon (I did not see his diploma). The point is about him suddenly coming to the

Polish capture of Kiev (1018) page and other suspicious circumstances I described in evidence.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The point is that absolutely uncontroversial cleanup of an article was made a tortuous exercise of battleground and canvassing by Piotrus assuming bad faith. There is nothing suspicious in cleaning up bad articles. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is about Deacon controversial rewriting the article, refusing to discuss things other than claiming my edits were and are improper in various ways, and refusing to allow me to edit the article for weeks. And receiving help in this from certain editors, like yourself :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you consider Deacon's blocks on 3RR violations to be bad blocks then please elaborate, if not why the material is here. I have blocked, the IP doing anti-Polish edits on Stefan Banach does it indicate I am a member of the Polish cabal?

I said in evidence that I do not consider his blocks to be wrong. This is not the point. I simply noticed the fact. Deacon almost never appears at 3RR noticeboard. When did he made similar blocks previous time?Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous blocks by Deacon for edit warring and disruptive editng [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three such blocks in April and one in August among 22 total blocks made by Deacon. What I noticed was a series of three consecutive blocks of non-Russian users, two of whom (Pieter and Hanzo) were the only long-standing and highly productive non-Russian contributors on the North Caucasus subjects who dared to have content disputes with Russian users.Biophys (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks are related to breaching of 3RR on the same article that might be of Deacon's interest (or somebody may indeed contact Deacon demanding an admin action). Not sure about Deacon but I am getting such offwiki calls daily Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think
  Defense of the Brest Fortress
  edit by Deacon was a joke rather than explanation of negative allusion for a particular article title. Quite useful actually for non-English speakers.

I provided the diff. It is up to others to decide was the notice about "porno" appropriate or not. Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding
  WP:NOR policies. We simply cannot lump together living tenured academics from USA as "denialists" and suggest their work was directed by KGB unless we have multiple reliable sources for that. Anybody accustomed with Wikipolicies and acting in good faith would return such tags there no need to be tag team here. The same way is true that most wikipedians would remove insertion of obscenities to Vladimir Putin or George Bush
  articles even if they are not members of Web brigades

The point is not about academics, and it is not about the KGB. The point is about massive edit war by Irpen and his ally Relato Refero.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the enormous unthankful job by Irpen and Relato to bring some sense of normality into a non-compliant article. It is fun to write a hatchet job accusing living people. It is very taxing to make article compliant amidst accusations of whitewashing. It really should not be made even less attractive by throughing accusations of tag teaming. Honestly. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The article was in compliance with WP basic standards (at B level) before intervention of Irpen and Relata. Irpen made ~100 edits in this article, but precisely zero content contributions. This was a pure disturbance, something very negative, exactly as in Przyszowice massacre. This is not to dispute numerous positive content contributions by Irpen in other articles, including Defense of Brest Fortress.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said somebody has to do the thankless job of enforcing Wikipedia policies Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what doubts Biophys has with intentions of Deacon. If he thinks intention "to address Piotrus' behaviour" is improbable then what was the real one?

My best guess is that he wanted to help Irpen. But I am not here to decide. This is up to ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to his intention was to help Irpen to do what? Can you elaborate? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In getting rid of the clear and present danger to Wikipedia that is me, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody so far has proposed to block or ban Piotrus of editing. Nor do I think such a proposal would fly. This is indeed because of great content work by Piotrus. On the other hand, addressing some disruptive Piotrus behavior might indeed be handy Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive like what? That I dare to disagree with Irpen, and when he accuses me of wrongdoing, I dare to object to his slanderous accusations? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already told about
  WP:NOR violations on Holodomor denial
  . People restored the tags because the article was compliant with the policies, not because they were members of tag teams.

So you think that actions by Irpen and Relato Refero were just fine. I would like to have a 3rd opinion by an uninvolved administrator.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actions should be commended and really people who supported the hatchet job should be ashamed of their ways Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Holodomor is a high profile article that is a constant target of POV pushing as well as valid POV conflicts. In many sections literally every sentence is a result of a tortuous compromise. The amount of effort might be better spent on the extension of factual parts of the article rather than the propaganda efforts. And indeed estimations on the number of victims made before opening of erchives are as useful as hypotheses on genetics before discovering of the DNA.

This is mostly a content dispute. As I explained at Holodomor talk page, this statement by Irpen and you is entirely wrong. Soviet KGB archives were never opened. The Ponomarev commission, which tried to dig out something there, was disbanded immediately after publishing materials about Alexius II. As a side note, "some hypotheses on genetics before discovering of the DNA" by Thomas Hunt Morgan and Gregor Mendel were completely correct. It is their work, not the DNA discovery, formed foundation of genetics. Same thing here. It is the book by Robert Conquest is the most solid secondary source on this subject, and he did not reconsider the numbers even in 2003. Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me politely state that I disagree with you. Uncritical using sources published before the essential information became available is wrong Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not looked into the Gavrilov discussion on the Brest Fortress, but Biophys's diffs seems to indicate an honest dispute. Were there hordes of Russian tag teams members who reverted to Irpen's version? And yes, if in doubt better leave an information out.

No that was not an honest dispute at the part of Irpen, but it was honest dispute on the part of Piotrus. I provided the diffs and my opinion. If they are not convincing, I am sorry.Biophys (talk)

Your diffs do not confirm your opinion Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have not looked into the Przyszowice massacre article but usually checking sources on highly emotional stories is good thing especially if all the sources are from one side. No proof of the tag teaming from Irpen's side.

The point is not about the tag teaming. The point is about waste of time. I believe there was no any reason for the prolonged dispute. The intervention by Irpen and some others there looks like harassment to me.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all your piece was suppose to be about an alleged tag teaming of Irpen's friends. No I am at loss: what the pieace is suppose to mean. Anyway I am always for checking sources. It is a usefull work Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not always tag teaming; it can be about harassment, too.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when checking sources is a harassment? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's based in IDONTLIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Putin. Yes, he is a living person and all the negative information about him should be well referenced to multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a tribune to reveal "the truth long time suppressed by Putin's agents in the Western media". Wikipedia is not an anti-Putin or a pro-Putin propaganda website so even the language should be neutral. Insertion of obviously biased entries are effectively work against their POV - people just see the entire text as propaganda piece. And yes, Biophys again and again violates those core policies. Indeed it becomes tortuous for both him and people who had to clean after him.

I believe none of the diffs I cited or Irpen cited (when he warned me) represents a

WP:BLP violation. If I made any BLP violations anywhere in WP, please tell me about that, and I will fix the problem immediately or ask an advice from other people. I agree that Wikipedia should not be an anti-Putin or a pro-Putin propaganda website, as you tell. But I believe that many WP articles represent only the official view by Russian government, which is indeed a blatant violation of core WP policies.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• There is no
  WP:BLP
  might bring Wikipedia into legal troubles and indeed people are get blocked for this.

You cited wrong diff. This is legal threat: [20].Biophys (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Jimbo Wales is known to have permabanned people who bring Wikipedia into disrepute is not a legal threat. It looks like splitting a hair but indeed explaining people that some of their actions might bring Wikipedia into legal problems is often needed as an explanation why some killjoy activities are needed. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: "I also recommend you to consult the Russian Criminal Code (article 319). (Ab)using Wikipedia for criminal activities is sort of subversive. [21].Biophys (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we indeed are trying not to violate legal restrictions. It is a requirement of

WP:BLP and other policies. Any problems with it? Alex Bakharev (talk

)

• I do not see anything wrong in warning a relatively new user that removing somebody's good faith contribution with references to troll or stalking troll is [22] and [23] is a bad etiquette. Especially if the warning starts with "This is not an official warning so you are free to remove it from your talk page..". Anyway it worked Colchium is one of the most civil users now.

Of course Colchium is one of the most civil Russian users, and he always was.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is now. Still mentioning TROLL or stalker troll as a rationale for reverting a good faith edit brought many editors into troubles. I think it was better to inform Colchicum about it Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure why the Ellol's history is here. It is a monstrous assumption of bad faith that you suspect ellol was threatening you and you repeat this offensive nonsense many times. No you accuse Colchium that he is also a FSB team member covering ellol? Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I provided the evidence about ellol, and I said that Colchicum was also a victim of harassment like me. Colchicum refused to translate because he wished me and others the best; and the best is to avoid conflicts. Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but jumping around accusing people being murders is an ultimate incivility. Can you contact Colchicum or any native Russian speaker asking to translate Ellol's piece and explain that your interpretation is absurd. The joke should be stopped it is not funny anymore Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse anyone of murder. Yes, this is not funny. I provided my translation and presented it to ArbCom during previous "Boris Stomakhin" case.Biophys (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no evidence that Miyokan cared about Piotrus, but he indeed had a few conflicts with Biophys. Thus, assumption that he had harrassed Biophys so to indirectly hurt Piotrus seems quite far fetched.

Yes, that might be a coincidence if nothing else was happening. But as I described in evidence, a lot of other things had happened as well.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me politely disagree with your hypothesis Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea who Captain was until Alaexis accused me that I have blocked a reincarnation of M.V.E.i but not Captain. The accusation was made on Biophys's talk page, thus, I have answered there. I have no interest in blocking Hanzo (in fact I have given him a barnstar) but had to block because he was community banned. I have also tried to get him unbanned but failed. Obviously, I was trying to unban Captain (and indeed protected Biophys on AN/I) because I was an anti-Russian tag team member and all the people protesting unbanning Captain/Hanzo were Irpen's friends. Or were they?

You tell you did not know. Sure, this is something unprovable, but Hanzo did not even try to hide his new identities. He went to numerous high profile articles and simply edited them like Captain...Captain...Captain (50 times) and 84.234.60.154 ... 84.234.60.154 ... 84.234.60.154 (30 times)[24], after editing the same article as Hanzo...Hanzo...Hanzo 50 times [25]. I am using

Beslan school hostage crisis as an example because you suggested him to register after he edited this article. But he did exactly the same in a hundred of different articles: Hanzo made 28,000 edits, 84.234.60.154 made 8,000+ edits, and Captain made 10,000 edits. Of course I knew, Pieter from Netherlands knew, and I thought you knew. You watched this user and left a number of notices at talk pages of 84.234.60.154 and Captain. As long as he provided perfectly neutral contributions in old articles about Chechya, WW II, etc., he was just fine. But as soon as he started editing 2008 Ossetian war, he was blocked at both accounts. OK, I will modify the evidence.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I guess I have left all those notices on his talk page because I really liked his edits at that stage. And then I arranged Aleaxis to out Hanzo to me on your page... You are promoting really weird hypothesis, honestly Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not try to unban Hanzo. You aked if he could be unbaned together with MVEi, which was not supported of course.Biophys (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have stated As they are of the opposite POV I feel it is good to keep the restrictions to be equal to avoid supporting a particular POV. Although in my opinion Hanzo was less disruptive than M.V.E.i. that started a whole thread discussing unbanning Hanzo along. Among all Russia-related editors only Miyokan ever advocated community ban of Hanzo or Captain. The main proponents of keeping him banned were User:EVula and User:Rlevse, both are hardly members of the "Russian tag team" Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop painting me as an idiot and paranoic. I have never said anything bad about EVula, Rlevse, and Colchicum. I have never said anything bad about you and Irpen before this case.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've also supported unbanning them... Alæxis_¿question? 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one could present evidence on Hanzo/Captain and ask ArbCom in workshop to unban him - this would be a nice change, a constructive outcome of this entire mess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure I have got Biophys's point: Irpen removing the gallows for Saakashvili from a user page was also acting pro-Putin? I would think that removing offensive and controversial staff from userpage is a good thing.

Agree, that was right thing to do.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you put into the evidence section? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Irpen argued at ANI in favor of Myokan. I lost count of all people I have argued at ANI at favor of. Which tag team I am at?

I agree that Irpen and you argued in favor of all Russian users: Vlad Fedorov, ellol, Miyokan, RG CG, M.V.E.i. and many others. You both also argued in favor of User:Petri Krohn.

• Advise was done in good faith. Biophys even could continue working on the case by the old nick and make content edits with the new edits.

I am trying to interfere when I have first hand experience on working with a user. Many of them are "All Russian" but this also include Biophys, HanzoHattory/Captain Obvious, Darwinek, Halibutt, Lysy, Hillock65 who are usually considered to be of an opposite team. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite to what? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged "All Russian tag team" whatever it means. Ask Biophys why did he lamped those editors together. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean advise by Irpen to abandon my account and open new one? Sorry, but I indeed interpreted this as a bad advice, especially after looking how you reblocked Hanzo. There are many admins who are ready to block any sock on the spot.Biophys (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody will block a user in good standing who decided to change his or her account because the old one was outed. Recently I was protecting the right to start anew by Myokan/Berkunt and User:Grey Fox (both somehow controversial because of the long blocklogs accumulated on the old account. I believe Arbcom has a procedure of even transferring the admin bit to such new accounts. On the other hand I am not sure it would work. The next time your new account would cite La Russophobe blog as a reliable source anybody would know the old account. Still it might protect you from some casual wikireaders. I am personally working from a real name and I think most adults wikieditors writing from democratic countries could reveal their real names. In the long run it is worth it. At any rate the choice is yours. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people forgive Biophys all the harassment so he could continue working. Some (like Relato) protect their rights. There is indication of the tag teaming?

So, you consider this statement is an appropriate attempt by Relato "to protect his rights". I would like to listen 3rd opinion.

I think people have the right not to be subjects of baseless accusations. I and many others seem to through this away for the best of the project but nobody could force them for this Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really find "jokes" by Biophys accusing people he has disagreement with to be a member of FSB
  web brigade
  troll squads or murderous hit men to be quite offensive. I happen to be a butt of one of them some time ago. In my company the only response to such a "joke" would be a slap to the face. Still I guess an anonymous over thousand miles of his internet can allow throwing mud without risking to have some facial damage. Though he might reconsider his behavior.

Why did you bring this here? I did not accuse anyone of that in evidence. Moreover, I have never accused anyone personally in WP to be a member of FSB teams. Please provide diffs to support your accusations. Yes, I have seen how another user accused you of "corruption", but that was not me. If people made and placed such userboxes themselves, this is their problem. Telling about the "slap to the face" without providing any evidence is an obvious example of harassment.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And accusing people of attempts to murder you is not? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please provide diffs. I have never accused anyone in WP of attempts to murder me. Are you talking about a "virtual murder like" indefinite block? I talked only about threats, but this is a different matter.Biophys (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me provide evidence for you.

1. Here another user (not me!) accuses you.
2. This is my reply after intervention by Irpen.
3. This is I politely asked everyone to leave my talk page (it was not me who started this conversation!), and deleted all this conversation as inappropriate [26]. Biophys (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... I would stop by now the list is to long anyway Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must honestly admit that I provided this evidence in part because I believe that next victim of Irpen's team will be me, especially after this threat. If an uninvolved and respected administrator (like DGG or Moreschi) decides that I am wrong, and it is me who actually harasses other users (as Alex seems to imply), I am ready to apologize and correct my behavior.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you are already a target of that "team", just like me? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary! I became a target immediately after making my first comment in your case. All this conversation with Alex only confirms that I am now a target.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I removed everything that concerns me. Peace.Biophys (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for refactoring your statement. A few more points:

• I am not sure why you call Irpen a "Russian editor". AFAIK he was born and lived most of his life in Ukraine. He is interested almost entirely in Ukrainian topics (that are often connected with Russian, Polish, Belorussian and Lithuanian topics due to the common history). As fas as I can tell he writes better Ukrainian than Timoshenko, Yanukovich and Yuschenko as well as many "Ukrainian users". I do not remember involved in Russian topics (beyond vandalism reversions) if they are not related to Ukraine. That is why "Irpen against Ukrainian users" sound as funny as me against Russian users, etc. Ukrainian topics are often a subject of controversy and in many cases Irpen puts Russian and Ukrainian sources and points of view to complement Polish and Western sources. I think in many cases it is a positive thing.
• Regarding Holodomor, two discussions were mentioned and I think Irpen was right on both counts. Firstly there is a strong push from some Ukrainian politicians to frame Holodomor as ethnic genocide by Russians and Jews in order to russify the territory of Ukraine. I personally think this kind of politics as disgusting as say
  Russian famine of 1921 as an ethnic genocide by Jews and Georgians. IMHO it is simply not true - the famine killed millions of Russians, Kazakhs, Moldavans, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans. I remember Biophys disagreeing with Russification as the main reason of Holodomor as well. The notion of Holodomor as ethnic genocide was never supported by Russia, Israel, by any official decision of a UN agency, etc. Still the opinion has a strong support in Ukraine, the Holodomor as a genocide is sometimes mentioned in official decisions of many Governments, etc. Thus, we cannot dismiss the notion but we agree to never mention it as a fact, only as an opinion. Besides many people use the word Genocide just a synonym for "Mass Murder". We have a much more accurate word for this: Democide, that we are trying to use. The compromise is indeed require efforts to maintain we had a concentrated effort of single purpose accounts and IP users to insert Category:Genocide in the article (apparently there was a student organization that advocated pushing this category in the article. Still I think maintaining a balance is important: if the wishes of the nationalist politicians would come true and there will be pogroms
  in Ukraine the blood and human suffering might be on our consciousness. Obviously, keeping the Stalinists (like Zvezda/Mikhail Frunze, etc.) who are trying to trivialize the famine out of the article is equally important and Irpen (with my help in blocking Zvezda's socks) did a lot of this unthankful job.
• Another issue with Holodomor is that there seems to be a consensus in the serious post 1990ies publications on the number of the victims: around 3.5 millions of dead in Ukraine/around 4 millions if Kuban is included and around 6 millions if the whole Soviet Union. There is a difference (mostly in the interpretation of the demographic data) but it is in the hundreds of thousands not millions. The different numbers came either from pre-1990 sources (then the real demographic data became available to the researchers) or include the whole Soviet Union instead of Ukraine or deal with "demographic losses" (that include decline in the birth rate together with deaths) or come from politicians. I think the numbers are absolutely terrifying and the sense of certainty in them makes the even more tragic. There was a strong push to include in the lead a wide range of numbers either including pro-Soviet propaganda (denying the famine or trivializing its impact as hundreds of thousands) or include pre-1990ies guess work or politicians. The result is a wild range of estimations of victims. That IMHO makes the article less informative and putting unreasonable doubts on the numbers made the reader to doubt the existence of famine (if the number of victims is estimated between 2 millions and 8 millions then all the story might be a fabrication, they do not know anything for sure). Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have looked through the history of Pyotr Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stub and it looks like a model of cooperative work. The only problem I have is with Biophys reverting an IP account with absolutely uncalled off uncivil summaries fixing IP vandalism, rv - please stop or you will be reported, rv to Alaexis at 18:03, 10 October 2008. If you continue, I will report this. The newbee was trying to insert a better photograph (from Ru-wiki instead of uploaded by Irpen) and Category:Tatar people. He seemed to have knowledge about Gavrilov but not wikiexperiance. Why it was needed to attack him? Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last example was an obvious vandalism by an IP because he repeatedly deleted an image by replacing it with another image which did not exist at the time of his reverts (someone placed this image to WP only much later). As about propaganda issues, this is clear as

WP:DUCK I believe.Biophys (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Harassment by Irpen and his friends

I must admit that editing Russian political subjects is very difficult, thanks to Irpen and his supporters. Their "friend or foe" criterion is very simple: if a user who actively edits Russian political subjects is not "pro-Putin", he is identified as a foe. Any criticism of Putin causes very angry reaction [27]. The foe is immediately labeled as a "Russophobe" [28]. and undergoes harassment. Irpen is always ready to tell that "outlandish remarks [about Putin] like this in public fora are completely outrageous" about ordinary content discussions [29].

For example, User:Colchicum said that Putin is "out of control" using a standard Russian colloquial expression. He immediately became an object of a legal threat by User:Ghirlandajo ("I also recommend you to consult the Russian Criminal Code (article 319). (Ab)using Wikipedia for criminal activities is sort of subversive., said User:Ghirlandajo) [30]. Later Colchicum was harassed by Irpen. However, when he deleted an aggressive comment by Irpen from his talk page [31], he was immediately "greeted" by Alex Bakharev who tells that it was he who supposedly attacked Irpen and reminds about possible blocks [32]. I also had a similar incident described here [33]. User:ellol came uninvited to my talk page, asked what I think about Putin, and then issued a threat. However when I complained to the ANI, Irpen and Alex Bakharev came to rescue ellol and "explained" that I wrongly translated the threat from the modern Russian semi-criminal slang. I asked Colchicum to translate [34] but he refused and advised me to calm down [35] (this was before the incidents described above in this paragraph).

The harassment rapidly accelerated during this Piotrus-2 case, which perhaps can be interpreted as intimidation of me as a witness:

1. An attempted outing of me took place by User:Miyokan [36], soon after my first comment about this Piotrus-2 case [37], a comment that I soon withdrew.
2. A notice about indefinitely blocking my best talking partner in wikipedia (a "notorious" banned User:HanzoHattori) was placed at my talk page [38], immediately after my first comment in these proceedings. The notice was placed by Alex Bakharev, in reply to a sudden comment by User:Alaexis who was a member of a self-identified team with red "KGB" userboxes: Alaexis, Miyokan, and Petri Khron. The placing notice about banning Hanzo-Captain to my talk page reminds the episode from Godfather when someone received a "present" from the Mafia - a severed head of his horse - as a warning "to behave". Actually the re-blocking Hanzo was an interesting story. First, Alex Bakharev suggested him to register as a regular user [39], but when Hanzo re-registered as "Captain", Alex Bakharev reblocked him on the both accounts [40] [41], after the requests by Alexius and User:Stor stark7 (who also commented in this case). Sure thing, everything was done "by the rules". See also my reply to Alex Bakharev here.
3. When I provided some evidence here, this campaign accelerated, enforced by
   Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) [42]
   when this matter popped up at my talk page.
4. After coming back, Irpen argued at ANI in favor of Myokan [43] who was later banned.
5. Irpen came to my talk page and suggested to use my right to disappear - please see a conversation here. "Abandon this account and start editing from a different one ... you don't even need to notify any admins of your actions.", said an experienced administrator Irpen - is that a good advice or a mouse trap? If I followed the Irpen's "advice", I would not present anything here. This "advice" by Irpen sounds too familiar after the previous "advice" given by Alex Bakharev to Hanzo.
6. Relata Refero issued me this ultimatum. Relata Refero collaborate with Irpen, as I presented in my evidence above.
7. I expanded a number of articles on Russian state security services here, including
   Russian apartment bombings, SVR, FSB, GRU and many others. Not surprisingly, I sometimes use quotations about the Soviet KGB, simply as a figure of speech. However, when I used such quotation recently [44]. Irpen took this citation very personally [45], although I did not mean it at all [46]
   . Please note that my first statement was not directly addressed to Irpen, but I simply expressed my frustration about this ArbCom case. But he decided to answer in this manner. The quote of the journalist tells: "we", it does not tell "you"; it is not addressed to anyone personally.

I'd like to comment on this since my name has been mentioned here. I am glad that you agree that everything was "by the rules" (although I don't quite understand the purpose of quotation marks here). I left that post at your talk only because a few hours earlier User:Ostap R posted this info about Kostan1 and User:M.V.E.i. which immediately led to the ban of the former. This reminded me of User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog. Later I have supported Alex's proposal to unban both of them since I consider both of them productive users and my experience of interaction with them was rather positive. How is all this related to the userbox I once had? If you think I have harassed/intimidated anyone and that I have violated any policies (a spirit if not a letter of them) state it clearly. If not I don't understand why has my name appeared here. Alæxis_¿question? 07:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you use my full quote, rather than using a cheap trick of quoting half sentences to give an utterly false impression of what I said. The context was:

By offering these pseudo explanations, and by peppering our articles with the fringe pseudo scholarly justifications disguised as explanations offered by Piotrowski and Lukas, we are simply giving credence to justifications for simple lies and murder. My examples werent strawmen. By your logic I could add to an article "Some people think all Poles are stupid. But actually thats exaggerated--that perception comes from the fact that a small number of Poles were noticed to be stupid." Or "some people think all Blacks are criminals. But that perception....bla blabla."

That selective use of my statements was pretty lame. Sheesh. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very smart to use hate languge in a context. I believe you wouldn't write such statement about Jews or Afroamericans, but you have written about the Poles. Xx236 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read what I wrote on the talk page instead of doctoring my quotes to give a completely false impression of what I said. If you actually read what I wrote, I am saying that by Piotrus' logic (in which he tries to insert lies about Polish Jews as fact by stating the lie and then claiming it was "exaggerated"), lies about Poles or blacks or any other group can be inserted into articles. Now that I have explained what you missed with your selective, misleading quotation, you have the option of removing your defamatory claim about me in good faith, or let it stand as an example of how you are willfully presenting lies in this evidence section in support of Piotrus (give Piotrus a break--he already has anti-semites like Greg park avenue supporting him). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you write so many words instead to say Sorry, I didn't mind to offend Poles?

Do you belive you have the right to accuse Piotrus? Why do think so? Xx236 (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to remove your defamatory claim about me (based on an entirely out of context quote) or not? Leaving it in makes you look pretty silly and willfully deceptive, since I obviously was not "offending Poles." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to excuse because of your hate languge?Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Boodles, but for someone who itches to play the anti-Semite card, you show little care for respecting other ethnic groups. If someone wrote what you did substituting Jews for Poles, you would (rightly) maintain that hypothetical or not does not matter in expressions of anti-Semitism. Yet you feel no compunction about hypothetical slanderings of other ethnic groups. Either you respect all ethnic groups or you respect none. —PētersV (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, someone did write such a thing substituting Jews for Poles. The "hypothetical slandering" I used was in response to the actual slandering of Jews in the article. You have it backwards. But of course, by your own admission on your talk page, you don't consider Jewish sources to be reliable sources on subjects of anti-semitism (as you so delicately put it, trust in Jewish sources on such matters "is not always rewarded"), so there's not much use in trying to convince you of anything. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what I said is that not all authors who write on the Holocaust are historians and therefore not all results are of a consistent quality. And that one's ethnicity (and I clarified with a number of ethnic groups and sample subjects) in relation to a subject imparts trust on the part of the reader regarding these materials of inconsistent quality. You demonstrated NO interest in discussing anything, rather, you were intent ONLY on putting words into my mouth that would indicate I'm an anti-Semite (that is, that all Jewish authors are not to be trusted). Please cease and desist in grossly misrepresenting what I wrote. —PētersV (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole discussion started when you had shown up on my talk page in a discussion of deletion of reliably sourced content, and made the non-sequitorial statement Don't pick some article or book and quote it without context. Jewish "scholars" have even taken declassified Soviet archives as factual which claim that units of Russian deserters involved in murdering Jews were actually Ukrainians and Lithuanians. I asked you why you had put "scholars" in quotes (you were apparently referring to a historian) and subsequently why it was important to note that the "scholar" was Jewish. You hemmed and hawed but basically stated your contention that Jewish authors could not be trusted on the subject of the Holocaust. I put no wors in your mouth. They all came from your own postings. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I explained the difference between scholars as historians and "scholars" as those who study and write about the Holocaust but are not trained historians. That should be quite clear regardless of ethnicity. You asked about the significance of an author's ethnicity, I responded with a multi-ethnic example. I have NEVER contended that "Jewish authors cannot be trusted on the subject of the Holocaust." That's a patently ridiculous claim, both in and of itself, and the contention I made it. Read encyclopedic Judaic resources and you'll find a proper definition of, for example, Askaris: "Askaris [Slang] Term for Russian prisoners of war who collaborated with the Nazis. Askaris served as guards and in other capacities in the slave labor and concentration camps. Many were meaner than the SS." From the "History of the Holocaust" by Abraham Edelheit, Hershel Edelheit, Ann Edelheit, here. Runs counter to Soviet documentation in a Russian archive on a topic where the Soviets were known to manufacture evidence against the Baltics and Ukraine, in particular. Does this not at least give some pause for concern?
   Hemmed and hawed? No, you just don't want to listen to anything I said, assuming I'm just another anti-Semite trying not to get caught regarding what I mean "in other words", that is, you putting your words in my mouth saying and contending what I did not. Please go find someone else to mischaracterize and defame. —PētersV (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that explains why you found it noteworthy that the historian in question was Jewish, nor why you indicate "scholars" in quotes. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! Enough with your witch-hunting. What was "noteworthy" was that an author took a Soviet/Russian archive at face value (deflecting blame from Russians) when, in fact, Holocaust historical sources say otherwise. Another incorrectly wrote all Waffen SS were convicted at Nuremberg. I explained the link between ethnic heritage, topics, and engendered reader trust. I explained "scholar" (in quotes) versus scholar (trained historian). That you seek to make it all into something it is not is your issue, not mine.
   I usually leave my personal life out of Wikipedia (myself and my ethnic heritage being attacked in the most repulsive fashion just for being Latvian). However, Boodles, your unremitting search for bad faith amongst editors and the ease and surety with which you denounce editors (and insist that the words you put in their mouths are their words) demands a response. From our family's closest friend being beheaded by the Nazis to my praying for the release of my people from (in my case, Soviet) bondage at Sedir, to holding the chuppah at one of my best friend's weddings (all probably before you were born), to sitting shiva to mourn lost friends, to placing a stone on their monument when leaving their gravesite... don't begin to pretend you know anything about me and my relationship with or beliefs about Jews, Judaism, or the Holocaust. —PētersV (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree with my characterization--you mentioned that the historian was Jewish because of "the link between ethnic heritage, topics, and engendered reader trust"--in other words, a Jewish writer cannot guarantee reader trust on the subject of the Holocaust becuase of hsi/her "ethnic heritage." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing "Jewish historiography", with its specific POVs and biases, is not anti-semitism. EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodles, I tire of your incessant "in other words" badgering that I'm making all sorts of reprehensible contentions, now, that I'm saying that Jews writing about the Holocaust are not to be trusted because they are Jewish. Is there a reason you've decided to make me a personal target? That's a rhetorical question. I'm truly sorry for whatever makes you mis-hear, misquote (or both) people and attack them in the belief you are serving some greater purpose. —PētersV (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This my final response to you on this whole sad affair. I'm not going to keep encouraging you by continuing to defend myself against things I did not say. —PētersV (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, makes no sense. If, as you claim, trust is affected because of ""the link between ethnic heritage, topics, and engendered reader trust", then of course you are saying that Jews writing about the Holocaust are not to be trusted because they are Jewish. What else would your "link" between topic, ethnicity and trust mean (and you specifically gave me an example of "someone Jewish writing of the Holocaust"), and why would you be positing such a link? Piotrus' statement above, of course is so vague as to be meaningless. But do note, historical revisionists of all sorts often hide behind the innocent sounding claim that there is "nothing wrong" with discussing this or that ethnic historiography. And if either one of you really want to see an actual example of putting words in one's mouth, why not look at the issue this thread was about--the malicious and deceitful doctoring of my comments by Xx236 as I indicated at the beginning. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Boodles, I am saying, in all cases of all ethnicity, a source's/author's ethnic background neither improves nor impairs the quality of the source, although said ethnic background can carry with it the weight of persuasion through close association with a topic. Please demonstrate where that statement is anti-Semitic.

   The core issue, as I have repeatedly and consistently stated, is portrayal of the Holocaust by trained historians versus portrayal of the Holocaust by authors, "scholars" in quotes, who are not trained historians. Another example, I read in one book that "virtually all Lithuanians supported or participated in the Holocaust." And what was the stated basis for the origin of this condemnation of an entire people? Because that's the "only way so many Jews could have been killed." (And no other basis given.) That's not scholarship. Please demonstrate where that statement is anti-Semitic.

   As for your new implication I'm a revisionist, what are you specifically accusing me of revising?

   "In other words", this time, my words:

1. Any author writing about the Holocaust in Eastern Europe should not take Nazi/German and Soviet/Russian sources (including primary source "reports") at face value.
2. Any author writing about the Holocaust who happens to be Jewish answers to a higher standard, in their obligation to their heritage to insure such a catastrophe never happens again to a people--any people--and to insure both the guilty and innocent are portrayed accurately, as what they write will carry with it the stamp of persuasion of their personal heritage and motivation.

You will note this is completely consistent with everything I have written and in no manner states or even remotely implies that what Jewish authors write on the Holocaust is not to be trusted because they are Jewish. What I have stated above is no different from my stating that when I write about Latvia and my own heritage and, for example, what the Soviets did during the occupation, I have a moral obligation to the truth that transcends just relating facts at face value. Please demonstrate where that statement is anti-Semitic.

   You, on the other hand, appear to be bound by no moral obligation whatsoever as you continue to harangue me with contentions of anti-Semitism based on statements you allege I have made that are solely your own invention. —PētersV (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for your accusation of "malicious and deceitful doctoring" against Xx236, I have come to learn that when it comes to violating the norms of civil behavior, the first ones to cast the stone are the ones who engage in the very behaviors they (so stridently) accuse others of. —PētersV (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably, you continue to prove my point while you deny it. The statement "Any author writing about the Holocaust who happens to be Jewish answers to a higher standard...as what they write will carry with it the stamp of persuasion of their personal heritage and motivation" is at best a condescending and offensive insult to the objectivity and professionalism of a Jewish historian (why must a professional answer to a "higher standard" simply based on their ethnicity, and why oh why are so many of you supporters of Piotrus obsessed about ethnicity--particularly Jews?) That's at best. At worse, when taken together with your other statement about trust in such historians often not being "rewarded", we have an anti-semitic stereotype which a priori paints Jews as being incapable of adhering to scholarly standards when it somes to Jewish subjects. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "proving" your point only in your own tragically twisted view of reality. Jewish authors themselves speak of their obligations to their heritage with regard to the Holocaust. It is a higher calling. There's no obsession on my part or anyone else's over ethnicity. Your continued contention regarding my position of now, per you, "Jews as being incapable of adhering to scholarly standards when it somes to Jewish subjects" is so patently offensive and is so completely over the top a blatantly hateful and complete misrepresentation of what I have stated that, frankly, I'm appalled at the level of hatred of Jews you have manufactured in your own mind that you purport exists here on WP and of which you seek to condemn and convict editors. —PētersV (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would suggest you search your soul and consider apologizing for your venom-spitting witch hunt. —PētersV (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I drew my conclusions from your own quoted words, and given your increasingly "venomous" attitude simply in response to my quoting your own words, an apology is not likely. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions "drawn" only by someone who has convicted me before any discussion took place, culminating in a misrepresentation that is, simply put, a blatant hateful lie. And so, per Piotrus, I am indeed done. —PētersV (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peters, you wrote above you are ending this discussion. You are not going to convince a "true believer", and I doubt anybody but the few of us will read this stressful discussion anyway. Write some relaxing content, or comment in some ongoing content discussion or in the workshop which the arbitrators may actually be reading :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words from one so young. :-) PētersV (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Lojek-Magdziarz has answerd Giles Coren: [47] I dedicate this article to B. Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, particularly in light of recent content dispute, where B. is insisting that "Poland has a strong tradition of anti-semitism" is a claim that should be in the lead of articles on Polish-Jewish history (Talk:Żydokomuna#Strong_tradition_of_anti-semitism_in_Poland).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever the canvasser, eh, P? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have someone nominated you to prosecute the Poles, or are you a self made D.A.? Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately stop such personal attacks. M.K. (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your actions in this Wikipedia so unfair, that I don't accept any teachings of ethics coming from you. Start to behave yourself, to demand something from me. Xx236 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Your activities in Dariusz Ratajczak are close to vandalism. Any interested reader can check your methods. Extreme-right, really. And bad Poles didn't allow to speak Lithuanian on the phone. In 1990. And the Earth is flat. Xx236 (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really sadden to read those lines above, however I more then call any editor, including Arbiters, to investigate Dariusz Ratajczak article, in order to find those "close to vandalism" edits of mine both - in main space and talk. But I am afraid it is just another instance then Polish editor is trying to bite me. I would not respond to any further "comment" of this kind. M.K. (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After finishing reading

]

I find many of your edits incidents. I admit, I don't reprimend you, because I don't believe it can help. Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, I am really flabergusted at Alex Bakharev's "In my company the only response to such a "joke" would be a slap to the face.". We are a community of civilized people, not a

]

I might be indeed in the Alex "company" because we both are former Soviet/Russian scientists of similar age who went to work abroad. He tells that I made certain accusations (which I did not do!) and suggests that such accusations are beyond belief in "his company" and therefore deserved "a slap to the face". I was surprised by this Alex statement because such suspicions are actually very common among former Soviet/Russian scientists, and they are not anything beyond belief. For one thing, we had around 11 million of KGB informers in the Soviet Union, and almost every big laboratory in Moscow had at least one informer. For another, almost all people who graduated from certain places, like Moscow institute of international relations (MGIMO) or Institute of military foreign translators worked for the "organs" almost by default. It is also a matter of common knowledge that most scientists who left the country to work abroad before the 1990 had to be approved by the KGB (excluding emigrants to Israel). I left the country only in 1992 when it became possible to get "foreign" (real) passport with US visa without asking a permission from the KGB people who worked in the foregn affairs department of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. This is not to imply anyone personally, but simply to explain the situation to people who are not aware of it.Biophys (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I appologize for writing after your comments in the project page. I did not know that only you are supposed to write there. (Of course, now that I think, this makes sense, b/c one should not be influenced or distracted by someone else's comments when reading different evidence, but somehow I did not think about it when I made the comment.) Thank you for moving my comment here.

Second, I know a little bit - only a little bit - of inside information from the way scientists were working in the former Soviet Union. I was born in Moldova, but I was only a teenager when the USSR broke down. So I did not experience it on my skin, yet I know some things from my channels. I know of a very famous scientist being prevented by two KGB people in the hotel room from personally taking a scientific award for using his name to (try to) help dissenting people forced into mental institutions, I know about another one preventively stopped from receiving the same award when a fellow scientist (!) threatened to undermine the furure interaction of USSR with the rest of the world in that field, I know that a certain institution of higher education was protected by too much KGB toughness partially by a rector who was not a party member and for whom alone the party meetings were made "open", and I know that that institution had factions of scientists in not very good relations with each other, a fact that was obviously exployted by the KGB. And yes, a slap in the face is not the worse thing they can do. Yet, I thought that was something that my generation won't have to witness. (I have never been in Russia since the USSR broke down, being driven in the western direction, but in time I interacted with a few Russians. Then, of course, other people I meet or know have/keep relations with Russians.) Dc76\^talk 02:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess adultery is common between humans and sex workers are a common employment, still naming as a joke or as a suggestion somebody's mother, wife or sister a whore is not a way to be tolerated. The same goes for jokingly suggesting that your fellow works for KGB exactly because it indeed was common and because KGB members made a great deal of evil things. I have no ideas what circles Biophys was befriended in but if it was admissible to jokingly suggest (say during a party) that somebody works for KGB and expect to continue nice and polite smalltalk then it was probably not mine circles. I have made a rule for myself to be a part of solution not be a part of a problem and never demanded any satisfaction for wikiattacks on me so Biophys is quite safe in using his anonymity to also make speculations about the sexual habits of my female relatives or whatever he finds suitable to entertain himself. Still my choice is not the reason to harass Ellol as a member of the FSB hit squad treating to kill Biophys, this nonsense should be stopped. My history (almost resume-style) is on my userpage. I have left Russia in November 1992 because my wife managed to get a research scholarship to do graduate studies at University of Illinois in a few months I succeed in getting a postdoctoral position at the same uni. Then my J-1 with the two years of home residential requirement expired I have found an R&D position in Australia and qite happy there. I am working under my real name so I guess if you think you need to convey your concerns to my country police or my employer then I cannot prevent it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that I ever called anyone in wikipedia "a member of a KGB team" (I asked you before, but you provided nothing). I have never called you a member of such team. I have never called ellol a member of such team. I have never made any speculations about anyone's female relatives. I honestly provided all evidence to ArbCom about an incident that had happened more than a year ago, and I do not see anything wrong on my side. I did not ask anything about your biography, and I did not ask for any satisfaction.

I only tried to explain to Dc76 (because he asked!) that your statement about me being

biological weapons expert who came to make some pathogen research in the US and then returned back to Russia; a postdoc who said that he arrived to the US as an "enemy citadel" to learn a couple of useful bacteriology techniques, and so on. And I am well aware of literature like "Biological espionage" by Kouzminov who describes recruitment of Russian scientists abroad, or with writings by Konstantin Preobrazhensky about Russians abroad as "best assets" of the SVR. But all of that has nothing to do with you or me. Right? Thus, I do not understand your strong reaction. Reaction to what? To my criticism of Irpen? This is the only explanation I can come up with.Biophys (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

First, I indeed asked Biophys to clarify. The fact that I find out now that you, Alex, are a scientist only brings you respect in my eyes. But, I indeed learned a lot of information from Biophys' answers.

Second, I would like to understand if there is any substance to "adultery" and "sex", or Alex just used this to make a comparision. Did anyone of you accused anyone else to anything remotely related to sex? If it is just for comparision, then perhaps they should be ignored. I can understand Alex' arguments related to implication of KGB relation without the need of a comparison to "whore". Actually, to an implication of "your mother is a whore" is much easier to react effectively: personally, I would tell all the people I know in common with my hypothetical accuser what exactly he said and the circumstances. Such an accuser needs but to do baseless accusations one more time to one more person, and everyone will remember the precedent. Although noone would perhaps "punish" the accuser directly, he would never be able to say "believe my word, x did/is/worked for y" again in any circumstances, to any of the people who know him. When your word is permanently distrusted, that is worse than 100 slaps in the face, than 100 WP blocks.

Third, Alex, you shouldn't have said "in my company (...) slap in the face". You can say this at a bear party, but not on WP in your position, when you are an example for other users. I think other users (except Alex and Biophys) don't want any formal action taken against in these disputes, but they don't want to see such language in the future.

Forth, if this is this just a personality clash between two scientists, please, just tell so to the rest of us, and don't try to recruit WP-ians against each other. As civilized people, you could do the clash at a more chivalrous level, you need not involve Polish-Lithuanian issues in the process. And in general, you need not take it to the mainspace.Dc76\^talk 20:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is absolutely not "a personal clash between two scientists". I have absolutely nothing personal against Alex, and we actually had good relations before this case (at least I thought so). I mentioned about his personal attack in evidence for only one reason: this illustrates his behavior as a member of Irpen team (I believe he attacked me only to protect the leader of the team), and the team of Irpen is indeed very damaging for WP. I provided evidence against Irpen team because they attacked Piotrus in this case and they made life very difficult for many other people. If that was about me, I would not bother at all. I have no personal interests in this case and would gladly accept an apology from Alex, or no apology at all.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This case is not about the "Polish-Lithuanian issues". It is about people being evicted from WP by tag teams.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to understand better the whole picture. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 07:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks ago, when I came from a 4-month wikibreak, I was surprized by the recurance of anti-Piotrus arbitration cases. It is well-known that Piotrus is regarded (dispite this being technically impossible) as some kind of Napoleon of This case is not against Piotrus, but altogether against the editors that introduce (regularly or occasionally) information that reveals/portrays Soviet/Russian affairs in a negative light from the point of view of "Soviet/Russian patriots". It is also well-known that both "camps" in this ever-going dispute are very broad, each containing lots of pair of users that have never met. It is intriguing to note that the "Soviet/Russian camp" contains users that would never critisize KGB/FSB and users who do that on every remote occasion. (Other things being equal, this can qualify for a Litmus test.) However, making militant non-content and non-behavior related remarks, like "Slap in the face" is not a Litmus test. Why?

A few answers to my questions prompted me to form an oppinion. It is impossible to prove, in fact

).

So, I urge the ArbCom to read at least some of the things going on in this whole anti-Piotrus case not solely within the Wikipedia universe, but in the real world. Things going on around do project their shadow on WP. My hypothesis is: while some users involved in anti-Pitorus campain are really doing it out of belief, some do it out of necessity to keep with the crowd. They do not aim to damage an innocent person, but they have to mentain the spirit of conflict, so that they themselves would not be qualified as unpatriotic (=traitors). My "evidence" is this link I mentioned, plus then follow back to dig the whole thing. I hope the things are not as bad as my hypothesis implies, but I am sure you would agree it is by far not baseless. Dc76\^talk 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was about to move this to the talk page, when I was shown this: [49], [50]. Things might be as bad as I supposed. I really wished it were just a conspiracy theory...Dc76\^talk 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am wrong, I am sorry for taking your time. Dc76\^talk 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those anon links, I think they were a joke or a provocation, but in either case, they are not a "good sign" of any kind.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriagirl - as she had admitted - had not edited Wikipedia since March and has just returned with this evidence (it constitutes her first edit to this project since March); this is a behavior strikingly resembling battleground creation (why is her return a return to discussing editors, instead of building an encyclopiedia)? She has not interracted with me and Poeticbent but for one occasion, one which hardly left a good impression on me. User:Poeticbent is one of the few individuals who revealed their name on this project, and who also happens to be a notable individual (

]

In March of 2006, I made the first of many thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. This ended roughly two years later when, as I have explained, my confidence in the project was shaken. I owe no apologies for my absence. Piotrus describes my return as being “strikingly resembling battleground” and asks why I “return to discussing editors, instead of building an encyclopiedia [‘’sic’’]”. I answer this query by pointing to my opening statement. To put it succinctly: Piotrus’s actions were amongst those that shook my confidence in Wikipedia. My discovery, earlier today, that there was a Request for administration concerning Piotrus, encouraged me to comment. I ask, are my previous contributions not to be taken into account? Is not the addressing of administrative issues in itself a contribution toward the building of an encyclopedia? I suppose here Piotrus and I disagree.

Roughly speaking, Piotrus is correct that we have interacted (I would use the word “encounter” - as I have noted in evidence there was nothing approaching an exchange of ideas or opinions) on but one occasion: a sixteen day period in March 2008 involving

Richard Tylman, Talk:Richard Tylman, the COI notice for Richard Tylman and the AfD for Richard Tylman

.

Piotrus is not correct that my sole interaction with Poeticbent concerns the same period. In fact, in March 2007 I placed three citation requests which were responded to by Poeticbent through the use of an IP address. In June 2007, I removed one of these sources (with the associated claim), as it clearly did not meet Wikipedia’s standards concerning verifiability. I explained the edit on the talk page.

Piotrus has described my behavior as “not friendly and cooperative”. I ask him respectfully to point out where I have behaved otherwise.

Of considerably more importance, he has accused me of becoming “close to violating

WP:BLP

". Again, I ask him to provide examples of this conduct. Noting that he adds “see Talk:Richard Tylman for details”, I request that Piotrus point to the specific evidence that he feels this page contains.

Contrary to Piotrus’s belief, I hold no grudge against Poeticbent. Rather, what concerns me - and, yes, contributed in a small way to my loss of faith in what I had once described as a “grand project” – are the actions of an administrator who I believe has demonstrated personal bias. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As it concerns my conduct, I think it right that I correct another claim made in Piotrus’s post (above). Piotrus states: “Victoriagirl has dedicated some time to trying to prove that this article is not notable and should be deleted”. I have done no such thing. Nowhere on the article’s talk page and on the article’s Conflict of Interest notice, do I so much as raise the matter of notability. Indeed, it is Piotrus who in his initial post on the COI noticeboard first raises the issue. In response, I was quick to point out that it was not notability with which I was concerned, but conflict of interest. In his second and last post on the noticeboard, Piotrus again raises the issue, claiming “We have all agreed that this is a notable person”. Again, I posted a correction, pointing out that I had never addressed the issue of notability and (again) that my notice concerned a perceived to be a conflict of interest. (Absent from my correction is the fact that another editor, Gordon of Cartoon, had already challenged Piotrus’s claim as to the subject’s notability).

I take great exception to the statement: “She eventually failed in deleting this article”. The AfD nomination was not mine, but was proposed by Gordon of Cartoon . Awaiting and weighing the evidence presented at the AfD, I neither contributed nor expressed an opinion at this forum until nearly seven days had elapsed. The brief comments found at this AfD [51] [52] are all I have ever said concerning the subject’s notability.

A final comment: I find it regrettable that after over 48 hours and nearly 200 edits Piotrus has not yet responded to my requests (above) for clarification. I respectfully repeat my request that he indicate where I have behaved in an unfriendly and uncooperative manner, and ask also that he show where it is that I have come "close to violating

WP:BLP". Whether described as a violation or “close to”, I consider these latter charges to be extremely serious in nature – that they have been made by an administrator makes them doubly so. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Piotrus, to me it's more like "battleground creation" to pester every user posting evidence against you with irrelevant and baseless ad hominem "responses" on the talk or in your ever changing "evidence" section. What's more, it's also a waste of time, both for yourself and for the arbs. I mentioned deflection tactics in my section, and this kinda thing just shows it to be more correct. Isn't it better to allow people their say, and let the arbs judge without this all the time? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I not allowed that user to have her say? Have I censored her or something? No. On the other hand, you follow estabilished Irpen's tactic and dispute the other's right to reply... I am sure it would be much easier for you if only your side was allowed to present your case, and your opponents were silenced. I am afraid, however, that ArbCom allows both side to state their case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, can you explain why do you bring my name and accusations into a discussion to which I have no relation? The reason I am asking was that when the same thing was done to you by another editor (and I said back then too, that it was really unhelpful on his part, details here) you acted as if completely outraged and demanded sanctions [53] and other admin intervention [54]? Perhaps, you could avoid actions that when done by others prompt your asking for "admin intervention"? That would have been helpful. --Irpen 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between blaming editors in random discussions, unrelated to them, and discussing a pattern relevant to a particular arbitration case in this arbitration case.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pitorus, I don't get it. What did I do? --Irpen 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a lot of invective over disagreement over one article. That comments start as "after x hours and y edits by Piotrus I haven't heard a word..." rather points to this having become personal. —PētersV (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I say it shear frustration. You spot an article with various issues, try to improve it to WP standards, get burned by combative editors, loose faith in the project, leave, come back hoping that somebody would finally listen, get accused of all kinds of violations, post a thoughtful response, and then get no reply. I'd say the loss of faith in the project was well-deserved. Renata (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over one single article?

talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Martintg and Vecrumba, with all due respect, the evidence presented by myself concerns Piotrus and his comments and edits. That all involve the same article is a reflection of my limited encounter with this administrator. I found his judgement in each instance questionable and so bring evidence to the table, as is called for in this exercise. That Piotrus’s response concerns not the evidence, but insinuations and accusations regarding my motivation and character, false claims about my editing history, and an unsupported statement that I have come close to violating two very serious policies, provides further indication to me that I was correct in presenting this evidence. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Victoriagirl, there are two issues. First is the root cause, the pitched battle over whose version of Soviet history wins. Second is the disease it has spawned: the ease with which perhaps true content disagreements are sucked into the swirling abyss of "the OTHER editor is the one dealing in bad faith." If rose colored glasses denote optimism, then what we have here is pitch (and yes, there is that allusion to tar) black glasses. Look at how much energy you have expended over one single article. Now take that and--in the full context here--and magnify it over all articles regarding the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, where the true conflict lies. I am sorry for your experience on this article. I know Piotrus to be an editor who will solicit outside assistance from editors when there is a content conflict born of good faith. That your conflict became one born (or appearing to those on both sides to be born) of bad faith is, IMHO, part of the inevitable collateral damage caused by the primary Eastern European article content conflict. -PētersV (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I do recognize that many of the parties here in this forum have been involved, even focused, on articles dealing with "the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe", I point out that I am not one of them. Indeed, I don’t recall ever contributing to an article dealing with this area of the world.

PētersV, in discussing my evidence you’ve written: "collateral issues over side articles such as this are distracting us from the root cause of the conflict." I beg to differ. Is not judgment and action at the root of any conflict? That my evidence does not concern "the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe" makes it all but unique and, I dare say, valuable. In short, though the encounter presented in evidence was brief, I found each and every post and action made by the administrator to be questionable. I consider his response to my participation here – while ignoring all evidence presented – to be a further indication of poor judgment.

Again, my evidence has nothing to do with "the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe", and I have no desire to be dragged into the battle.

You’ve remarked on the amount of time I have spent on the

Richard Tylman article. I am far from alone in having done so. In any case, my last edits and comment on the article where made in March and pre-date my lengthy absence from Wikipedia. I long ago gave up on the piece and have no intention of returning to or commenting on the article. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Victoriagirl, to each of us here, the conflicts we have personally had with any other form the center of that experience. When I say "collateral," that is to say your evidence has nothing--and everything--to do with "the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe." The Eastern European article space is rife with anti-"nationalist" bad faith. If you adopt a confrontational attitude over any editorial conflict in the EE arena relating to the portrayal of Eastern European history or individuals, well, you place yourself right into the vortex and right into the hairlines of the sights of those who have had to defend EE articles 24 x 7 x 365. The fruits your insistence bore were not a reflection on Piotrus, but on the atmosphere of constant pitched battle. The next time you find yourself in an EE conflict, come by my talk page, despite that some consider me little more than a middle-aged bombastic nationalist, I do manage to mediate the occasional conflict born of good faith. If such was the nature of your conflict, then you have picked the wrong means of responding here by playing into the side effectively--based on editorial results, no judgement on motivations--seeking to ameliorate half a century of Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe. Your sincere belief that your conflict is between you and Piotrus ignores the unfortunate reality of very real agendas at work here and that EE editors have been forced to react to confrontation based on resisting those agendas. -PētersV (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PētersV you've made a number of assertions concerning my submission of evidence, beginning with a rather bold edit summary: “if your conflict was born of good faith, you are not pursuing the correct solution here, you are supporting the side of bad faith”. I will not comment on your claim concerning bad faith, but I will ask you this: Is Piotrus not to be questioned because so doing plays. as you claim, “into the side effectively--based on editorial results, no judgement on motivations--seeking to ameliorate half a century of Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe”? I see nothing in Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines that accords or justifies such immunity.

And I do take exception to the statement that by presenting evidence – the very purpose of this forum – I am “not pursuing the correct solution”, and am also “supporting the side of bad faith”. With respect, I ask you to withdraw these remarks.

Your primary assertion is entirely incorrect. In fact, I've never adopted a “confrontational attitude over any editorial conflict in the EE arena [the emphasis is yours] relating to the portrayal of Eastern European history or individuals”. Frankly, your charge leaves me puzzled. Are you stating that

Richard Tylman, a Polish-Canadian commercial artist living in Vancouver somehow falls into this category? If so, I point out that my issues with the Richard Tylman article had to do exclusively with a perceived conflict of interest that involved failed citations - at no point in the COI notice for Richard Tylman

were the issues of nationality, Eastern European history or Eastern European culture so much as mentioned.

You state: “The fruits your insistence bore were not a reflection on Piotrus, but on the atmosphere of constant pitched battle.” Here , again, I disagree. The evidence presented – which not a single person, yourself included, has challenged – concerns only Piotrus, his judgments and his actions.

You suggest that the I visit your talk page the next time I find myself “in an EE conflict”, to which I respond that I’ve never found myself in an EE conflict. I have presented my evidence here, as is appropriate. There is nothing within Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines that suggests I have “picked the wrong means of responding here”, as you assert. On the contrary, this very forum was created to address the issue of Piotrus's behaviour. With all due respect, I hold no sincere belief that there is a conflict between myself and Piotrus (how can there be a conflict when one party ignores the other and neither responds to nor presents evidence?), rather I believe that there is a conflict between Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and the actions of this specific administrator. Victoriagirl (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Poeticbent’s most recent post on the evidence page. Poeticbent is entirely incorrect in stating that I have “regurgitated” the issues that have been “long resolved and long forgotten”. In fact, the matters I have presented: Piotrus’s contributions to the Conflict of Interest notice AfD nomination for Richard Tylman and the

article have never before been raised.

In presenting this evidence –which remains unchallenged – I include the names of three Wikipedians: Piotrus, Poeticbent and Gordonofcartoon. While both Piotrus and Poeticbent have participated in this exercise, I thought it unlikely that Gordonofcartoon knew of the RfA. As I mentioned his name, I thought it only right that he be informed. This, Poeticbent believes, is part of a “hidden agenda”. I can assure him that there is none and, in good faith, am taking the liberty of informing all those who participated in the Conflict of Interest notice. I have excluded the IP vandal from this list. If any user feels the six other parties involved in the AfD should also be notified, I would be happy to do so.

Poeticbent claims that I have quoted Piotrus out of context, yet provides not a single example. I think it is to be expected that he do so – particularly as he has made this claim on a page intended for presenting evidence.

I decided to again contribute to Wikipedia after coming across this RfA – I have stated as much both here and in my original post – but I find no inspiration in the “exceptionally hostile atmosphere”. I take great offence with Poeticbent’s accusations, insinuations, tone, and choice of words. If he indeed believes that I have engaged in a “pointless, mean-spirited campaign of anonymous harassment”, I suggest he present his evidence at the appropriate forum. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it unlikely that Gordonofcartoon knew of the RfA. As I mentioned his name, I thought it only right that he be informed.

I took it in exactly that spirit. It would help considerably if Poeticbent would keep to the point of the arbitration and refrain from raising different areas of conflict. We're not discussing what we think of Poeticbent or his article; we're discussing Piotrus' handling of procedure in relation to that article.

If Poeticbent thinks it's of any relevance that an editor is "a fellow Canadian" [55] and that it's especially reprehensible to make negative edits given that relationship, the nepotism I mentioned clearly is on the table. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent’s most recent post represents the third occasion [56] [57][58] on which he has seen fit to pass judgement on my motivations and character, however he has yet to challenge one piece of evidence I have presented. Therefore, I think it only correct that I respond here

While I respect Josiah Rowe and his contributions, I take exception to Poeticbent’s description of this admin as "the only administrator (!) composed enough to be able to finally put a stop to her prolonged campaign of personal harassment". In fact, I’ve never had any contact with this admin - all of Josiah Rowe’s contributions to Talk:Richard Tylman occurred several days after I had stopped contributing to Wikipedia (he did not participate in the COI notice and the AfD nomination). His message asking for my opinion was left during my eight-month absence from Wikipedia. Poeticbent is certainly aware of these facts as he has mentioned this period in a previous post.

I disagree that Poeticbent’s identity was "in plain view": his name does not appear on his user page, nor does the fact that he is Poeticbent appear on his personal website. In our prolonged discussions concerning copyrighted material featured in the

article, he never once revealed that he was the copyright owner, referred to himself in the third person, and used the same descriptor in referring to his work. Although Poeticbent claims the information that he and the subject are the same was "in plain view", he would not answer my queries concerning the matter. When invited to email me about the matter, he was silent. And yes, I consider attempts at defending copyright from a person who, after 14 days, reveals himself to be the copyright holder, to have been a waste of time.

Before introducing my evidence on the RfA project page, I state: "It was on this page [the COI notice] that I first encountered Piotrus.I cannot describe what followed as a discussion – although his posts were addressed by myself and others, Piotrus never responded in kind; our follow-up comments were always met with silence." I wanted to make it clear that there wasn’t much in the way of interaction between Piotrus, myself, and the others involved. Poeticbent seeks to challenge this statement by providing Piotrus’s two contributions to the COI notice. Piotrus’s first post, made 12 March 2008, received responses from Gordonofcartoon and myself the very same day. We both questioned some of Piotrus’s assertions. Piotrus made his second post, on 14 March, but addresses none of the issues raised in response to his post. Indeed, he claims "We have all agreed that this is a notable person" – a clear indication that he hadn’t so much as read Gordonofcartoon’s response to his first post. I addressed this error and other issues featured in Piotrus’s second post less than two hours after it was made. Piotrus made no further contributions during the remaining 19 days of the COI notice.

I have no interest in the

article, and regret that I’ve had to go over these issues in correcting Poeticbent’s post. Again, what concerns me is Piotrus’s judgement and actions involving the article.

This marks the third post in which Poeticbent has accused me of harassment. I repeat my suggestion that he present evidence of this very serious charge at the appropriate forum. Failing this, I expect him to withdraw the accusation. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essays should probably be posted on talk of main arbcom page, alongside other statements by non-parties... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section by Victoriagirl, who is Canadian not Russian, and note that Poeticbent's angry response doesn't challenge her main points. Art LaPella (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't see your note here earlier, please see my comment above, edit labeled "inevitable collateral damage." Since I take it you're one of the few outsiders here, if you believe that such an analysis would be helpful, I would be willing, time permitting, to go through Victoriagirl's case and demonstrate where the death spiral took place. It has nothing to do with Victoriagirl's background (nor did I make any assumptions at all regarding her or her evidence), only that this was a dispute in the highly contested EE article arena. My concern is that collateral issues over side articles such as this are distracting us from the root cause of the conflict. -PētersV (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on PētersV's post above. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was called Russian too, by Piotrus (I had to state in my evidence I am Scottish, otherwise the arbs would - trusting Piotrus - have believed this), and Marting at one point in some page move discussion also accused me of being Russian. It's pretty messed up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I never did any such thing.

talk) 07:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Vecrumba didn't call Victoriagirl Russian. I was responding to

]

What difference is this supposed to make? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, now. Both you and Vecrumba responded as if I thought that Vecrumba called Victoriagirl Russian. I didn't. Art LaPella (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that you felt the need to explain that she wasn't Russian prompted my post, that's true. I am rather sick of lying accusations of bias, though in fairness Vecrumba doesn't seem to have done that to Victoriagirl in this way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll have to read above now. Ancillary issue drawn into Eastern European death spiral, Q.E.D. To Art, I make a point never to judge anyone on their nationality (people) or nationality (state). You did certainly appear to be saying I was and ascribing intentions on that basis. That is another part of the Eastern European death spiral. Q.E.D. -PētersV (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this evidence against User:Matthead rather strange:

Matthead (talk · contribs) does not have an illustrious history. In the old days he was largely notable for edit-warring with Rex Germanus (talk · contribs). Rex was a Dutch chauvinist with a bee in his bonnet about Germans: Matthead was the ideal German nationalist for Rex to edit-war with. This includes mutual socking: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matthead and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rex Germanus.

ER, "mutual" socking? The checkuser case against the troll Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) had nothing to do with his ancient edit war with Matthead. Rex Germanus had been banned from German topics and was infesting Flemish articles at the time - after causing a lot of aggravation there he avoided a complete ban by leaving. As far as Matthead is concerned, this is very old stuff.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, welcome back to editing (your last edits were on September 25, 2008). How did you stumble upon this case? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user has openly declared to Matthead that Wikipedia needs "German nationalist like you" [59].

--Molobo (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]