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

Statement/Evidence by Vecrumba
The evidence and statements and defamation presented in these proceedings which purport to indict myself and others for all Wiki-collusion crimes imaginable—I won't belabor these—consist mostly of pontificating diatribe, rehash of alleged historical iniquities, and putting Bandags on stale evidence presumed to be relevant to the "list".

I do not yet have the alleged archive to comment on and have asked for an extension based on PL priorities, but I do feel obligated to put a stake in the ground as a good-faith gesture of intent to present evidence regarding that as well when it does come available. Therefore my first presentation of evidence is limited to the "evidence presented" and comments associated with these proceedings and protagonists. [I have since obtained a purported copy, however not through admin channels, so I cannot vouch it is the same or that it is untampered with.]

Let's start at the very heart of the matter. If I am blunt, don't blame me. I didn't start this.

These proceedings and Russavia
This is not about cooperation off-Wiki. This is about an opportunity created by one "side" illegally hacking the accounts of their "opposition", finding something they could misconstrue as a vile cabal assembled for the sole purpose of an attack upon themselves, and thus launch their own self-righteous indignation-filled counterattack to once and for all wipe out any editor that stood for fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, i.e., dared stand in their way.

Hacking is not an extraordinary claim. Indeed, "hacking" is the most logical claim as it is the one that fits the only logical representations of events surrounding the Russavia meltdown on The Soviet Story. As we are floating conspiracy theories, mine is that Russavia's "meltdown," the hacking of the archive, the purported "attack of conscience" on the part of a "member" outing the "list" as if it were a criminal enterprise, are related events. Unfortunately for all concerned, I shall have to wait until I obtain and analyze the archive to see if my supposition is borne out. I postulate two possibilities: Stay tuned.
 * 1) Russavia had his melt-down and pro-Official Russia swung into action to find a bargaining chip to use against the opposition, the goal being to save Russavia, or
 * 2) pro-Official Russia finally succeeded in hacking the opposition, after which Russavia had his calculated meltdown at an article guaranteed to bring out all the opposition to comment, at which point the "cabal" was conveniently revealed, the goal being to eliminate the most persistent WP thorns in pro-Official Russia's side . Of course, we then have the campaign to save Russavia as it was he who was "provoked," not the other way around.

For now, let us examine some of the lobbying and lobbyists surrounding Russavia:

' Evidently : One is not responsible for one's conduct. Under the guise of being "provoked," even the most heinous conduct is to be excused—if the editor is on your side (pro-Official Russia).'

Giano returns from the wilderness
I welcome the long lost Giano. His gracing of these proceedings with commentary and threats (as documented above) underscores their significance to those promulgating the pro-Official Russia position on WP.

I've read Jehochman's user page. He offers sound advice, for example, Kiss and make up. But under threats and incivility, this becomes "let's not stir the waters." I am dismayed that a calming spot of tea is preferable to the conflict Jehochman predicts to result from standing for integrity. Questions such as these:
 * "Why are you folks trying to drive Giano away or provoke him further?" (Blocked for incivility thread)

leave me questioning our priorities. This is not a reflection on Jehochman, I've read his off-Wiki interview regarding the lack of due process on Wikipedia—it's thoughtful and informative. This is a reflection on the WP environment that has been allowed to fester, albeit through good intentions on the part of many.

 Evidently : Conflict avoidance outweighs defending integrity.


 * Actually, I won't indulge you to compare me to Chamberlain, nor I will let you compare Giano to Nazi Germany. May I politely ask you to refactor the above. This page is for evidence, not rhetoric. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't comparing Giano to anyone. Please do not put words in my mouth. Furthermore, I believe I made it quite clear that my comment related to WP and not to you personally . Stricken under protest. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * After sleeping on it, I am severely disturbed by your contention I compared Giano to Nazi Germany. You obviously missed the point I was making. I am sorry you felt it necessary to take administrative umbrage in the middle of my evidence based on your interpreting my "rhetoric" as meaning anything other than what I explicitly stated. This is how mutual recriminations of bad faith start . Please contact me on my talk the next time you believe I called someone a Nazi. I trust this puts an end to these unfortunate unpleasantries and does not prejudice you against me in these proceedings. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Threats and intimidation
And why is it that Giano is so feared? That his overt and sneering thuggery is treated with kid gloves? Perhaps I should ask who else he has threatened (as per the clear example provided above) with  demonstrated impunity ? Perhaps even Jimbo himself? Giano addresses Jimbo in the same derisive and derogatory manner he addresses everyone he disagrees with. And Jimbo says: "Be good." ἰχθὺς ἐκ ṯῇς κɛϕαλῇς ὄζɛίν ἄρχɛṯαί.
 * 21:49, February 8, 2009 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Be good)

 Evidently : Treat everyone you disagree with as a useless worm and threaten to squash them into the hereafter, and you will be respected—even by Jimbo.

Reverence for Irpen
I dealt with Irpen extensively on a number of topics. We even cooperated on Janis Tilbergs. More than once I stated that even though I diametrically disagreed with Irpen, at least he sourced his opinions and I had to respect him for that. Over time, however, his defense of the "Russian position" and insistence on a more positive view of the Soviet legacy shifted. Beyond increasing allegations of tendentious editing and cherry-picking sources, he pushed amelioration of Soviet acts by milquetoasting titles and content. For example, one could not say the Soviet Union "occupied" the Baltic States, even if a source used that word, because "occupied" was a "judgemental" term. This escalating POV pushing eventually came to a head at Holodomor, where Irpen intentionally misrepresented Davies and Wheatcroft's seminal work:
 * That Conquest was discredited and obsolete; no, Davies and Wheatcroft praised his work particularly in the area of personal testimony; that D&W studiously avoided any discussions of intent regarding the Holodomor was their conscious decision in the creation of their work.
 * That Stalin took a personal interest in the victims; no, D&W actually wrote about a unique case where an official in Stalin's favor lobbied on behalf of their home town for relief— the only case during the Holodomor  where a specific request for aid was granted while other pleas went unheeded.

When I corrected the "personal interest" contention to represent the source, Irpen deleted it, note his edit comment:
 * "please don't add info to the sentence referenced to a source  that is just not there " [my emphasis].

As I had based my edit on an extensive book review of D&W which specifically discussed the Stalin passage, but did not have the source itself, I could not dispute him. $140 later to buy the text, and there it was, exactly what I had written, and what Irpen had deleted as an outright lie  because it appears on page 218, not 217  (the ref being to ). Irpen  had the book , his  misrepresentation  (Irpen was a master of technically not a lie, it wasn't on page 217) was  completely intentional  and relied solely on a disputing editor  not having the entire source .

That Irpen left is not because he was "run off." Irpen left because editors would not stand for his increasingly blatant misrepresentation of sources to suit his increasingly strident POV.

 Evidence : That Irpen is held up here as an avatar of lost WP grace is a searing indictment of those who do so and of those who blindly parrot that contention without checking the record.

Proposed principles as evidence
This is with regard to Coren's posting of September 24, 2009.

Consensus
1) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved.  To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages.  "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.
 * Consensus as "agreement" is meaningless. Consensus only has meaning when it has as its basis reputable sources, where consensus is the collective editorial representation arrived at through discourse conducted in good faith. Where and how individuals choose to discuss something is immaterial. What is material is that when discourse is conducted on Wiki discussion pages, it is regarding fair and accurate representation of reputable sources, not of personal opinions or political pronouncements.

Participation
2) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative representation of the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.
 * This does not address that consensus is a numbers game, per the above, absent of reputable sources forming a basis for discussion.

Consensus in internal processes
3) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project also rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible.  In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.
 * Internal processes are designed  not  to mediate content disputes, that is, have been specifically constructed as to be content and source agnostic. Agnostic consensus serves as the model for edit-warring on article content; those who edit war using this model cannot be countered based on their "editorial" contentions. This promotes content control through attacks on editors, as whether or not the content being proposed, created, or deleted is a fair and accurate representation of reputable sources is, for the purpose of WP conflict resolution, completely immaterial.

Canvassing
4) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience &mdash; especially when not public &mdash; are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.
 * In an atmosphere of bad faith, any notification of any other editor is automatically attacked by the opposition as canvassing. There is no on-Wiki means of notification which is not so attacked.

Not a battleground
5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear.  Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.  In particular, making list of "opponents" or coordinating actions in order to drive off or punished perceived "adversaries" goes counter to the necessary collegiate atmosphere required to write an encyclopedia.
 * "Metrics drive behavior." When consensus requires no demonstrable basis, when arbitration cares only about conduct, what other result would we expect. BTW, I hold no grudge against any editor, but it is clear there are those who do.

Gaming the system
6) Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately is gaming, and a disruptive abuse of process. Activities such as coordinating around policy such as the revert rules, or any other attempt to subvert the spirit of any policy or process in order to further a dispute is disruptive.
 * Same as 5)

Meatpupettry
7) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.
 * Same as 6)

Presumption of coordination
8) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view &mdash; especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute &mdash; it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion &mdash; especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.
 * This supposes that editors do not track changes of interest in their sphere of interest and do not check what editors who share their position on one issue might contribute elsewhere on WP. My own involvement on Human Rights in the United States is a classic example, where I unknowingly waded into Viriditas' ownership issues and was denounced as a single purpose account by Hiberniantears. The issue had nothing to do with the editorial veracity—or not—of my position. The issue was solely that—per the points above—that:  the basis of my editorial position was in fact immaterial, the only thing that mattered to the warring editor Viriditas and to admins was (a) timing and (b) that I happened to agree with someone other than Viriditas . The litmus test being, had I arrived and supported Viriditas, I would have been welcomed with open arms. "Presumption of coordination" institutionalizes at WP's very foundation that  WP assumes bad faith .
 * Eliminating this principle would force editors to address points regarding content, not who arrived when.

Off-wiki communication
9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.
 * Identical to 8). In the end, the points I've made regarding consensus and arbitration are the key ones. The issue is not who arrives to an article when. The issue is, does it even matter if there is fair and accurate representation of reputable sources regarding a topic in conflict? No it does not, hence the need—as here—to build in assumptions of bad faith throughout the rest of the system. Hence the ease with which another can be accused of bad faith. I submit Viriditas' harassment at my user talk page as evidence regarding 8) and 9).

Exclusion of evidence
10) Evidence that has been obtained through unethical or illegal means cannot be used or examined by the Arbitration Committee.
 * Support: Evidence obtained through unethical or illegal means reflects on those obtaining and using such evidence to their purposes. Use of such evidence rewards unethical or illegal conduct, and given the means by which it was acquired, is likely to be for unethical or illegal purposes.

CLOSING regarding Principles
I hereby submit that:


 * As long as fair and accurate representation of reputable sources remains:
 * immaterial to the concept of consensus, and
 * outside the scope of WP administrative conflict resolution,
 * and, in particular,
 * principles include those which are based on an assumption of guilt, not innocence
 * there will be no extracting ourselves from the quagmire.

Asssumptions and questions not asked
A review of the evidence shows a mix of concerned WP citizens as well as a preponderance of those who have sought to push "versions" of history upon the Baltics and Eastern Europe which are not based on reputable sources—whose diffs indicate a desire to vindicate the edit-warring campaigns they have initiated. There are also those who simply have ownership issues having nothing to do with any alleged activity by the mailing list. If there is any specific edit of mine anyone would like to discuss in an atmosphere of good faith—that is, discuss fair and accurate representation of reputable sources (sources acknowledged as reputable by scholarly sources)—they are welcome to do so on my talk. My edits are solely my opinion. If I agree with someone, so be it, I don't base agreement with editors on my opinion of them. If I show up in a "timely" fashion, it is because (a) I have a huge watchlist, (b) I regularly look for new articles regarding Soviet, communist, contentions of Eastern Europe anti-Semitism, et al., and (c) check up in general on edits in the Baltic/EE space. Sadly for the conspiracy theorists, I tend to bulk read my personal Email once a day at best, often skipping days—hardly useful in coordinating alleged attacks. As PasswordUsername has chosen the provocative and bellicose moniker "Anti-Nationalist", I must repeat this observation from my user page:
 * ... Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction. Sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. Here, "NPOV" is demanding that Soviet propaganda be given equal time to reputable scholarship—any such scholarship counter to the Soviet "version" of history labeled as just another "POV.

If someone chose the username "Anti-Lesbian" they would be set upon by a pack of wolves. But disparage the Baltics and Eastern Europe and all one hears is cricket song.

 Evidently : Any editor of Baltic or Eastern European heritage is fair game for abuse of the worst sort.

The diatribes lacing the Evidence and discussions thereof testify to the atmosphere of poison that has pervaded the Baltic and Eastern European article space for years. Russavia's (more recent, not earlier years), Anti-Nationalist's née PasswordUsername's and Offliner's provocations, and anti-Estonian in particular diatribe—there's Offliner's deleted Nazi Estonia article in his user space, and who can forget PasswordUsername's "encyclopedic" content that child abuse is "common" in Estonia—all mirror the vitriolic and baseless diatribe of Official Russia. These aforementioned editors are only the latest in a long succession of provocateurs seeking to paint the Baltics and Eastern Europe as epicenters of human depravity debasing the memory of those lost in the great Patriotic War, ungrateful for their liberation from Hitler, and so forth. And what are the harsh realities of this environment? There is no sharing of news stories, discussion of sources, or any other discourse without editors showing up to harass. Then there is the new phenomenon of editors complaining about "stonewalling" Baltic/EE editors to dupe admins into supporting them in longstanding conflicts or getting them to file arbitration requests effectively as their proxy. And so I joined a mailing list for a respite from the relentless hounding: to be able to have such discourse in peace, to be able to discuss controversial topics, and to otherwise work together toward organizing articles and content in the Baltic/EE space, including addressing historical Eastern European conflicts (Poland-Lithuania, Poland-Ukraine, et al.). Did specific instances of on-Wiki activity get discussed? Inevitably. Organized to wage conflict? No, organized primarily to stay off the WP conflict radar screen. So far these proceedings have served as little more than fodder for witch hunting by those with an axe to grind, as  no one has even tendered the question : Nor has anyone wondered, did any of this materially impact on-Wiki edits in any way? No, what we have are:
 *  why  would upstanding editors who value their integrity communicate off-Wiki?
 * contentions that it is self-evident this was organized for the sole purpose of waging edit wars on WP, and that every instance of editors in said circle agreeing (against "me"/against "them") is the product of their collusion; and
 * litanies of "I knew it all along"—with the most self-righteous of these coming from some of the worst offenders attempting to bring down the walls of WP integrity—note, no diff in any accusation actually discusses the merit of any edit, as this would highlight that all these editing spats were started by the opposition to provoke edit wars with the editors they now accuse.

 Evidence : The unquestioned assumptions made and questions not asked.

Regarding evidence editors have filed against me
In the order presented on the Evidence page. Please note that as I track WP regularly while I batch read Email once every day or two (or three), I will be responding to As I usually read about something after already having found it and responding on my own I will  not  be addressing As time permits, I reserve the right to return to comment on edits/articles where I was not directly involved, as quite a number of uninvolved editors have jumped on the bandwagon in the accusation department contending being wronged in some fashion.
 * general contentions which would also pertain to me, and
 * specific diffs of my edits.
 * accusations involving any timing of anything—timing is a red herring.

Sandstein
Sandstein is completely not involved in this. If our purpose here is to discern the intent of editors and admins regarding their vision for WP, then, regarding the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Russavia's bans (and the proceedings here):
 * 1) The actions of those who have baited, bullied, berated, threatened, implicated,... Sandstein speak for themselves.
 * 2) Those that have counseled Sandstein to take a break and come back when the storm blows over enable and reward the conduct above. I don't believe Sandstein cares much about the storm or the personalities involved. For that detachment, I commend Sandstein. If anyone quotes this evidence to mean "Vecrumba commended Sandstein, that is proof Sandstein is in league with Vecrumba and his accomplices," I refer you to point #1 above.

Ellol
Russavia's conduct was their choice. Russavia's behavior subsequent to their topic ban, which Ellol conveniently fails to mention, is the most heinous vitriol I have yet witnessed on WP, and that's saying a lot, as I have been personally accused of killing Transnistrian children with my black propaganda. Please note Ellol's innuendo of belief regarding Sandstein's "involvement." See Sandstein, point #1.

Durova
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

Skäpperöd
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

Deacon of Pndapetzim
I have already commented on Deacon's bemoaning Irpen's and Ghirlandajo's departure: Irpen = blatant misrepresentation of sources, Ghirlandajo = the "enforcer" behind every characterization by Irpen of any misrepresentation on Irpen's part being a "personal attack." Regarding "...Vecrumba, Digwuren, and others, who I'd barely heard of..." before the since renamed Piotrus 2 arbitration, I was only there because (I felt) Deacon decided to settle a content dispute by filing an arbitration, per my comments here regarding the RFA.

re: Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia

 * 1) First, let us look at the original, a coatrack created by Offliner in keeping with his penchant for anti-Estonian topics, including the now deleted Nazi Estonia coatrack in his user space. Offliner's article featured the widely disputed Amnesty International report followed by the Russian "POV", an unattributed article (which when attributed elsewhere had opposing articles on the same site cited), then "Finnish legal sociologist and criminologist Johan Bäckman..." This in particular confirmed Offliner's creation as an attack page—Bäckman being the very definition of WP:FRINGE, despite having somehow secured a teaching post. He's a conspiracy theorist who contends that Politkovskaya was assassinated to discredit Putin. Clearly, such a contention would be deleted from an article about Putin, yet Bäckman conveniently served Offliner's defamatory purposes here.
 * 2) Article was rightly nominated for deletion
 * 3) Article was not exactly "merged" into Human Rights in Estonia. Human Rights in Estonia was  subsequently  created on June 5 by Peltmikko, I suspect in response to Offliner's blatant and provocative attack.
 * 4) * Offliner arrives and vandalizes the article by deleting all international rankings having bearing on human rights, widely interpreted (rather per the discussions of Human rights in the United States and elsewhere)—as these put Estonia in a rather positive light
 * 5) * Peltmikko reverts with appropriate commentary (Rv, See for example Human rights in Greece. Short and sourced.)
 * 6) Offliner then starts to transplant from his attack-rack
 * 7) ...adding FIDH as its own section
 * 8) ..and EC and CoE
 * 9) ...and Development and Transition
 * 10) ...more
 * 11) ...and then a whole pile, starting with Bäckman.
 * 12) ...and shortly thereafter Offliner expands the FIDH and "Latvian Human Rights Committee"—you will note that Offliner has added only criticism so far, not anything about laws, other views, et al.
 * 13) Peltimikko arrives to add balance citing the opposing article, also appearing at Development and Transition and
 * 14) * correctly changes Offliner's prior content to indicate that Hughes' article was, in fact, accusatory.
 * 15) Peltmikko eventually removes the extended FIDH content, it was a press release, note, however, the original properly positioned comments regarding the Bronze Night by the FIDH still remain in the article
 * 16) PassswordUsername arrives to blaspheme Estonian human rights, not to mention,  now misrepresents the cited source .
 * 17) ... which Peltimikko corrects per his edit summary. "Radeksz arrives to edit war"? Please! More like (at this point)
 * 18) Offliner arrives to edit war
 * 19) * deleting context for the FIDH urging (Bronze Night) and restoring the WP:UNDUE FIDH content he created; the "Latvian Human Rights Committee" is little more than Ždanoka's political party, apparently the FIDH will take anyone who says they are "human rights" (this has been discussed ad nauseum in many places)
 * 20) ...then Offliner deletes "press freedom" (being also free speech) with the  ludicrous  edit summary "(sorry, press freedom has nothing to do with human rights)"
 * 21) ...then Offliner removes the reference that Estonia was #4 of 173 in press freedom (2008) on the planet with no edit summary (that would be vandalism)
 * 22) at which point Radeksz restores an earlier version with a completely accurate and appropriate edit summary ( what Offliner positions as "Radeksz arrives to edit war" )
 * 23) at which point  Offliner  edit wars with a quite uncivil "what the fuck" (wtf?) in his edit summary
 * 24) Radeksz also correctly positions Bäckman's credibility as a source
 * 25) and Peltimikko does some restoration cleanup
 * 26) after which PasswordUsername arrives to edit war, supporting Offliner
 * 27) Peltimikko adds another ranking or two as well as a generally balanced account by Freedom House. To Offliner's "evidence" against me, this is when I first arrive to edit the article, adding a section on Estonian law (human rights law being an interest).
 * 28) It is at this point that I delete Offliner's Bäckman content per WP:UNDUE, which it certainly is, was, and will always be,  this being characterized by Offliner as "Vecrumba arrives to edit war ". No, I had already arrived and was already working on improving the article.
 * 29) Note my next edit, per my edit summary (→Critical views:  Umm, where is the section on postive views? De-POV section title; missing "Domestic views" section at the moment)
 * 30) And I also change Offliner's prior characterization of fact to be an allegation, as it clearly runs contrary to fact, edit summary (→Other institutions:  this is clearly in error citing Estonian law; sloppy work)
 * 31) Martintg then arrives and adds an extensive section regarding  allegations of discrimination . Hardly the act of an editor portrayed as a warring slavish Baltophile.
 * Alas, Peltmikko subsequently undid my Estonian law edit asking that I make it sexier reading, which I unfortunately have not had a chance to attend to.


 * So, what do we have here? An incident started by Offliner creating an attack page, pushing the anti-Estonian agenda he shares with PassswordUsername. I did not "arrive to edit war."

re: Files for deletion, File:German Soviet.jpg

 * I stand by my rather extensive comment which explains my position in painful detail.
 * "Remarkable?" Hardly. The file was already watch-listed because of a prior deletion attempt.

re: Coordinated provocations against PasswordUsername, June 10

 * "On 10 June. PasswordUsername edits Jewish Bolshevism. (link)"


 * Prior to PasswordUsername's edit, Chumchum7 (don't know them) made a a series of edits arriving at something which Altenmann restores to the prior revision. PasswordUsername arrives (cited edit) to delete half of the introductory paragraph, removing the description of Jewish Bolshevism (per article content) as "WP:OR (first edit, cited)" with some after-cleanup. This was (my perception) nothing but a "I don't like it, I'll use WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete it" on the part of PasswordUsername, which I restored to the prior content with some copyediting. Rather oddly, Altenmann switches to restoring to PasswordUsername's version, now apparently agreeing with the WP:OR contention. This was clearly not worth pursuing further although I considered the description of Jewish Bolshevism as being accurate, but a topic for another discussion. The article had been on my watchlist for a long time. Evidence? Of nothing and unrelated to anything else here.


 * "On 11 June. Vecrumba makes a post at PU's talkpage: (link)"


 * This is the result of activity at Armenia, where I had participated earlier (just read the diff), the article having been on my watchlist since, responding to PasswordUsername's post on a user talk page that I was stalking him. Evidence? Of nothing—rather more of PasswordUsername's disparaging bad faith attitude.


 * "On 11 June. Vecrumba discusses his post on the secret list. He predicts that either PasswordUsername will back of, or he will take the bait, lose his temper and make incivil remarks. If this happens, Vecrumba will try to get PasswordUsername banned. (20090611-0230-[WPM] PasswordUsername_ opportunity.eml."


 * I should also add my post at Hiberniantears' talk (note also Viriditas, whom I will get to later) in addition to my cited post on PasswordUsername's talk.


 * Sadly, PasswordUsername wasn't any more disparaging than usual in subsequent conduct. Check my record for how many arbitration requests I have filed and check Offliner's (et al.) record. And if PasswordUsername had responded with untoward behavior when I asked him to stop commenting about me behind my back,  exactly what is the issue here ?
 * I ask A to stop behavior, that being accusations against me on user talk pages.
 * If A does not stop behavior and responds with belligerence, I indicate I will ask A be banned.


 * "Coordinated provocations?" on my part? What is "coordinated" here? Absolutely nothing. What is a "provocation" here? Absolutely nothing. The message says, in fact, "Either PasswordUsername backs off, or..." if he's uncivil I'll asked for him to be banned. As for calling my post "bait," that's my characterization after the fact having  nothing to do  with why I told PasswordUsername to cease and desist in the first place.


 * The problem here is that we are to believe that anything written in private is to be taken at face value—it's written in private so it must reflect the truth, after all. Unfortunately, as here, this leads to the stringing together of completely unrelated events contending they are a "coordinated" attack, meaning, premeditated purpose other than simply responding to an edit and other than simply responding to allegations of stalking being made against me on user talk pages.

re: Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards

 * This one is rich. "2009-03-20. Russavia reported to AE. Commenting against Russavia: Digwuren, Vecrumba, Martintg"


 * Actually, my contribution attempts to ascertain when it was that the bad blood began between Biophys and Russavia, as (my words): "I was trying to determine when the conflict with Biophys started, as before the problems over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russavia was by all counts a productive and constructive editor often doing the kind of thankless drudge work which few volunteer to do but which makes WP usable for the rest of us."


 * When Jehochman attempts to engage me, before I can respond, first Russavia then Alex Bakharev rush to attack my comments and all possibilities of a constructive dialog go to hell.

I can respond to all the rest of Offliner's diffs regarding my conduct, but I believe I've spent enough time here for now. I don't expect the results to improve for Offliner.

As these proceedings have unfolded
Late breaking evidence...
 * More bad faith edits pushing Bäckman as a reliable source to plant the same anti-Estonian charges in yet another article. Apparently Offliner thinks it's open season now. His eagerness in jumping the gun speaks volumes.


 * And here Offliner accuses me of a personal attack, deleting my comments on his choice of sources and their inclusion in articles. (15-OCT-2009)

And yet more late breaking evidence...
 * Apparently now I've harassed LokiiT. No, I responded to LokiiT's accusation after his going on at length. My full post, my first (and with P.S.) only response to LokiiT, per Offliner's diff:"


 * (od) Sadly, LokiiT, I have been looking after my elderly mother who has had a decline in health and has been in nursing home care for several months now and have not left Brooklyn (that would be U.S., not U.K.) for some time. This attack certainly speaks to your editorial character or lack thereof, particularly as you have not contacted me prior or subsequent to your accusation here.
 * This would be little more than another behind-the-back stab-in-the-back personal attack used to push personal agendas and POVs.
 * Lastly, my experience in these things has been that people accuse editors of things they do themselves. Oops! Appears to be the case. VЄСRUМВА ♪  17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Reverting an edit which clearly mischaracterizes a recounting of content as someone's personal opinion is hardly "exact same edit." You push a POV, you get reverted, that's how it works. VЄСRUМВА ♪  17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All LokiiT had to do was check my user page for where I'm located. It's not worth my time to get on a plane and go somewhere else to revert an edit. His insistence at the possibility required no prodding.

And before Offliner presents my harassment of him as additional evidence (given his quoting of "behind the back")... As I expect Offliner will accuse me of the same "behind the back" accusations I "hypocritically" accuse others of (I was aware that Offliner is watching Sandstein's talk), I point you to this chain of edits:   and

Some badgering I failed to head off regarding same (given his quoting of "behind the back")...." October 21, 2009 

Offliner's posting and my response as a single diff

Typical pro-Russia warring
With reference to Offliner's pushing Amnesty International's report on Estonia as reputable, factual, etc. note Offliner deletes Amnesty International here when it is not complimentary regarding Freedom of the press in Russia in an edit war currently in progress there. Use a source when it works for your pushing a POV, delete a source when it doesn't. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Censorship of Estonian articles
No, one of the aims of editors is to prevent attack content, led by Offliner with Anti-Nationalist's/PasswordUsername's often and able assistance, particularly regarding Estonia.
 * I have already dealt with the widespread criticism of Amnesty International regarding its pronouncements on Estonia
 * Simon Wiesenthal Center—Zuroff given his position must maintain a zero tolerance policy, which is to be respected but not to be taken as gospel. Baltic Waffen SS parade to commemorate their fight against the Soviets, who invaded and then spent the next year deporting and killing them before the Germans ever arrived. Latvian Waffen SS I know for a fact wore Latvian flags under their uniforms--for which crime the Nazis would shoot them outright if discovered.

Amnesty is pushed where it suits the anti-Estonian agenda (while Amnesty gets deleted with reference to freedoms in Russia), as are pushed Hughes' opinion piece on Estonian ethnocracy as finding of fact by the UN, Bäckman's fringe polemics as fact, etc., as already covered elsewhere. As for editing in line with the "official Estonian position" as if that were somehow the same as his editing in line with the "Official Russian position," the Estonian position is one which is generally shared by others. It is not a uniquely Estonian position, whereas the Official Russian position largely is (unique).

So, to the rest of the new crop of diffs: As for my personal "nationalist" website, LATVIANS.COM is a heritage site of personal perspectives via travelogues, reference materials not readily available on the web, and an unfiltered news feed via RSS. Please do visit. As for: "The main actors were helped in the edit warring by other members, obviously in exchange for their help in edit warring on Polish articles", more baseless polemics thrown in for good looks. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At Kaitsepolitsei:
 * Prominence of fringe Bäckman confirms attack content, removed
 * again
 * "were seen" by whom?
 * Nazi glorification:
 * incidents around allegations regarding individuals or memorials to them, when there have been no findings of evidence supporting allegations (examined while said individual was in custody for 2 years after the war), does not belong in a  timeline (major events)  of antisemitism, not to mention Offliner presenting it as Nazi glorification
 * undo PasswordUsername edit warring
 * undo Offliner edit warring
 * undo PasswordUsername edit warring
 * undo PasswordUsername edit warring
 * undo PasswordUsername edit warring
 * undo Offliner edit warring
 * Continuing censorship:
 * more of the same, re: Rebane held until 1947 and no evidence found; removing this supports that the allegations are true and that there is no exculpatory evidence to the contrary (note my edit comment)
 * more of same
 * more of same; on the talk page I had suggested that either the mention of reluctance and exculpatory remains regarding Rebane, or that Rebane should be removed as inappropriate to a timeline; further, the only other appearance of "allegations" in the timeline are those against Jews who then suffered at the hands of those making the allegations, so not the same thing

Russavia
Apparently one cannot observe any patterns of group behavior on the part of editors who can be objectively taken to support the position of Official Russia regarding the Baltics and Eastern Europe. I won't be providing endless diffs of said pushing and protection of POV, but rest assured, they are readily provided. ''There have always been a formal or informal cabals representing Russian interests. The Irpen/Ghirlandajo tag team may be inactive, but the POVs and tactics remain the same. Notably, POV-pushing has become more aggressive coinciding with Medvedev's creation of the historical truth commission.'' Let's get right to Russavia's campaign to push fringe polemicists as reputable historians, re:
 * "But I have no doubt in my mind, that this actually means the prevention of any POV which doesn't fit their own agenda. Take for example, Tymek's suggestion that WP should only utilise the writings of western historians. I clearly responded to Tymek that we should be preventing ALL POV and attribute it appropriately. There is also no reason why a historian connected with the Russian Academy of Sciences should be excluded,..."

In this particular instance, Russavia means Oleg Vishlyov, whose account of Soviet activities in WWII (including invasion and subjugation of the Baltics) is that it was all in self-defense. Vishlyov has also been described in reputable scholarship as someone who works "more on suggestion than evidence." So,  not  reliable, certainly not by western standards. Note Russavia's use of the "reputable by association" device. This is as good a place as any to mention Russavia's championing the polemics of Dyukov as a reputable accounting of history—recalling Russavia's meltdown at The Soviet Story, where he threatened to fill the article with Dyukov. Let's be clear here. Dyukov is a fringe "historian" who has made his name in anti-Baltic polemics, writing among other things that FSB archives he had access to  prove  it is a lie that Estonians were taken away to Siberia in cattle cars. No, according to Dyukov's archival evidence, they were taken away in coaches, well fed, and with medical care. Russian state media trucks Dyukov out whenever they need to do Baltic bashing on their 24x7 English "news" channel. You wish to see "POV"? Read the article on Dyukov—based mainly on what Dyukov has blogged about himself and overstating the significance of anything he's ever written, edited, or proof-read. You wish to see "POV"? Nominate the article for deletion because Dyukov is not notable as a reputable historian and see who rushes to defend him as legitimate. Of course, if more than one editor agrees in opposition to Russavia et al., truck out the links to WP:ALPHABETSOUP: WP:TEAM, WP:GAME, WP:MEAT, WP:HARRASS, WP:STALK, WP:POV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:OUTING,... ad nauseum. As for my personal involvement with Russavia in any edits, I should state up-front that my filing of an AN/I regarding his "Propagandic Latvian Republic..." (see above diff) was my own decision unprompted by any on- or off-Wiki discussion. That said, for everyone's sanity, I'll only address Russavia's evidence where it directly pertains to me. If there is evidence of slanting or bad faith or intentional omission in Russavia's case against me, you can be certain of it elsewhere.

P.S. For an illuminating discussion primarily between myself and Beatle Fab Four over Dyukov, read the talk section here.

re: Tag-teaming with Digwuren at RIA Novosti scope of reliability
RIA Novosti is Russian state media. One can report what it says, but as the press organ of Official Russia, it cannot be represented as anything other than being a reliable source for the opinion/position of Official Russia, regardless of topic. Russavia, however, contends:
 * "RIA Novosti meets all criteria for a reliable source, as much as any other news agency such as BBC, CNN, etc."

For someone so link-happy in pushing their position, that here Russavia provides no link at all to what he terms "all criteria" is damning. Russavia's own evidence here condemns his own blatant POV pushing. This thread of the overall discussion had nothing to do with the surname discussion Russavia cites in his evidence. As for Russavia crying "I can't read Estonian"... "they could have helped me...", I ask you, how much Estonian do you have to be able to read to understand this list of surnames? Russavia's evidence chains together and misrepresents two separate discussions in a blatant misdirection to accuse myself and Digwuren. Lastly, Russavia's accusation I/we routinely discredit all Russian sources is baseless rhetoric, considering I've used the  Latvian SSR Concise Encyclopedia  to source content for Wikipedia (and not prefaced with "Soviet sources say...").

re: Offliner as Russavia's proxy

 * In 20090910-0238-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! User:Vecrumba suggests that if User:Offliner continue to question User:Sandstein in relation to the email that Vecrumba sent Sandstein, that the group should take the angle that Offliner is acting as my proxy.

What I actually wrote was (and this is checking my own outgoing mail, which I save, I have not verified that the "evidence" archive is 100% genuine):


 * "Unfortunately I don't seem to have sent myself a copy of my mail to Sandstein, was looking to forward it [to Offliner], oh well. Unless Offliner apologizes, the angle is that he's acting as Russavia's proxy to make accusations if he keeps it up. /Peters"

Had I kept my copy, I would have shared it with Offliner. I can only assume it's intentional that Russavia left this part out of his evidence. Not only did Offliner's harassing increase with the release of the list (my talk et al.), but once Russavia was unbanned for the purposes of this proceeding, Russavia then assaulted Sandstein over that same correspondence. This lead to my permitting Sandstein to post it to end the haranguing and clear his good name. Rather illustrates the afore-mentioned harassment by proxy.

re: Web brigades
There was nothing factually incorrect wrong with Digwuren's original insertion regarding on-Wiki claims of being Russian agents and no convincing evidence supporting those claims. Let's keep as background that people have been paid to push Russian interests on WP, so this is more than neutral. Mukadderat deletes based on the specific phrase "web brigade" not having been used (though clearly applicable). There is some going back and forth on WP as a reliable source, clearly not applicable as what is written about is what appears in WP, including Russavia's contention upon his deletion of said content, subsequently stated more stridently at his repeat deletion "(Wikipedia is not a published source with a history of fact-checking, and the inclusion of this material is against a core policy)" with embedded links included. This is typical of Russavia's filling his arguments with WP:ALPHABETSOUP when a cogent argument in his favor is not available. Again, WP was not being used as a source here, what was inserted was a report of an administrative outcome on Wikipedia, which report is either true or false. At which point Vassyana prudently edit-protects.

re: Alexander Litvinenko

 * "In 20090910-0218-[WPM] Russavia got Bannned ! Vecrumba states that he would visit the article in a few days, only to avoid them appearing opportunistic on this article."

Of course I would state this. Had I appeared expeditiously (the article is on my watchlist and, as mentioned, I check WP far more often than Email), accusations of edit-warring collusion would immediately surface. This is not an attack, is an act of self-protection.

re: Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)
Feel free to read the extensive talk page for the article, there's nothing to hide here. My edits at this article were based on Google searches of scholarly material. As some were snippets, I searched before and after the text in question to construct the full narrative, which I subsequently represented in the article. (Note Russavia's contentions along the way that editors had a source in its entirety and were intentionally misrepresenting it.) I should also mention the rape of German (and other Eastern European women) as the Red Army approached Berlin is a topic from which stigma is only now lifting.

re: Communist Romania et al. regarding timing
More ">1 disagrees with Russavia = meatpuppet." I felt, per my comment, it was little more than Anonimu's attempt to remove "Communist" from the title. Again, found first on WP not in my Email as I recall. The same editors would have all showed up and all voted the same way on both sides of the aisle. Red herring. As with everything else presented regarding collusion, the assumption is the list had a material on-Wiki impact. It did not.

re: Several list members actively broke general sanctions
Russavia's personal attack that I "do not get the concept of verifiability, not truth" bears a response. What is Russavia advocating here? In summary: it's a matter of Official Russia opinion that the Baltics were not occupied, it's a matter of Official ("Propagandic" per Russavia) Latvia opinion that the Baltics were occupied. And so, these two "opinions" should be presented as such without preference or prejudice.

This seems like the usual "conflicting opinions" on history. It is not. It is, in fact, the deliberate and willful insistence that a position (Russian)  which has no basis in fact  and a position (Latvian and the rest of the planet) which has a  complete basis  in fact are equally valid opposites. It is, in fact, the position of Official Russia: which attempts to legislate the "truth" here. None of Official Russia's contentions regarding "not occupied" are verifiable in law, not a single one. What is "verifiable" is only the rhetoric of "not occupied"—rhetoric which Russavia wishes to present as fact, witness his threats over Dyukov (featured regularly on English-language Russia Today cable TV as a mouthpiece for the Official Russia position) at The Soviet Story.
 * 1) the Russian Duma "reminding" Latvia it joined the USSR legally according to international law—and hence  legally  no occupation
 * 2) the protection of history against revisionism claiming occupation by the historical truth commission and the proposed criminalization (up to 5 years in jail) for contending the same

If Russavia can provide me with the verifiable basis in fact for the Russian Duma passing its reminder that Latvia  joined the USSR legally according to international law , then I welcome those facts. In the meantime, "not occupied" is just an opinion with no basis in fact. There are no "sides" to present, the facts are the facts regarding occupation. That Official Russia holds to an opposing opinion is duly noted (I've even written some of that content).

Russavia's singling me out for denunciation as someone who is hell-bent on their personal "truth" and not on verifiable facts proves conclusively beyond any doubts that it is Russavia who is on a mission fashioning WP into a platform sanctioning the position of Official Russia: the presentation of factually unsubstantiated opinion as encyclopedic fact. There is no "content" dispute here. There is no argument over "truth" here. There are only the facts of occupation with no facts to the contrary. There are many contentions over facts purported to apply to occupation (per Petri Krohn's encyclopedias which wrote during the occupation that Latvia was "part of" the Soviet Union, et al.), but as the Russian Duma made it  unequivocally clear  that the joining was legal, that's what counts.

If any of you are truly interested in this topic, please read this monograph. While a Latvian source, by a justice of Latvia's Supreme Court, all this material and conclusions are  seconded  in non-Baltic western sources.

Russavia has laid down the gauntlet. Is WP to represent as equally valid, encyclopedic accounts, or not?
 * opinion based on  vapor  and
 * narrative of events based on  verifiable fact 

And so, Russavia, once and for all, please produce the factual basis for the declaration of the Russian Duma regarding Latvia "joining" the USSR, from whence all "not occupied" (legally) flows. You have placed the ball squarely in your court by insisting I'm the one pushing my personal "truth." I will not stand for your vicious and baseless slander.

re: My personal details were discussed

 * So my personal details were not only discussed, but it was actively discussed on what could be done to harrass me off-wiki.

While I am not mentioned here, I do have to observe that this neatly sums up the issue of reading someone else's private correspondence. If I had opined it would be simpler to take out a contract on Russavia, I know people, then I would be accused of plotting bodily harm. And had I made such a comment on-Wiki, I would have been summarily banned for personal threats. One cannot equate personal correspondence with "what one will/would do" on-Wiki. This was not a serious discussion.

YMB29
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

MBisanz
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

Good Olfactory
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

HistoricWarrior007
I'll just deal with the following in the evidence presented:
 * "while the e-mail group wanted to marginalize Duykhov[SIC.], and anyone critiquing the film, because "if you cannot attack the argument, attack the person making the argument" is apparently a valid tactic to use on Wikipedia"

No, it's about, as Russavia would put it, observing WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, per my above discussion of Dyukov.

"Cabalites"
These proceedings are not a declaration of open season for smearing editors anywhere one feels like it. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.
As to hacked or not, I do not have conclusive proof as to hacking. I do find it suspicious that the next message in my inbox after the last message in the "archive" is one shortly thereafter stating the mailing list member list was unavailable (in response to an Email from me), the only time I ever received such an error notice, to me, indicating an external assault. I would request that speculative and prejudicial contentions (elsewhere) along the lines of the archive being revealed through an "attack of conscience" as the "simplest" explanation for the origin of the evidence be refrained from.

PasswordUsername
First of all, I thank PasswordUsername for his new moniker, "Anti-Nationalist", confirming himself as a WP:SPA single purpose account to attack anyone he deems to be a "nationalist." Or have I missed something?

More to the real point. Pick "Anti-Lesbian" as a moniker and we would be hearing a cacophony of screeching indignant wailings over gay-bashing. "Anti-Nationalist"? and all we hear... wait... is that a cricket chirping?... no, alas, just my chair creaking. This double standard sanctioning open denigration of anyone labeled as a "nationalist," Baltic and Eastern European in particular, is patently offensive. If I have developed a wagon-circling mentality, don't blame me, it's the product of years of abuse on the part of an endless procession of belligerent editors.

Now, to PasswordUsername's mentions of myself.

re: Swamping of AFD and CFD discussions
">1 opposing PasswordUsername's views" = meatpuppet; Petri Krohn was not "chased off." PasswordUsername's evidence here is laughable, as a second nomination also wound up as a keep with  uninvolved editors voting 3:1 in favor of keep . This sort of selective (and conveniently misrepresented) editor bashing is typical of all the evidence presented here.

re: Anti-Russian sentiment: 8-16 May 2009
Regarding my "edit-warring" here, it's quite clear that PasswordUsername presents allegations as findings of fact (Amnesty International) and more allegations as fact (Hughes in Development and Transition). My edit simply clarifies the Amnesty International report (which has been widely denounced as not in touch with reality) and that the D&T piece is merely one opinion, adding another article FROM THE SAME SITE as balancing opinion. Adding balancing content is not edit warring, removing it is. PasswordUsename's evidence convicts him of his own POV pushing.

re: Neo-Stalinism: May 10-18 2009, August-September 2009
Regarding my "helping out" here, please, anyone feel free to indicate how the passage in question does not objectively apply. Defense of the Stalinist/Soviet account of WWII, anyone? More evidence confirming PasswordUsername's, Russavia's et al. pushing the POV that Official Russia is not resurrecting Stalin and his account of history.

re: Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II: 15-17 August 2009
Discussion at talk quickly concluded in PasswordUsername's favor? Not really. The only uninvolved comment was that "collaboration" did not apply as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not enemies [indeed, allies] at the time, based on "collaboration" NOT meaning "working together" in general. I stand by my edit, which, by the way, was BEFORE the afore-mentioned uninvolved comment. You will also note that I strove to clarify the definition of "collaboration" to NOT mean merely cooperation BEFORE the afore-mentioned uninvolved comment (and so, actually supporting the narrow view), which Anonimu then jumped in and erased as not applying to the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, as if Jews were not citizens of their respective countries, and expanded in a WP:OR manner which would even include Latvian president Karlis Ulmanis urging Latvians not to go out and get themselves slaughtered opposing the Soviet invasion as a Soviet collaborator—surely not Anonimu's intent! Or perhaps.

re: Evidence from the e-mail archive

 * On J. Milburn's "other" image deletion, already covered, I explained my rationale in the image AfD in great detail.
 * On Jewish Bolshevism undeleting PasswordUsername's deletion of alleged "anti-Semitic" content. Objectively, the term had to originate somewhere. It is well documented in western sources that in Poland between the wars, for example, imprisoned Jewish communists were the chief proselytizers. To note such things is not anti-Semitism, no one equates communism and Judaism as belief systems—that certainly would be egregiously anti-Semitic. As for "designed as a provocation," no it was not, although my stated expectation was that PasswordUsername would take it as such. I counsel other editors to  not  jump in, only ones with past involvement should participate so as to have "complete deniability" of following PasswordUsername's edits, as he was often wont to complain to anyone, anywhere. The article was on my watchlist having edited it, I didn't need to "follow" or "provoke" anything. And what is my summary (per evidence archive, no confirmation of the whole as untampered with) of said alleged provocation? "We'll see if PU can engage in content dialog based on sources and constructing balanced articles." I'm sorry, but given PasswordUsername's aggressiveness, I'm not describing an offensive editing strategy, I'm describing a defensive editing strategy and clearly leaving the door open to PasswordUsername's engaging in a more balanced approach to the topic even in my private correspondence.
 * There is a difference in making an edit in good faith and observing it will be taken as provocation/bait and
 * making an edit only for the purpose of provocation; all of this evidence makes the same speculation of intent to provoke as opposed to believing the content being added or deleted was being done for good reason (this brought on by PasswordUsername's harassment of myself on Alek Bakharev's talk page)
 * On calling for "team game play" on the evidence (same conditions), this is misquoting and misrepresenting. My only comment is that I hope that "influence group" for Nochnoy Dozor gets us close enough to consensus on naming.
 * On "call to arms" on Ethnocracy, what a load of crap. This is a quick observation on my part regarding the same Hughes in Development and Transition report and Amnesty International report already mentioned earlier, that balancing POVs already appear in other articles, ones which Offliner and PasswordUsername are intentionally omitting in their unbalanced POV format (knowing the balance exists elsewhere) in yet another venue to create yet more Baltic attack content. PasswordUsername's presentation of this as "evidence" is nothing but misconstruting my mention of the proper means of dealing with one-sided content pushing misrepresenting sources as somehow being criminal.

Jaak Aaviksoo
''' Clearly, the primary agenda here is to attack any person or any nation critical of Official Russia. '''.
 * And while not mentioned in this context, as I did add Jaak Aaviksoo's photo to his bio article, more disingenuous tears over PasswordUsername's "sourced" material. Let's try this here:
 * PasswordUsername writes "Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo and Parliament member Trivimi Velliste were accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols" per a source describing the swastika as such, while my subsequent edit sets the narrative straight. An blatant attempt to portray sources as confirming Aviksoo's willing participation in events festooned with Nazi symbols, a clear violation of WP:BLP, in short, more Baltic attack crap. We won't even go over earlier puerile edits seeking to emphasize that the Estonian defense minister was born in the USSR.
 * And speaking of attack crap, let's not forget the classic at Valeriya Novodvorskaya, misrepresenting an interview to state, in another gross WP:BLP vioaltion:
 * In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa (line 46), per PasswordUsername
 * and Offliner

re: Baiting Paul Siebert
Again, we have interpretations of private correspondence and intent. Key points: There are times I strenuously disagree with Paul on interpretation but I have always had the utmost admiration for his knowledge and command of reputable sources. I regret this blatant misrepresentation regarding an editor I respect.
 * I felt obliged to make my editorial position known, even though I expected a revert
 * I state that the proper approach is to state the opposing view and open for discussion and argue just as firmly for the opposing position based on sources and in as much detail as necessary, and
 * If all else fails and consensus is not achieved, move for a RfC for outside comment (at least that's how it should work, though it usually becomes just a soapbox for the current participants in the debate)

Smearing dead Estonians
I regret that PasswordUsername appears to be taking these proceedings as the opening of hunting season regarding Baltic individuals. Witness the latest thread at the talk page for Lia Looveer where he asks: wasn't she a Nazi collaborator, innuendo wondering about why no coverup, innuendo wondering about the Australian public not knowing her Nazi affiliations. Looveer was a highly decorated, highly honored individual. This sort of McCarthyist type slander by innuendo is grossly offensive and has no place on Wikipedia. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Shell Kinney
I would only note that one should not assume that off-Wiki communication materially affected how editors would have acted, regardless. As I have stated, I batch read mail and 99% of the time found items of "interest" myself before reading any note about them. Petri Krohn wondered about off-Wiki coordination over two years ago—correlation is interesting, but it is not proof of cause and effect. That editors have been like minded enough in the past that conduct with and without a mailing list is indistinguishable by the opposition rather testifies to the negligible net on-Wiki impact of the mailing list.

DonaldDuck

 * Vecrumba, Radeksz and Biophys constantly accuse their opponents of being pro-Putin/extremist/chauvinist/Stalinist/neo-Nazist.

Diffs, please, I'm not responding to open-ended slander. And feel free to read my interview, cited earlier, for whom I consider a "Stalinist." If you believe that definition slanders anyone, do let me know. If you have evidence, present it. Don't just pile on for the fun of it.

Crotalus horridus
no involvement with myself, reserve future comment

Hiberniantears
Hiberniantears was lobbied into a content dispute by Dojarca, then acted unilaterally to split an article in a manner not supported by historical facts, either Baltic or Soviet versions of history. A sad affair. I personally believe that based on Dojarca's success, Offliner subsequently similarly lobbied Jehochman into filing an arbitration request which Offliner should have opened to make the filing party clear. Yet an additional sad affair. An one wonders why editors would seek a haven of good faith to communicate?

re: Canvassing on Communist Genocide and Communist terrorism AfDs
This assumes editors would have acted otherwise. The entire discussion of what an encyclopedia article regarding those topics should covered was a travesty, all editors were interested was removing Communist+Genocide in the title. My suggestion that Communist genocide should simply cover what reputable sources discuss as "communist genocide" was completely ignored in the battle to first delete, then rename, the article. This evidence is nothing but pushing content by attacking editors.

re: Canvassing and other illegitimate actions by Biophys
Perhaps I, for one, keep a close eye on Biophys's edits.

Viriditas
Viriditas accuses (as I discovered later) anyone who disagrees with him as conspiring against him, and has particular ownership issues regarding the Human rights in the United States article. His evidence is a fantasy regarding my conspiring, and so, presents and excellent case study of assumptions being made because of the mailing list: According to Viriditas, I arrive to pile on with the rest of the conspirators. I gloss over that Viriditas's own evidence proves his first reaction to Mosedschurte was to file an arbitration notification to control content by attacking the editor—if you stop to read Mosedschurte's "arrival," he makes numerous completely valid points regarding the article at that time.
 * 2009-05-21 - 05:56 - User:Mosedschurte arrives on Talk:Human rights in the United States.
 * 2009-06-05 - 14:33 - Vecrumba votes on the RfC.
 * 2009-06-05 - 14:33 - Vecrumba votes on the RfC.

So, what was the actual path to my participation at the RfC?


 * 07:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)—Mosedschurte contacted me on my talk regarding the article Eastern Bloc
 * I subsequently engaged there on several items, including the map and presentation thereof, a potential montage, et al. A sprited discussion was had including editors Mosedschurte, Paul Siebert, and others.
 * Subsequent to my participation at Eastern Bloc, I looked through Mosedschurte's contribution history to see what kinds of articles he was interested in. Human rights in the United States caught my eye as I've done a fair amount of research regarding the topic as the result of constant accusations that the Baltic states regularly violate human rights, don't have legislation protecting human rights, etc. etc.
 * I found the aforementioned RfC and voted my personal editorial opinion
 * Which if you continue through the threads, you will find that a number of editors believed that, upon further clarification, I had struck a fair compromise position

This is nothing but Viriditas believing his own abjectly abysmal article ownership is somehow vindicated. I'd present evidence of Viriditas accusing other individuals of "conspiring," but I've already taken enough space. I bulk read my Email, the mailing list had ZERO involvement in my appearing on Viriditas' jealously guarded doorstep. (Frankly, I had no idea who the f**k Viriditas was when he started attacking me.)

Vlad fedorov
While I'm not specifically mentioned, I do have to observe that prior to his ban Vlad was very busy making the case that the Baltic states were not occupied using his personal arguments and (multi-degreed!) knowledge of international law, doing everything he could to argue for his factually unsubstantiated POV. His anti-Baltic pro-Russia stance and antagonistic persona are well known, for example, (one of my all time favorites) when Vlad told me: "Dear Vecrumba, your ignorance in international law is legendary." Vlad's approach is typical: cite "expert" sources in support your position, contending they apply when they don't (and here's the secret—one has to know the subject just as well to know the sources don't apply), and rest your case hoping no one will call you on your convincing, but utter, fabrication. This is nothing but implied reputablity of editorial position by association with a good source.

As for Vlad's diatribe largely focused on attacking Biophys, that is to be taken with (many) similar grains of salt regarding Vlad's expert testimony sprinkled with the ever present and entertaining derogatory rhetorical questions.

The poisoning of Wikipedia
Thatcher has not mentioned me specifically, so I am not going to go through all their evidence to uncover if it applies to me. I would note, however, one of the objects of Thatcher's accusations of "duplicity": "Piotrus proposes to create socks for reverting"

This is typical of taking proposals which are not real and purporting they are real. No one ever for even one nanosecond ever  seriously discussed  creating socks, harassing people in their private lives, etc. Those here who believe that to all be true betray  their own utter poisoning by bad faith  and should seriously consider their own continued participation on WP. Not to mention that anyone and everyone who has ever failed to push their POV, being opposed by someone on the mailing list, has come out for the feeding frenzy, including claiming their lack of success years ago is conclusive proof the list has existed for years.

I regret that Thatcher's evidence testifies more to the malevolent pervasiveness of bad faith outside the mailing list, including his own readiness to ascribe bad faith.

While I sympathize with Thatcher's recently expressed frustration elsewhere, I should mention that I consider Thatcher a victim of poisoning, not a purveyor. I am glad to discuss this further.

re: Activity of the group in the article Occupation of Baltic states and avoiding dispute resolution procedures
I'm sorry, this evidence indicts Dojarca and no one else, the result of a train of events starting with Dojarca duping Hiberniantears into believing there was some content dispute where an article had been stable for a considerable length of time. I had already been through multiple admin requests on the occupation of the Baltic states, the entire fiasco was a product of Dojarca's bad faith and neither I nor other editors were going to go through an arbitration request again.

As for editor John Carter, he states, completely uninvolved (at Dojarca's cited diff): "'The title itself, "Occupation of the Baltic states", is a bit prejudicial. Granted, it reflects the opinion of a lot of groups, but there still are a few others, like the old Soviets and the Russians, who disagree. All articles are supposed to be as NPOV as possible, as per WP:NPOV, and having a slightly prejudicial title don't help there a lot."

The Soviet/Russian disagreement was already noted in the article. Said disagreement (based on no reputable supporting evidence) does not change the circumstances of occupation, per my response to John Carter. And note my subsequent request on his contention of "verifiability." Directly (!!!) after which question, still unanswered, Hiberniantears decides, well, they will just fix things, after all, being third generation Irish American gives them some unique (apparently undebased by nationalisst fervor) insight into a topic they demonstrably knew nothing about.

What's the real evidence? If you want to f**k up Wikipedia and foist your unsubstantiated and unsupported POV position on your editorial opposition, find an admin to do your dirty work. I don't impune Hiberniantears' motives. This entire chain of events simply shows what happens when a well-meaning admin acts in a content dispute they know nothing about based on taking utterly bad faith accusations of "stonewalling" at face value (unwittingly aided by other individuals judging what words sound like and not whether they are appropriate, and not stopping to discuss if they are appropriate).

re: spoilers and "hiding"
Regarding the talk page and the collapsed section:
 * The Quixotic quest for "balance"
 * April in Paris was far more pleasant. In some countries, May Day was a long and lazy official holiday weekend.
 * On historical fact and fabrication and representation of scholarly analysis and POVs thereof

you will note the discussion here and Hiberniantears' agreement to leave it all in collapsed format.

Do feel free to expand and read, it includes gems such as Russavia insisting I'm slandering living people. Hardly the stuff I'd want to hide. (!) Dojarca should be topic-banned just for presenting his own gross malfeasance as evidence.

re: Template:Soviet occupation
As I've stated ad nauseum, anyone feel free to provide the substantiated facts forming the basis for the Russian Duma's declaration that Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law. After producing that, come back to talk about "POV" re: occupation, "attacks" re: occupation, et al.

As for "most uninvolved users" voted for deletion, I only see one uninvolved user in the whole lot (that has never weighed in on the topic somewhere), and they voted for keep.

re: Ousting and removing any Russian and pro-Russian authors and sources
Please feel free to read the diff provided regarding Dojarca's gross micharacterization. His concluding request: "So I request the ArbCom to clarify whether these sources are acceptable in Wikipedia and if yes, issue remedies against removal of such sources." is a request to introduce Soviet and other sources without regard to their being reputable or factual, simple as that. (I've dealt with Dyukov et al. elsewhere).

Dojarca should be rightly admired, and then topic banned, for his bullocks.

re: On the previous arbitration case
Actually, Digwuren and Petri both suffered under the initial ban. Petri was (my perception) pushing his POV and Digwuren could have moderated his response. Be that as it may, skipping ahead to the reverence for Irpen, he left because editors didn't put up with his gross mischaracterization of sources to support his POV and his technique to frame any disagreement with his content as a personal attack. As for Dojarca "abandoning" (wasn't there a ban in there somewhere?), I'll only note how Dojarca chose to return, lobbying an unsuspecting admin, for which guile he should, again, be topic banned.

Lastly, regarding Petri Krohn, he was the victim of his own unceasing increasingly strident POV pushing, denunciation of ethno-fascists, and all.

Paul Pieniezny
Another case of ">1 against Paul" are meatpuppets, have been conspiring for years, et al. Another POV pusher returned to join the feeding frenzy.

As for the Guardian story, it's more to attack the conservatives and their association with the Latvians, who are being pilloried as Nazi glorifiers, et al., to defame the conservatives. It's political hack writing having nothing to do with any objective assessment of history. Perhaps Paul, you left, because it is precisely the citation of this sort of one-sided politically motivated diatribe that editors opposed.

And, for yet another member of the woe is Petri cult, what got Petri banned the first time was his over the top ethno-fascist et al. rantings.

M.K.
Another POV pusher returned from the wilderness to resurrect past conflicts hoping for a better result, hoping that facts of history do not apply.

On the evidence presented, it again assumes anyone participating would not have or would have participated differently. The more the mailing lists' antagonists—quite the compendium gathered here, crawling out of the woodwork—insist the mailing list and off-wiki coordination has been going on for years, the more they make the case the mailing list made no perceptible difference.

Alex Bakharev
I regret to note that he is now supporting the same kind of Estonian attack content as Offliner and PasswordUsername, representing opinion pieces as findings of fact, per his editing at Ethnocracy mirroring earlier attack content created/ edited by Offliner and PasswordUsername in a number of articles:


 * The United Nations Development Programme notes that in Estonia the state has been captured by the titular ethnic group and then used to promote ‘nationalising’ policies and discrimination against Russophone minorities. 

This points to an opinion piece published by James Hughes in Development and Transition, which has also published opinion pieces which dispute Hughes' contentions. Note : and, finally,
 * Hughes states in the article that Estonia has been described as... not that it is confirmed
 * Hughes does not attribute the description to anyone
 * Hughes' piece has had opposing commentary published, also in Development and Transition
 * this is presented by Alex (as it has also been by Offliner and PasswordUsername in past attack content) as the United Nations stating a fact regarding Estonia, an intentional and clear misrepresentation given the numbers of times Hughes' article has been paraded out to criticize Estonia and the points I've made above, made in response AND BALANCING CONTENT ADDED.

This is the admin to whom the purported archive was released to. Can you say this was all a "set up"? This is not the first edit Alex has done in support of Offliner. I find: to all be items of deep concern. I present this evidence in this section responding to evidence "against me" for these reasons.
 * 1) the manner in which Alex Bakharev slanted the description of the contents of the evidence when first received in making his revelation
 * 2) his "trust" in releasing the evidence to antagonistic editors such as Deacon ("I trust Deacon"), and
 * his joining the anti-Estonian crusade waged chiefly by Offliner and PasswordUsername

Summary regarding evidence
The mailing list had no impact on my on-Wiki behavior. And where I arrived at anything off my usual radar screen (re: Viriditas), it was looking to get away from the EE area of contention for a bit.

The evidence presented herein that harassing people in real life, creating sockpuppets, etc. mentioned in private correspondence constituted in any way serious discussions of intent reflect on an atmosphere of poison—both those who have succumbed to it and those spreading it—which, except for the very real poison, has nothing to do with reality.

That only serves to underscore that all the evidence against the mailing list participants is based on a single premise : that the mailing list was formed in bad faith to attack WP. It was not. In the months it operated, I learned more about: than in  all my time before on WP . Most of all, I experienced and learned to value an environment where an editor could tell someone else to f**k off and then both return to the table to continue to discuss the most contentious or controversial topics in good faith.
 * valuable sources,
 * current affairs, and
 * especially much more about historical EE conflicts predating WWII,

For myself, those invective-laced conversations renewed my faith in WP because they proved that editors can move forward even from the point of violent disagreement when they know both are acting in good faith, both are bringing reputable sources to the table, and both are willing to honestly and openly investigate why and where those sources differ in their conclusions. For that reason alone I would do it again.

As for the proceedings here, that they are: all these are the very proof and very raison d'être for why editors of good faith genuinely and deeply interested in the history of Eastern Europe might wish to chat off-Wiki.
 * largely along party lines
 * confirm the atmosphere of poison that has been allowed to fester in the EE space for years by indulging so-called "content disputes" based on attacking content on the false premise that opinion based on nothing and opinion based on fact must be equally represented, and to oppose that is, per Dojarca and others, "stonewalling"
 * a poisoning made more virulent by editors naively assuming good faith and allowing themselves to become proxies for attacks (Dojarca-Hiberniantears and Offliner-Jehochman)
 * based on the underlying meme that "nationalists" such as myself are the basest of life forms
 * witness there still being not a single peep regarding PasswordUsername's new blatant attack-moniker "Anti-Nationalist," which continues to be indulged by everyone here—what a load of two-faced hypocritical lecturing that make this all

P.S. And let's not forget how the feeding frenzy began, |now also available and searchable off-Wiki with the completely inaccurate and highly inflammatory and prejudicial description, courtesy of the admin first receiving the purported evidence—evidence which was hacked, and not leaked through an "act of conscience." I won't even mention the vile and vicious material that has been created, complete with pictures and the outing of editors along with personal contact information, at EncyclopediaDramatica.

Please feel free to contact me regarding the substance of any past edit, including my (nearly all responses to) evidence here. Nor is there demonstrably any content edit on the part of anyone part of the mailing list which does not stand up to scrutiny. As I've indicated regarding my Email reading patterns, any evidence of timing is circumstantial conjecture and I will not address those.

Post scriptum
Having had some more time to consider things, I am forced to observe the following, which is likely to mistaken for (by the uninvolved) and to misconstrued as (by the opposition) for recalcitrance on my part:

The proceedings here are based on the meme that Baltic/EE "nationalist" editors have been driving off reputable contributors for years, EEML is the inevitable/ predictable/ expected escalation by the "nationalists" to the next level.

If WP were a bank and reputable content gold, I can only observe that it's a "conspiracy" only if you're discussing how to break in and remove the gold, not if you're looking to keep the gold in the vault and add to it. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 23:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And based on some comments elewhere
That there was an EEML "artificial consensus"  in any way different  from a consensus which would have manifested sans EEML is the personal synthesis of those who accept the meme that off-Wiki communication is evil and the only reason for off-Wiki communication is to hide evil. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On moving forward
I've done some thinking on the possibilities of a more collaborative order once the wailing and gnashing of teeth here subsides. As I see it, there are three camps:
 * 1) the pro-Official Russia/ pro-Soviet glory/ anti-Baltic/ pro-separatist (Transnistria, South Ossetia,...) et al. camp, which I'll label  "official Russia rhetoric" (until Russia deals honestly with her past and present);
 * 2) the dubious Soviet glory/ dispellers of Official Russia and Soviet era  propaganda camp which I'll label "anti-Stalinist"; and
 * 3) the unaffiliated camp which leans toward (from my perspective) Stalin et al.  as more "reactive" and less "plotting" particularly regarding WWII, and which  sticks to reputable sources and those which can be reasonably debated as to  their reputability.

As for more constructive collaboration moving forward:
 * camps #1 and #2 are irreconcilable owing to the official position of the Russian administration;
 * camps #2 and #3 already work together in a highly opinionated at times but reasonably collegial atmosphere; and
 * camp #3 tends (wisely) to not intersect with the activities of camp #1, as there is already camp #2 to deal with camp #1 and why put yourself in the  cross-hairs.

While editors appear to move from camp #3 to camp #1, allegedly become "radicalized" as the result of being "provoked" by camp #2 (per the accusations lodged here), that is not  the case. It is only, citing the example of Russavia regarding Dyukov at The Soviet Story, a manifestation of latent POV. So, what conclusions can we draw? For completeness, I should note there are internecine conflicts regarding history in camp #2, however, those tend to be mediated successfully by non-aligned members of that camp. I hope the uninvolved watching in find this useful. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) That camp #3 has been editing together with camp #2 for years is proof positive that collaboration on controversial Baltic/EE content is possible.
 * 2) That camp #3 stays away from camp #1 while camp #2 is permanently engaged in a battle with camp #1 rather points to the source of the EE conflict.
 * 3) Personally, I welcome any editor willing to move from camp #1 to camp #3 to swell the ranks of those editors proven to work together. I hold no grudge, but neither am I holding my breath, as that has never happened.