Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Archive 1

Motion to open case

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * (archived from Arbitration/Requests, 00:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrator votes and comments

 * On a motion, a majority of all the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for adoption. There are currently 11 arbitrators listed as active, so a majority is 6. If any arbitrator listed as inactive votes on this motion, he or she shall be moved to active for purposes of this case and the majority adjusted accordingly.


 * Support:
 * As proposer. This situation requires our expedited attention and under the particular circumstances it is appropriate for us to proceed nostra sponte rather than wait for a formal case to be filed. I would like to reemphasize that nothing in this motion, or any other action taken today, reflects a predetermination of any aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the motion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, and I strongly endorse the bit about this matter not being prejudiced. We may discover that it is a fabrication. We can only determine an appropriate course by allowing the parties to be confronted with the evidence against them&mdash;and this isn't suited for a public forum. On-wiki evidence from the community would also be helpful in corroborating or disproving the existence of misconduct. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; also without prejudice. It is important to note that the celerity with which the committee is acting in this matter is borne not out of the substance of the alleged mailing list but from the combination of the gravity of the allegations and the significant risk to privacy of a large number of editors.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Clerk notes
Question: The notes below are written as though this is a full motion; for the purposes of knowing when to open the case, are we looking for a majority as suggested below or the usual net four? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (not clerk or arb, clerk should move if need be) I'm not sure if a case can be opened by motion (if it can, it makes the whole net 4 rule moot), but it can probably fixed by interpreting all aye votes as accept votes as well as votes in favor of the motion's conditions and modifications on the case, and any nay votes as no to both, unless the arbitrator indicates otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about your point before I made the motion; theoretically, if a case was about to be declined under "net 4" despite majority support for acceptance, a disappointed arbitrator could offer a case-by-motion motion instead. This would obviously be a misuse of this procedure (which I've just invented, by the way). I'm sure no arbitrator would act in this manner&mdash;although it does illustrate a drawback of the net 4 rule, which many of us have said needs revising (but this isn't the time for that discussion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Recused  MBisanz  talk 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions to ArbCom

 * 1) What kind of evidence does ArbCom want in this case? Since most of us don't have access to the off-wiki evidence, it is impossible to for us to know which diffs really are relevant to the mailing list affair and which are not.
 * 2) Is ArbCom going to be both the prosecutor and the jury regarding the off-wiki evidence, or will those few admins who have access to the material be the prosecutors?
 * 3) Is ArbCom going to make some of this evidence public?
 * 4) Will ArbCom verify the authenticity of the off-wiki evidence itself, or does it want some kind of help?
 * 5) Does ArbCom need help in determining whether the mail list discussions led to disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia? Offliner (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In short:
 * It is expected that the members of the mailing list will be the ones providing most of the evidence, given that the mailing list itself is at the center of the incident.
 * It may be more appropriate to compare this case to a coroner's inquest than a trial; the role of prosecutor applies only when the proceeding is adversarial, not when it is an investigation
 * That depends what you mean by "evidence" and "public". Any decision that would rest on evidence that should remain private will state what the evidence is, and may selectively quote redacted portions of it.  It is unlikely that significant parts of the mail archive will be published, especially given that most of it is unrelated to Wikipedia at all and may disclose information with significant privacy impact
 * The authenticity, reliability and accuracy of private evidence is always an important factor. This is something that will occupy an important part of the investigation in the days to come.
 * I expect that I will ask the parties (and, indeed, the community) a number of specific inquiries of that nature during the case, where evidence of specific incidents will be requested.
 * Right now, I'm still organizing and preparing, so much of the answers above are preliminary. I hope it's enough to give a good idea, though.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My intent here is to make it clear that taking any action wiki side based on peoples private conversations and venting is inappropriate. If there would have been violations in the actions on WP, they should and would have been noted at the time. What's on the table now is editors right to have private conversations. I would like to assume we all have that right. Therefore I refuse to discuss any of this "evidence". --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to that concern there, though I expect you'll not agree with it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers, Coren. I already collected some evidence that I think might be relevant or useful to ArbCom: . You said that members of the mailing list are expected to provide most of the evidence. I'm not a member of the list, but do you think it would be helpful if I posted this on the evidence page? Offliner (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any editor is allowed to post evidence, and encouraged to do so when they can shed light and help getting a complete picture. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely that significant parts of the mail archive will be published, especially given that most of it is unrelated to Wikipedia at all and may disclose information with significant privacy impact. Hmm, most of it is unrelated to Wikipedia at all? Coren could please clarify whether the ArbCom seeked the advice of Wikimedia Foundation laywers before starting to examine private emails? Loosmark (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please state the theoretical cause of action. To me this looks like another scare tactic. If someone told me, "look your library is being vandalized by this private e-mail group, look at the e-mails" and I looked at the e-mails, what crime have I committed? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it probably depends on the type of vandalism and how were the emails obtained. In my opinion that is very much a legal question and only a lawyer can give a definite answer on which way the balance go here ("the right to know" vs privacy breach), thus my question. I think the comunity has the right to know whether the ArbCom got "legal clearance" for their actions. Loosmark (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that community has the right to have it's arb com left alone, and without any threats of any legal consequences. These dozens of posts with claims arb com may be punished for it's actions look like a real campaign, organized and coordinated. Definitely there's something people on the list are afraid of, but that does not give you the right to threat anyone on Wikipedia. Dear users on the list, and their friends, please do not threaten anyone, for it may only further undermine your position in this case.FeelSunny (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * punished? threaten? FeelSunny what are you talking about? I only suggested wikipedia lawyers clarify the situation, that's all. If the examination of private emails is really legal (I'm not saying it is isn't, I have just not seen any convincing argument supporting it) then I don't see whats the problem with that, as it will only put to rest all doubts. Loosmark (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see any "community" around asking for "legal clearance" - there are just several users involved in the mailing list actions, which would do whatever to stopp the inquiry into this all. That is what I see. Claiming that arbcoms may lack some "clearance" and advising someone to go check if he has permission before acting (more exactly - "seek the advice of [...] laywers before starting to examine private emails") is very much close to threatening, from my POV.FeelSunny (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there is no doubt that "that is what you see". However: 1) I am not on any mailing list. 2) If somebody would want to examine your private emails I would raise the same objections. 3) I have yet to see a legal argument for examining the private corrispondence. Loosmark (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and you are shifting it to the defendant. No one is required to provide legal arguments, before charges have been provided. I have yet to see a legal argument for the plaintiff, and you claiming that the defendant is the first one to give the legal argument isn't just plain silly; in this case, it's Unconstitutional. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While we may, or may not believe with Stimson that "gentlemen don't read each other's mail" but I don't believe that doing so in these circumstances is likely infringe any law or create a tort. Even if it does there is no guarantee that the readers are in the jurisdiction where such a tort may arise. So legal hand wringing over use of the information is pretty much by the by. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Request to be included in the arbitration
I have been editing the 2008 South Ossetia War article, extensively. I have been also dealing with POV Forks as a result of said article, and other POV matters. Contrary to the expectation of eternal edit-warring, the general consensus on one of Wikipedia's most controversial talkpages has been largely reached. There have been no more major arguments in the two week period, and for that article, it's quite an achievement. Since you have asked for evidence that might corroborate the e-mail evidence, I can provide such evidence; just include me and let me prepare my arguments.

As per the silly comment that this investigation will only encourage crime, I have but one thing to say: What crime was committed? Mere hacking, in and of itself, is not a crime. One can hack someone else's computer, take no other actions, not damage anything during the hacking process, and thus, no crime has occurred. The crime of "hacking" results from an action being taken, that follows the hacking, such as stealing money, stealing legally obtained information, or revealing personal information. None of this took place. One cannot use illegal Wikipedia tactics, if indeed this is the case, and then complain that said tactics have been illegally exposed. An undercover officer doesn't read a drug dealer his Miranda Rights. Illegal actions do not enjoy the same protection as legal ones. I have never heard a case, where an e-mail club was hacked and exposed as illegal, where no private information has been exposed, and where the hacker was punished. In order to encourage crime, the investigation must recognize crime, and here no crime of "hacking" took place. If you illegally stole money, and someone hacked your account and gave that money to the government that you stole it from, you do not get immunity; you go to jail. If you illegally try to influence the knowledge and mindset of Wikipedia readers by a secret e-mail cabal, and someone hacks and exposes your cabal, and returns the proper knowledge to his fellow Wikipedia readers, then no crime took place, except the crime that you committed.

Has a crime been committed? Is there an e-mail cabal out there? Will people receive Wikipedia "vacations"? We don't know. That's what were are here to find out. But to claim that this committee should stop working and investigating a potential crime, because someone else believes that a crime has been committed, where no crime took place, is absurd! It's like Bernie Madoff claiming protection from lawsuits to avoid exposing his "business secrets". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HistoricWarrior, you state "I can provide such evidence;" (to corroborate the "evidence") so I'm going to ask you directly. Do you have access to one or more of the supposed "archives" and if so, how did you obtain this access?radek (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I have such evidence? I shall quote from my previous post, and I believe the quote shall answer your question: "We don't know." In other words, I have no idea. That's why I want this to go forward, to find out. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another Clarification: the evidence I was talking about, that I do have, either links to, or is part of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article. You are more than welcome to check out that fine article, and dig through its not-so-fine archives. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking if I even should comment on your post because I think that this case "stinks" and there is lot's more to come, possibly scary things, because all this is sooooo illegal and on top of that in my opinion we are dealing with pros, whoever they are,  but after reading your post I started to shake my head with disbelieve..:) and decided to comment a little. So according to you it is O.K. to hack into somebody's account, steal private e-mails containing private information, possibly manipulate their content to make sure they fit your agenda and then post them for other people to see as evidence? Right? Did I understand you correctly? :)--Jacurek (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You wrote: "So according to you it is O.K. to hack into somebody's account, steal private e-mails containing private information, possibly manipulate their content to make sure they fit your agenda and then post them for other people to see as evidence?" I specifically stated: "One can hack someone else's computer, take no other actions, not damage anything during the hacking process, and thus, no crime has occurred." What you are describing are actions contrary to my post. Stealing is a crime. Manipulating is a crime. Posting private information for others to see, that's a crime. That would be taking other actions, and thus would be quite contrary to my post, saying "take no other actions". If you have anymore questions please ask, I'm always happy to clarify :) HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it OK for a burglar to enter your house, take pictures of everything you own and then post them for the world to see? Nothing was taken after all...--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he just takes pictures, then he isn't a burglar :) A Burglary requires a "felony committed on the premises". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me answer the question: if someone hacks into my e-mail, and doesn't touch any of my legal e-mails, which are all of them, I wouldn't really care, because I have nothing to hide. Comparing an e-mail to a house is a bit, well, it's a poor comparison. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On top of it all, Jacurek, is my feeling that we are dealing with a real web-brigade. And - let me make such a supposition - supported by government agencies. I would really like to see all of those people on the mailing list stating - voluntarily - they are not connected to the government agencies of any country in any way. Just because, as you say, this case stinks.FeelSunny (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * HistoricWarrior007, could you clarify what makes you an involved party in this issue? I assume you weren't in mailing list, and so far you haven't been mentioned anywhere as "potential victim" either. Currently I don't see how you are more involved then many many other editors who have interacted with alleged mailing list members on Eastern Europe articles (German Expulsion, Polish-Ukrainian WWII disputes, Paneriai naming, etc.).--Staberinde (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Georgia is part of Eastern Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm as is Russia. I devote, on average, 30 minutes a day, some days much more, others much less, to the 2008 South Ossetia War article. I can assure you Staberinde, the edit-warring that took place there, as well as ten people miraculously voting one way in 24 hours, as well as a strategic voting campaign to get a certain POV Fork going, and someone from the list possibly using Samogitia as a sock-puppet, etc. If there is a mailing cabal out there, I can assure you that it operated in 2008 South Ossetia War article, and as one of the main editors of that article, that makes me the victim of these illegal tactics. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont remember claiming that Georgia or Russia are not part of Eastern Europe, my point was actually that Eastern Europe in meaning relevant to this case includes also lots of other stuff from Ukraine to Lithuania to Germany etc. There are/were lots of disputes including crapload of editors, I don't see how South Ossetia war is particularly different from all those various disputes until someone who has actually seen this supposed evidence makes such claim. You can't really make any reliable claims about being victim until someone who has seen appropriate evidence confirms it, assuming that you haven't seen what is in those infamous archives yourself.--Staberinde (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, why don't you actually let me make the arguments, and then the committee can decide if it's relevant or not. Use of scare tactics, and similar methods to silence the investigation, or those participating in it, will not work. Statements, including, "if you allow this, you are encouraging crime" or "you cannot really make any reliable claims" - are very silly. Anyone, who has previously not been proven wrong countless times, can make a reliable claim, that's why it is called a claim. If if I am not included as a party, I still get to present my facts, and then let the arbitrators decide, as per Coren: "Any editor is allowed to post evidence, and encouraged to do so when they can shed light and help getting a complete picture. — Coren (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)". I've never heard of evidence in court being thrown out before it was presented, just because someone thinks it's irrelevant. Same goes for an arbitration committee. I fail to see what you are trying to do here Staberinde, what you are trying to gain. And I already said, I don't have the mailing list, so stop it with the veiled accusations. The reason my post is taking a while, is because, instead of just listing evidence linked to 2008 South Ossetia War, I actually want to get it organized and make it easier to read. That takes time. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Scare tactics??? Oh my. Well, I guess that in this case I should appologize for sounding threatening because that definitely was not my intention. Also I have in no way stopped you from making arguments or said that you can't present any evidence. Only thing that I actually did was disputing your claim that you should be considered involved party in this issue due your conviction that there was evil plotting going on in South Ossetia war article. If those emails actually contain plotting against you, then arbcom logically will add you among involved parties anyway, no matter if you apply for it or not. But that if you are involved party or not is in no way related to your right to present any evidence .--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The scare tactic that I was talking about was Alexia Death's claim - "investigating this, is promoting crime!" That's a scare tactic. As to the rest of the argument, you're probably right. And since I get to present my evidence anyways, I guess the point as to whether I'm a party or not, isn't crucial at the moment. Thus, until the evidence is presented, I won't raise the issue again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Staberinde, some of your last claims look very bad to myself. I'd propose both of you to stop discussions on hacking nature, scaring arguments, etc. HW just wants to be included in the discussion, and I beleive he was discussed on this mailing list extensively. Just because those pople on this list were the users we both interacted with very much in several articles. And b/c HW is pro-Russian, and obviously was a very "legitimate" target for those in the (possible) web-brigade. Thus I can see no reason to question HW's wish to be included, or make him give any additional proofs for anything - taking into account he numerous times interacted with those people on the list (and not received a very welcoming reactions from them). Obvious is that he could have been discussed off-wiki by those users, like Colchicum, or Biophys, or Kober, or others (I do not remember all of them on the list, but most names sound very familiar).FeelSunny (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you FeelSunny :D But in all honesty, I don't think Kober was part of this, but I could be wrong. However I am almost sure that Biophys and Colchicum discussed me and you at least once. A certain POV Fork comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_genocide_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia, with a very interesting voting pattern. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say I almost take it as a compliment being among those discussed by the group. On Kober - I do not know who was on the list, and it's a good news for me Kober was not one of them.FeelSunny (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One of this case participants reappeared under a different name
Please see. This is User:PasswordUsername. Note that the following IPs are also him: User:166.217.251.170, User:166.217.128.203, User:166.217.202.68, User:166.203.202.83 User:166.217.80.95. Biophys (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Biophys, ever heard of a Dynamic IP and forgetting to sign in? Also, PasswordUsername admitted that he is Anti-Nationalist openly, on another Wiki user's talkpage. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So user HistoricWarrior007... what makes you involved with the issues here, again..? Sorry you were asked that question already but I never saw the answer.--Jacurek (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your previous post looks like this is your page and you do not want to see HistoricWarrior007 here. This is hardly acceptable. FeelSunny (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Dimitry (FeelSunny), you are wrong. --Jacurek (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmitry, not Dimitry. on your edit - why do you ask him to give you any explanations on why he is writing in this discussion then? FeelSunny (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He was asked that question by one of the Arb's but I never saw the answer. P.S. Thanks for the name spelling correction Dmitry.--Jacurek (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So why should he answer separately to every user who missed his answer to that arb com member? It looks like it's all about pestering a user that does not support your POV on this list, frankly.FeelSunny (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm here, thanks for noting it. I find it interesting that Biophys linked to my contributions rather than my user page for the stunning shocker, because I plainly identified who I am and why I'm here on my user page in real clear English. (See also User talk:Offliner.) Presently I'm collecting diffs I will present to ArbCom in this case. And yeah, the Dynamic IP is mine (but you already knew this when I pointed it out to you in May). They get rerouted to different computers after a while, so I can't vouch that everything connected to them after May was stuff I did. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * i think we all saw the message on offliner talk page. I dont see anything wrong with what you have done anti-n, so long as you havent used it in a dispute which backs PU..and that is obvious you have not. You may want to contact the arb clerk to have your name amended on involved parties list. Russavia Dialogue 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good advice, I've let Daniel know now that my evidence's set. 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jarucek, can you show me where an Admin asked me that? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European mailing list Arcticle tag - proposal
''(I will delete the proposal text for now, as I see it brings about too much unnecessary discussions, and most are not even closely related to the matter). I'd rather repost (or not) it later when the arbcom makes it's decision.''FeelSunny (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, except I wouldn't use the 200 number, and I would raise the 50 number of edits to 100. I made roughly 60-70 percent of my edits in a single article, so if I only made 50 edits in that article, the overall number, would at best be 90. Also, 3 months seems a bit too long, have about six weeks instead? Additionally, all articles that were deleted, due to a substantial difference made by the e-mail group, should be reinstated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FeelSunny, whilst I understand what you are suggesting, I don't think that the use of this template would be beneficial to the project. Instead use controversial on article talk pages. One need only remember Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7 - the template that was deemed by uninvolved editors to be an attempt to use a supposed NPOV template to make a POV statement. I think the suggestion is exactly the same, although quite understandable given the circumstances. As I am not able to edit anything outside of this case, I would only suggest that editors, who ever they may be, revisit any suspect articles themselves, and edit them as part of normal editing processes. --Russavia Dialogue 09:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case the arbcom finds the presented evidence shows users from the group did not edit in a fair way, we should let other people, editors and readers, know. And adding a template could be a good way of doing this. It's not about the template lacking the good faith, namely because the template is proposed to be created only after the arbcom makes it's decision regarding the group's actions. I also proposed quite strict criteria for using and handling the template, as you see, to make sure everybody refrains from using the template to editwar anywhere.
 * I beleive just adding the controversial template can not be enough to either 1) prevent other users (most important, readers) the article may have a considerable POV, or 2) make sure non-involved users would take any actions correcting thed damaged articles.FeelSunny (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The horse isn't dead yet. "No user from the group may take part in the new vote" equals a topic ban regardless of personal guilt, which is highly unlikely. Also, I'm afraid you're betting on the assumption that the topic ban will easily shift the balance in favor of Soviet POV. It's a flawed assumption: the other faction has always been stonger in numbers and there's always a steady inflow of volunteers. NVO (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The new pro-POV users would be inexperienced with the topic area, and would easily be exposed, via a discussion page. I remember users claiming all kinds of funny things in the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that discredited them, and their additions to the readers. I.e. air force isn't army, France started the Franco-Prussian War, and it's important to know what the the article is about before editing. These basic facts were missed by some "editors". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On your first concern: I propose to create such a template only after the decision is made by the arbcom. If the arbcom decides the users from the group may continue to edit EEurope-related articles, they, of course, should be let to vote. Moreover, if the arbcom decides the group did not make any damage to the articles, there would be no need in the template, of course.
 * On your second concern: Please have some good faith and do not judge my proposal too strictly. I only mean what I say, and have no intention of switching the POV balance to "Soviet POV" side or "other faction" side. I just want the (possible) serious damage to Wikipedia to be undone, and users (possibly) inflicting it could not undermine the process of reconstruction.FeelSunny (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FeelSunny, whilst I know what you are getting at, and it is slightly covered by what NVO says, I think the best avenue is this. Find any articles which you believe have been affected, place controversial on the article talk page (if the article subject is one which is truly controversial), then place POV and/or POV-check, or another relevant template from Template_messages/Disputes on the article page at the top, and then create a section on the article talk page detailing what the problems with the article are, in order to start discussion. A list of articles could then be made up and placed at WP:RFC, or even WikiProject talk pages, such as WT:RUSSIA, asking for editor input into talk page discussion. And, of course, there is nothing stopping individual editors from being WP:BOLD and adding information. From what I can see the purpose of this group was to ensure that their POV was adhered to in articles, and get rid of everyone who was in opposition to that stated purpose. It doesn't have anything to do with ensuring that one POV is given precedence in articles (as seems to be the modus operandi of the email list), but ensuring that all POV are adequately covered within the confines of existing policies, and ensuring that our articles adhere to WP:NPOV. As was mentioned to me once a while ago, our readers are not stupid and will be able to see blatant bias...or at least one hopes anyway. Again, I understand what your concerns are, and I share them too, but I do feel it is probably best that we try to find a way of dealing with such things with existing resources, rather than re-inventing the wheel, so to speak? Thoughts on that? --Russavia Dialogue 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. Thoughts follow. Let's imagine an option where the arbcom decides the group is bad, and restricts members from editing EE-related articles, i.e. sets a topic ban. I beleive there are quite a few possible "supporters" of the group's cause out there, including support for their methods, in the name of, say, "enforsing truth on EE topics". These supporters may do many things to hinder recreation of those articles, including campaigning. How do you prevent them from doing this? This is one important question. Another is - how do you draw other editors' attention to those (possibly) damaged articles? When a simple reader comes to a page that is discussing neonazi, and sees there are neonazi everywhere in Europe, but in Estonia, where only "alleged activities" of neonazi exist - would the editor think of the wording in this example? Even with a POV tag? I beleive, a simple POV tag can not be used to draw anyone's attention, or prevent anyone the article is not ok. It's just too frequent. This case may need some extra caution from readers and editors. That is, of course, for everyone to decide. In the case arbcom founds anything was done wrong by those users at all, in the first place.FeelSunny (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal would only lead to provocations. If a few users misbehaved it doesn't mean all the articles have become unbalanced just due to that. It doesn't take into account all the tag teaming by the other teams, which have quite clearly happened with or without them exchanging private messages. Grey Fox (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, but there's the difference. If two editors happen to have a similar opinion on an article, they agree with each other. However, this is perfectly acceptable within Wikipedia rules. If, on the other hand, you have editors that coordinate their attacks, using cleverly devised tactics, to alter an article, then you have a violation of Wikipedia policies. The difference is that one the one hand, you get truly knowledgeable people editing an article, and on the other you get a cabal. The difference in quality offered can be seen on the discussion page, and via the sources they bring in. Most scholars agree that Russia defeated Georgia in the 2008 South Ossetia War. Most scholars also agree that Georgia started the war. Thus it would be very likely, to have several editors argue that point. However, a cabal would come in and argue fringe points, make disastrous edits, attempt to take out quality information, create and assist in the creation of POV forks, try to get certain users, whose POV they don't like, banned, while trying to keep, and even offer membership to those that share their POV, to keep these editors, irrespective of the low quality of their edits, on Wikipedia. There's a fine line between editors who support each other due to similar scholarly views and each of whom found the article on their own, and editors that are assigned to articles, via a cabal, to "help out" in showing the "necessary" POV. You arguing that the two are the same, is quite frankly, bullshit. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Grey Fox, the poposal was not aimed at dealing with a few misbehaving users. I clearly stated I am not interested with whatever sanctions the arbcom would or would not rule out for them. The tag is intended solely to help repair the damage in those Wikipedia articles that were seriously disrupted. And I propose to discuss every case of tagging before placing the tag, and only place tag by admin or arbcom level user.FeelSunny (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me summarize it for you. Number of articles severely disrupted by an Eastern European mailing list: 0 Grey Fox (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? And this whole case is also non-existent, right? I can think of at least two attempts to severely disrupt 2008 South Ossetia War and there's been a whole POV Fork created. Also, another article dealing with Russia-Estonia relations, that dared to point out that despite being better educated, Russians have lower salaries then Estonians, that one was deleted too. That's three articles from my experience, and I edited less then ten articles. Nice try. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I am pretty sure nobody is treating this seriously :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really hope so ("Let's not just punish those on the list, whether guilty or innocent of anything, but let's also punish those who might agree with them!") but Wikipedia has been an eerie strange place lately.radek (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - thanks for the cheer up from a respected admin. This is surely what Wikipedia expects of the users of your level. FeelSunny (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) PS. Overall, a good example of an established team work in the last three posts, guys.

Reply to FeelSunny/Re:2008 South Ossetia war
While following this case, I initially did not want to participate here, since, in my opinion, 2008 South Ossetia war was only a minor "battlefield" between the parties currently investigated in this arbitration. However, since FeelSunny mentioned my name and brought the article up as an example, I'll add my view. If this is the wrong page, please move to the correct place.

For the record: I have never been part of said mailing list and only know of its existence since it was brought up on wikipedia.

2008 South Ossetia war

The article has been a constant battlefield from the instant it was created. I only started editing it about 3 weeks after its creation, so I missed the hottest initial phase, but, as can be seen from, members of the mailing list as well as their usual "opponents" were among the first editors. Most of these seem to have lost interest in the article after the prolonged article name debate (see below). User:Offliner and to a somewhat lesser extent User:Biophys stuck around, taking part in the usual edit wars. However, most of the later reverts were done by myself, User:FeelSunny, and especially User:HistoricWarrior007.

HistoricWarrior007 managed to rack up 94 reverts in his total 162 edits listed in (my own count from the history, I might have missed a few, since not all are labeled and some are patently misslabeled: ). For his efforts, he was awarded a barnstar by User:ETST and recommended by User:Offliner.

Article name vote

As anyone is free to check in the talk page archives, there are literally douzens and douzens of pages discussing the article name. Eventually, Offliner suggested to hold a vote instead. I implemented his decision a day later, see Talk:2008 South Ossetia war/Archive 24 (Offliner and I were on opposite sites of the debate, as well as the later vote). During this vote, HistoricWarrior007 took to canvassing votes for his prefered outcome (discussed at: ), leading to a close decision on favor of his prefered solution. He still gloats about that result. Those members of the mailing list who voted, did so for the losing side. Whether they canvassed votes on their mailing list, I don't know.

The mailing list

As far as I tell, 2008 South Ossetia war was a low priority target for the mailing list and their opponents after the article name discussion. --Xeeron (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know? Have you read the e-mails? Not to mention that the POV Fork was kept through enormous efforts of Biophys, and the list made up a huge chunk of the "blame Russia" side. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems only the last sentence really answers to my post about the 2008 South Ossetia war. It is really interesting the article was a "low priority target". FeelSunny (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing how South Ossetia War (still under fringe title btw) was brought up even though we have so far no confirmation that any canvassing by e-mail cabal took place there, while canvassing by HistoricWarrior007 was well seen.--Staberinde (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not on the list, Staberinde, so I do not know exactly what articles were discussed. But thanks for letting me know another interesting fact. Strange is that you and Xeeron claim different things about the (possible) cabal influence in that article. FeelSunny (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, only 90% of all wars are named after location or in the aggressor-defender format. Totally Fringe. (Sarcasm)


 * FeelSunny, as I hopefully made clear above ("as far as I can tell"), that is only my personal opinion, being neither a member of the email list, nor one of their opponents. The only ones who truely know how big a target that article was, are, respectively, the members of the list and those on the other side. If you want a better opinion than mine, I suggest asking Biophys or Offliner, as the most prolific editors of both groups on that article, for their view. --Xeeron (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but from the last phrase of your previous post it was not clear you tell me your personal opinion.FeelSunny (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response by HistoricWarrior007
 * Note: These two parts of the response were extracted from where they were originally posted, within the 17:36 statement by Xeeron.


 * (under the heading "2008 South Ossetia war")
 * Xeeron, you skewing facts again? Haven't I busted you enough times already? Yeah, I have 94 reverts. And the last 21 reverts, were done because a zealous newbie messed up and placed his edits in the wrong section. Speaking of which, you wanted to kick him from the article, whereas I was/am in favor of giving him a chance. And look, he just made a productive edit! Furthermore, I was given an award for my arguments in the "Title Vote", that, by the way, no one on your team even remotely came close to defeating. In fact my arguments were so persuasive, that most of the truly neutral people voted in favor of the current title. My arguments further withstood your little flash mob attack. That's what I was given the Barnstar for; not for reverting. But thank you for twisting facts and making me sound so evil. Twice you have cried out against me, when I pointed out that you are responsible for the very edits that you make, with your counter-claim being that since you were quoting your sources verbatim, the sources were responsible for your edits, not yourself. And speaking of Xeeron's credibility, here's a certain edit by Xeeron, where he uses tactics unworthy of a Wikipedian - where he just flat out changes facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia#New_York_Times_and_Xeeron


 * Here is the statement from the New York Times: "Kokoity’s words are a rare public acknowledgment by an official that he and the forces under his command or with whom he is working are engaging in what can only be called ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide."


 * Here is Xeeron's "interpretation" of said statement: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"


 * Xeeron switches the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" to support his point. My response:


 * "NYT: "ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide"
 * Xeeron: "Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing"


 * So if someone says that "cars are a form of transportation", feel free to pull a Xeeron and argue that "transportation is a special form of cars". Yo, check out my transportation, it's the best form of cars out there! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)"


 * Also, for some reason, despite everything you've done to me, and everything I've tolerated from you so far, you're still fed up with me that you couldn't defeat my arguments in the "Title Vote", no wonder the Barnstar bugs you so much, perhaps its time you let your Vendetta go, and let me edit in peace? "As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results


 * (under the heading "Article name vote")


 * Ahh yes, the "canvassing" case. The "canvassing" involved me informing 5 users who edited this article before, one as recently as a few weeks ago, and posting a message on Russia's talkpage, instead of Wiki:Project Russia. Then Team Hysteria entered, and began to spread accusations of "canvassing". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Historicwarrior007 above

This is a prime example showing why editing on 2008 South Ossetia war is so hard.


 * "you wanted to kick him from the article"
 * While I feel that Reneem's (the user HistoricWarrior007 is talking about) actions are detrimental to the article, I never advocated "kicking" him from the article. My words where: "A ton of unsourced additions. Please add sources. --Xeeron (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)"
 * "Here is Xeeron's "interpretation" of said statement: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" "
 * HistoricWarrior007 failed to properly quote me here. The real quote is: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" which makes clear that I am not interpreting the NYT, but instead advocating the (different) definition used in our own article on ethnic cleansing. A fact also stated in my own post on the same site a few lines below, which HistoricWarrior007 also did not quote here: "Like, the fact that I related to the wiki article on ethnic cleansing, which has a definition that differs from the NYT one. And which is backed up by the UN, for example."
 * perhaps its time you let your Vendetta go, and let me edit in peace?
 * It needs to be pointed out that I was editing all that article well before HistoricWarrior007 arrived there and started his reverts. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Xeeron:


 * I aplogize about Reneem, I got that wrong. Now, as to the rest of your post.


 * :HistoricWarrior007 failed to properly quote me here. The real quote is: "Simply read Ethnic Cleansing and you will see that it does not imply killing. Genocide is a special form of ethnic cleasing (and one that always involves killing) but there are other forms of ethnic cleansing that do not involve killing. --Xeeron (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" which makes clear that I am not interpreting the NYT, but instead advocating the (different) definition used in our own article on ethnic cleansing. A fact also stated in my own post on the same site a few lines below, which HistoricWarrior007 also did not quote here: "Like, the fact that I related to the wiki article on ethnic cleansing, which has a definition that differs from the NYT one. And which is backed up by the UN, for example."


 * The section was/is called 'New York Times and Xeeron'. Yet, now, after replying there, you claim that you were not interpreting the New York Times. You then went ahead and claimed that according to your interpretation of the UN's definition, ethnic cleansing doesn't have to involve killing. When I asked for an actual example of ethnic cleansing that didn't involve killing, you started wiki-lawyering. I just wanted an example.


 * :It needs to be pointed out that I was editing all that article well before HistoricWarrior007 arrived there and started his reverts. --Xeeron (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While you boldly went on your "HW007 Bashing Tirade", you forgot to mention that I have over 600 edits to the talkpage of the 2008 South Ossetia War. I actually prefer to talk, before editing. Furthermore, the majority of the sources that I placed into the article were NPOV; all this pales in comparison to your silly accusation "HW007 is racking up 94 reverts in his total 162 edits". The real reason you hate me, is because I kicked your ass, almost every single time on the talkpage, the most recent one being on the exclusion of Pavel Felgenhauer, the "analyst" that thought that the war would be tough for Russia to fight. Here's that debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Reposting_an_Argument_that_wasn.27t_addressed_by_Xeeron_and_company.2C_and_yet_an_argument_they_pretend_they.27ve_addressed_about_Pavel_Felgenhauer.


 * The sad thing is that Xeeron is working his ass off, trying to show me as a pro-Russian guy who is Putin's secret Wikipedia Weapon, that reverts poor, poor Xeeron's supposedly "correct" posts. In reality, the reason I am hated, is because I make valid arguments on the talkpage, that no one can rebut, due to their high quality. That's the sole reason I was given the Barnstar. Offliner doesn't need to praise me for my Wikipedia edits. He doesn't much care if I make them or not. What he wants me to do, is to show the wrongfulness of Xeeron's and company's edits, that he knows are wrong, but cannot quite place it in writing. Here is a link to just one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Borisov. Thanks for clarifying this. Could you please post this to Talk:South Ossetia as well, so that others will see it too?. If I was a pro-Putin reverting weapon, I wouldn't have a mere 94 edits, most of which are unrelated to POV, I would have a lot more. I wouldn't have just 162 edits. And I definitely wouldn't have over 600 quality edits on the discussion page.


 * The "Eastern European Wiki-Cabal" and other similar cabals are wonderful at edit-warring, revert warring, frustrating users and getting them to leave. However they are powerless against a truly well written argument, as I have demonstrated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_South_Ossetia (Just click, I won't copy-paste the whole thing, it's a five minute read.) On top of all this, I bite back, but I don't get violent, I don't threaten anyone, I don't break any rules, and I give other pro-Russian editors hope: (from my talkpage)

"Of course, i couldn't help but open the article a few days ago, on August 8, and i just can't describe how immensely i was relieved to see, that the title is still the same. Unfortunately, i was having severe fever, and couldn't express my gratitude immediately, so here i go now. =)

''As it seems in the end, it took just one determined and skilled person (looks like our opponents were unable to find one that matches both prerequisites, despite their huge community base) and just a single reasonable admin to settle the case. Thank you. Your effort was beyond anything i could imagine. I was thinking on joining to ETST's and Offliner's award comments, but what you did this time deserves a whole another dedicated award with a star drawn by me personally and exclusively for you. =) Of course, that would be some day, when i'll have the time to do it, that is, so keep on waiting. =)''

''Also i can't help but admire the way you was handling with the whole affair. Like, when you took Devil's Advocate statement word for word, but changed "South Ossetia war" for "Vietnam War", etc. It was total fun! =) And the latest piece in Name and Google hits section, about rename attempts going on and on, with links to all rename discussions, is even funnier, since it's true. =))''"


 * And that is the sole reason I am hated. But I am a historian who left his Ivory Tower, and I intend to continue making quality edits that bite when necessary. Here is what the IP User is talking about, (long read): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Discussion.


 * Finally, let's remember why Xeeron hates me, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results: The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, I have extended an Olive Branch to Xeeron, and have continued doing so, albeit I have bitten back occasionally, when "asked" to do so; anyways, here is the Olive Branch, I am truly saddened that it hasn't yet been accepted: I really hope we can get past this, so that you don't end up bashing me everytime you don't get your way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) You can feel free to accept at any time Xeeron. I haven't brought you here, I haven't even made the arguments yet, and you have already launched your preemptive strike. I am only human, so I don't have infinite patience. If this continues, I might eventually have to withdraw the Olive Branch, but keep in mind, that despite everything you have done, even your attempt to discredit me here, I am still offering the Olive Branch. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a personal vendetta against me, please feel free to stop it, I would appreciate that. My problem is with your editing and your faulty talk page arguements, not with you as a person. However, while you write untrue and insulting stuff like "The sad thing is that Xeeron is working his ass off, trying to show me as a pro-Russian guy who is Putin's secret Wikipedia Weapon, that reverts poor, poor Xeeron's supposedly "correct" posts." making up ever new untruths and lies about me, your branch (coming after that post) looks less like olive and more like fig. --Xeeron (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Xeeron, I do not have a personal vendetta against you. However, since you continue to slander me, I have no choice but to expose your tactics of editing. Usually the way Xeeron edits, is that he places a source, originating either from the Jamestown Foundation or one of its allies, into the article. Then I come along, and point out the source's fallacy, little things, such as the fact that Russians didn't outnumber Georgians two to one as Svante Cornell alleged. Xeeron then pretends that since he quoted Svante Cornell, it's not really Xeeron's argument, but rather Svante Cornell's, and since Svante Cornell has a PhD, and I am a mere wikipedia editor, I must suck it up. When I bring in Peter LaVelle, who also has a PhD, much more prestigious then Svante Cornell, and post LaVelle's criticism, Xeeron informs me that such criticism belongs in another article, and LaVelle is a Kremlin hired gun, whereas Svante Cornell is an "independent researcher" who just happens to work for oil companies, that apparently have nothing but the good of mankind in mind.


 * So to sum it up: Xeeron cannot be criticized, for Xeeron's edits, because Xeeron merely quoted a Jamestown Foundation allied source. The source cannot be criticized, because the author has a PhD, and I don't. And any PhD I bring in to counter that, is a Kremlin hired gun. Nice system Xeeron. If I don't play along, within this system, Xeeron slanders me and launches a tirade of Ad Hominems. And if things really don't go his way, Xeeron starts playing the victim. Dude, you're posting Jamestown and Co. propaganda, and worshipping this crap, and when someone points this out, you slander them with Ad Hominems and play the victim. How stupid do you think we are? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * HistoricWarrior's summary above is not a proper characterization of my editing (as can be seen by the approximately 95% of my edits not involving that specific source), nor of my talk page actions (everyone is free to look at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war and its archives to check just who used Ad Hominems there). However he is correct in pointing out that I believe in WP:NOR and as such require him to back up his accusations by sources other than his own wiki talk page edits. --Xeeron (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe my wording was "that source, or sources allied to it", i.e. Pavel Felgenhauer, Svante Cornell, etc. I also believe in WP:NOR, but I fail to see why it should protect a source, that is later disproved by facts, or a source that states that Ethnic Cleansing is a form of Genocide, even if it is the New York Times Blog. Your provocations have led to my Ad Hominems, in already heated articles. You came in here to attempt to discredit me, and are now playing the victim. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, sorry for intrusion into your verbal games, guys, but may we all consider your last posts to be a peace declaration signed? No more strong words towards each other, at least? Please let us know if this is really the case:)) FeelSunny (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys retirement
Biophys' retirement announcement should not be allowed to have any effect on the case. We have seen Biophys retire many times before -- he often does this when his actions are under investigation.. For example, when his edit warring was being investigated at WP:AE, Biophys retired during the investigation, and thus managed to avoid being placed on 1RR. Soon, Biophys returned. Other editors had to point this out to Thatcher, who then implemented the 1RR restriction:. Offliner (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know if he's going to retire. He said he was going to abondon his account because he gout outed and herassed. He might inform involved admins of a new account in the future. Grey Fox (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's wrong with Offliner's point? No one is preventing retirement, we're just against Biophys using the "retirement tactic", and a proper punishment should be issued, whatever ArbCom agrees that it is, irrespective of retirement. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say something is wrong? Grey Fox (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the point of your overall comment? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No measures taken by arbitrators or admins on Wikipedia are meant to be punitive. Their only purpose is prevention, let alone the fact that it has not yet been established whether Biophys is guilty of anything. It has, however, been reminded that undue speculation, highly charged assertions, attempts at outing (partial or otherwise), and other similar conduct is unacceptable and will be treated as disruption. Colchicum (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That injunction hasn't been enacted yet, so quoting it is a bit misleading. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a bit. The injunction is just a reminder, such conduct has always been unacceptable. Colchicum (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he does return, he will need to advise the Arb case clerk, and the community of the new user name, as if there are any sanctions as a result of this case, they will obviously also apply to any new account established by himself, but such an account should be done by following WP:VANISH. --Russavia Dialogue 16:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be of interest to all involved in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Without meaning to get "lawyery", does that provision basically mean that failure to notify the ArbCom of a new account would be grounds for the new account being banned as well? The only reason I ask is that what entail the sockpuppet actually being caught as such, and some editors might be willng to run that risk not just once, but many times. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More precisely, failure to notify ArbCom of a new account while the editor is under sanctions is grounds for a ban. Remember that it is editors that are sanctioned, not the accounts being used.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys already returned to editing. His 4th retirement did not last for a day.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Violation of unblock conditions
Conditions Violation 1 Violation 2 Not sure if they are severe enough, but a reminder is in order. Colchicum (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to know whether the spirit of the conditional unblock extends to the talk pages of parties, Arbitrators and the Clerk of the case. I will wait for Coren's input before taking any further action. Daniel (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They would, but it's not entirely clear that they should. I'll remind the editor.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to Arbcom: 2008 South Ossetia War
I have been monitoring the article 2008 South Ossetia War from some distance for a while, quite independently of this case, watching an almost uninterrupted slow edit war between always the same group of editors going on for months on end. The most intensely involved users on this and a few other related articles appear to be, , and a couple of others. There has been hardly a single day throughout much of this year when these editors have not been reverting each other over South Ossetian – Russian – Georgian political conflicts.

I've long since come to the conclusion that probably only full topic bans for several of these editors will help, since the editing climate on those articles and their talk pages is absolutely toxic and a hostile battleground attitude on all sides is deeply entrenched. It now appears most of the participants in that South Ossetia case are also somehow involved in this "Eastern European" case, although it may not be the case that the majority of the edit-warring was directly triggered by activities from the list. Responsibility for the bad situation appears to be shared between both factions. Question to Arbcom: do you arbitrators wish to treat the edit-warring as part of this case, or would you be okay if this was treated on the admin/community level while the case is ongoing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that most of the participants in that South Ossetia case are also somehow involved in this "Eastern European" case.Biophys (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Before this has gone too far, may we all see examples of editwarring from my account which you are talking about? Maybe that could be a better start for a discussion about topic bans, and could shed some light on whether the alledged editwarring was connected to the Eastern European mailing list or not.FeelSunny (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, FeelSunny, remember the song we talked with you about, . How to translate it to English? "Our song is a hit by a knife-bayonet that is driven into someone's resilient body..." and so on ("Kill the Georgians" to make long story short?). That sounds too militant for WP. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys, there was nothing about or against Georgians or any other ethnos in the song, and you perfectly know that (well, I hope you do). Of course, you also understand there's nothing militant about the song - it's about treason and corruption, not about killing anyone or fighting any ethnos. When they say "We will stop the hatred, stand in it's way" - there's nothing militant in it. And when they say "The love is forgotten, and only the blood revnge is left here" - they do not describe themselves, for Russians do not have a tradition of a blood revenge. But seriously, I beleive you should know that. If you don't, please stop referring to the poem, for you do not understand Russian at all (disregarding your Russian background). So - what do I think? I think your post is a very strange one. What else? 1) "Our name" instead of "our song" is a right translation. 2) No, I do not remember the song by heart. 3) We did not talk with you about this song. 4) I lost 5 minutes of my life answering this strange question.FeelSunny (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted that song on FeelSunny's talkpage. It has nothing to do with racism. The song bashes Yeltsin and Gamzakhurida, with the lyrics "Presidents lie, there's no cost for them to violate their oath", but you have to have a wild imagination that's out of this World to imagine that it's about racism. Not a single race is mentioned. Also, let's recall that SpetzNatz didn't just fight against Georgians, but also against Wahhabi Sects, and foreign mercenaries of all races. If you actually bothered reading part of the lyrics Biophys, the song is about SpetzNaz preventing racism:

Залит кровью поэтом воспетый Кавказ (The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood)

В сердце ненависть врезалась жалом (Hate crushes the heart like a stinger)

Но дорогу ей грудью закроет спецназ (But SpetzNatz will stop hatred's path by blocking it with their chests)

От беды нам бежать не пристало.    (Because we don't run from trouble)

(It sounds better in Russian)


 * Leave it to you Biophys, to try to wreck a beautiful song for your POV needs. At least attain fluency in Russian culture, before commenting on it again; there's enough ignorance about that Great Country as it is, we don't need your rather ignorant input. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Russian just as well as you are. You believe this to be just a "beautiful song". Yes, you are sincere. But I see this from a very different perspective.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you think of a racist song that doesn't mention the race, or the stereotypes? Or perhaps you can show me races and stereotypes of said races in this song? I think you're just trying to mislead the public, yet again. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, Biophys, no matter what the perspectives are, there's nothing about killing anyone, incl.Georgians, in this song. And there's no use of spreading things like this, b/c people who don't speak Russian may well think that HW is posting some racist songs on my tpage and then we start to discuss them together.FeelSunny (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I happened to strongly disagree with you. I included this in Evidence section, and you are very welcome to respond. If you remember, I tried to tell you about a much better Russian poetry, but without any success.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask you what qualifications you posess that give you grouds to think, you may teach me what Russian poetry is better? FeelSunny (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read your song Biophys, all it contains, is a sick and sad parody on Patriotic songs, that can be applied to any country. The purpose of my song, was to show that when something seems impossible, but one continues to strive, then, even if it is 16 years down the road, even if the odds seem impossible, victory will occur if the cause is just. The two songs come from different genres. Comparing your song with my song is like comparing Verka Serduchka with Valery Gergiev. However your POV won't stop you from the comparison. So to quote your very own song: "Вперед, вперед, свободный раб...цветной мираж, рассеянный Трубой". "Forward, forward, free slave...colored Mirage, that is dissolved by a horn". Geez, I wonder why people like my lyrics better? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of the team members
is a highly suspicious account. Almost all his article edits are reverts. Furthermore, he appears only in articles where the list members are active. He helps the members to edit war. On talk pages, he always take the side of the list members. He does not appear to have any other substantial contributions.

Here are just three examples:


 * At Soviet Story, there is an edit war between PasswordUsername, Martintg , Russavia, Vecrumba, and Biophys. Põhja Konn then arrives to revert:


 * At Neo-Nazism: Offliner reverts Martintg: . Martintg reverts Offliner: . PasswordUsername reverts Martintg: . Põhja Konn reverts PasswordUsername:


 * He took part in the early June edit warring at Ethnocracy, Anti-Estonian sentiment, and supported Digwuren at the Mark Sirők talk page:.

It's the same story in all the other articles.

I couldn't find a mention of Põhja Konn in the secret emails, but there is a high probability that this is a sockpuppet of one of the list members. I don't know which one, but my guess is either Digwuren, Miacek or Alexia Death (all editors of Estonian subjects), but anyone is possible. Digwuren has repeatedly discussed creating sockpuppets on the secret list, and Miacek has said he has a number of "dormant" accounts (20090602-1428-[WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban.eml).

This should be CheckUsered immediately, since if he is a sockpuppet of one of the list members, his actions need to be investigated here as well. Note that The account may have been created by a skilled person. Offliner (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've proposed before that everyone of the involved parties (plus Deacon) get CheckUsered all around. Are you willing to agree to a CU on yourself?radek (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that I would never agree to be check usered as part of this case. Been there, done that. And all I got out of it was a shedload of evidence of harrassment against me. So one may not want to check user me again anytime soon. :D --Russavia Dialogue 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're going to go around recommending CU for folks ("immediately") based on no evidence then you yourself should be willing to do it. Put up or shut up. BTW, what are you referring to with Been there, done that - I'm genuinely curious.radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for me to put up or shut up. I have put up once already, and unfortunately, it didn't shut the web brigade up. And I am not doing your work for you. It's been done. End of story. --Russavia Dialogue 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I was not going to post much stuff but it seems some explanations are warranted ;-) I definitely don't need PK as a sock puppet of mine. And whatever e-mail you read, you quite curiously missed my irony on planting new Molobo sock puppets. Now you can't seriously argue "Miacek says he has a number of dormant accounts which he could give to Molobo if the latter is blocked. (20090602-1428-[WPM] [WMP] Molobo ban.eml)" as you are trying to do at your talk?! As for dormant accounts, I had indeed a trouble-maker account registered in May, 2008, but soon forgot the password (alas?). How many accounts do you have? -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * , Colchicum (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, being less active here on wiki, I've even forgotten of that. It seems I'm even having a friendly conversation with my socks. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Miacek, you will need to disclose that account, so that it can be shut down. the fact you call it a trouble making account is telling enough also. --Russavia Dialogue 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing out on a joke here - as are probably a lot of people in regards to some of the stuff (inside jokes) that's supposedly in the emails. But hey, why consider the context and allow for the possibility that someone's not being entirely serious, when it's easier to assume bad faith and join a lynch mob against your content opponents.radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A question to the group members: in other words, guys, do you claim Põhja Konn is not your sock puppet and not a sock puppet of another group member, that you are aware of? FeelSunny (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware no one on the list (with the possible exception of Molobo - but even there I honestly don't know) ever used sock puppets. This whole meme/false accusation started with Alex and Deacon pretending that hypothetical discussions on the list about sock puppeting, which were carried out in order to better catch sock puppeteers were some nefarious plans to engage in sock puppetry. In fact, I remember that the consensus on the list was that sock puppetting was not just unethical, but also pretty stupid. So yes, that is precisely what I claim - Konn is not my sock puppet nor of anyone on the group as far as I'm aware.radek (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. CU the sock(s), ban whoever is using them, move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is likely a sockpuppet of User:Digwuren; if this is the case, both accounts should be banned immediately. --Russavia Dialogue 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia, is there anything that made you think so? User:Digwuren, do you have any comments on this? FeelSunny (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't speak for Russavia, but it does seem Digwuren and Põhja have suggestively sockoform time patterns. Can provide data to Arbcom if requested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. For the record - no, I'm not sockpuppet, this is my one and only account here in Wikipedia. I'm not in the before-mentioned list, have never been and probably never will. I think I can probably guess real life identities of couple of people mentioned belonging to that list, but I have never communicated with them directly, not in person, not online. And I'm not meatpuppet either, all my edits have been mine and only mine, I have never communicated with somebody about my edits off-wiki, I just happen to share the view or better, I dislike same things (deliberate blackpainting some countries, nationalities or people). That is all I can offer you. Understanding the situation, I don't object CheckUser, but I'm not very convinced that resources and knowledge available for CheckUsers has gotten up to that level that allows to take their findings as absolute truth. I know that even mentioning this is immediately turned around as circumstantial evidence against me (or my "sockpuppeteer"), but let me point out that your checkuser process has miserably failed many times. I'm not going to provide any more details about my person or explain my editing patterns or behavior, as I've seen how personal and private information is treated here, even by admins - sorry, but I value more my privacy and personal life than questionably valued right to edit this thing you like to call encyclopedia, but what looks a lot more a MMORPG or social networking site. One exception - if somebody and somehow manages to stack up some evidence and really is going to accuse somebody for sockpuppeteering with my account (right now it seems more like fishing expedition by Offliner), and the accused one feels that all this is really important enough, then I ready to prove my identity, but only to real and verified person (from ArbCom or foundation behind this project), only with procedure accepted beforehand by me. That is all from me. You all are taking this Wikipedia thing too seriously - in its present condition it's not worth of it. AS long as Wikipedia doesn't have some kind of working mechanism that keeps politics, chauvinism and extreme nationalism away from here and forces editors (I mean, ALL editors) to behave, it's not working. Sorry. Põhja Konn (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What makes me think it is Digwuren, or at least someone editing on behalf of Digwuren? Well there is now Administrators%27_noticeboard where this editor who has but a handful of edits on WP, and who is well versed in WP policies and the like, finds my post there requesting unblock, and couldn't resist making a post. As Digwuren and his group have clearly created more than enough disruption, perhaps we could prevent yet more disruption here right now? I am willing to bet $50 that this editors IP resolves to Tartu in Estonia. --Russavia Dialogue 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also the editors edits on Ambassador of Estonia to Russia only a matter of hours after creation by myself. Not to mention this on WMC's talk page in relation to Martintg. This is not appearing to be an indepedent editor. There is too much similarity to Digwuren or this groups edits. --Russavia Dialogue 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, if there's somebody who dares to criticize your actions, it HAS to be evil monster Digwuren or somebody from his "evil group", because actually you're very nice person and everybody should love and admire you, right? ;) BTW, I don't owe you any explanation, but last message to AN would have stayed unwritten if you only had provided all facts. Why didn't you? And why so painful reaction? And may I ask, what disruption have I caused, posting two links on-wiki, so admins can read for what you earned your block? God, you really are desperate... BTW, if anybody is willing, accept the bet, it should be easy money. I'd take it myself, but I think it could be a bit un-ethical, as I've got inside info. :) Põhja Konn (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we have already proven back in 2006/2007 that there is only one Wikipedia editor in Estonia and all editors who don't write on Estonia from pro-Russian perspective are his socks? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I will let Digwuren have his last bit of fun here on WP; for he won't be around officially for too much longer. --Russavia Dialogue 20:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not making threats again, are you?
 * All this junk is based on a "I have a feeling that...". That's nice, I have some feelings to. Can I use them as a basis to accuse people of stuff? Like I said, Check User all around. Impartial, fair and might clear some stuff up. What are you afraid of?radek (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he's not. Põhja Konn, I understand you are not connected to the group members neither in real life, or online, i.e. not their classmate, oк teacher, or pupil etc. Maybe you could - out of pure courtesy - explain, what exactly brought you to the two pages Russavia named? I perfectly understand I do not have the right to question anyone on reasons of his actions, and you have any right to refuse explain things like this, so if you don't want to answer, just ignore this message. FeelSunny (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another fishing expedition. I've got more PL work to attend to. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, I don't owe you any answers and I'm too a bit skeptical about your point, why you're asking these questions. But whatever - I see WP as a big soap opera. I like to watch what's happening, as a play, I have pretty big watch list and I'll try to check it at least once a day. I seldom edit, when I do, it's mostly reverting vandalism, correcting most horrible mistakes and deliberate lies, which includes finding and adding sources to articles. Of course, play is nothing without actors, so if I see that somebody is having his "special performance", I'll check his contributions, not to miss the full show. I guess that was the path that led me to Ambassador of Estonia to Russia, which was created 6 hours before by Russavia, also tagged by him immediately as unreferenced - so I added link to Estonian Embassy's webpage. Was there something wrong in my actions? As with WMC's talk, I think it was some fuss about yet another edit warring at some place and I wondered, why WMC sees a revert in edit, what was not returning the article in some previous state, but only corrected the previous edit, so I asked and got my answer. I specially pointed out that I'm not taking sides, I'm not excusing Martings' edit warring, I only wanted to get a clarification. As with AN, it's in my watchlist. Satisfied? Põhja Konn (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I understand that it was a coincidence. Please don't make a monster of me. I do not presume there was anything wrong with your actions. FeelSunny (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not trying to make a monster of you, on the contrary, whole this thread is dedicated to making monster of me. If you hop in the bandwagon and start asking questions about my actions, here in this thread, this doesn't leave me any illusions. So much about my grumpiness. Põhja Konn (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you question my reasons behind asking these questions, they are quite simple: I just don't want some discussions go abstract. Because we could have had here two dozen posts without any down to earth comments, of the very kind you do not like - the social networking one. That is why I started to ask concrete questions - to get all this discussion back to life. So noone is making monsters of nobody here, me glad:)FeelSunny (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Paul Sibert
Although I was recently notified about ongoing discussion I tried to abstain from participation in it because, whereas I exstensively work with articles like Gulag, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact etc (the most iconic subjects for peoples from new Central European states), and whereas someone characterized my edit as "Soviet POV", I never was a subject of any concerted actions of the alleged Eastern European mailing list group (although I had numerous conflicts with some of them separately).

In my opinion, the present discussion resembles another version of "Mafia" party game, however, I don't think Arbitration talk page to be the best place for such an entertainment.

However, one thing seems to be established unequivocally, namely that several WP users privately discussed their possible WP edits and kept this fact in strict secret. I don't know how punishable it is, however, without any doubts it is deeply immoral. How can somenoe express his opinion (that, per WP:AGF is assumed to be neutral) in support of one or another editor if he maintained private personal contact with this editor and, therefore, his opinion cannot be neutral by definition? I believe, there is only one noble way for the lits's members to resolve this situation: they should openly name themselves and let everybody know that they cannot be considered a fully neutral party in discussions involving the editors A, B, C etc. I also believe any sanctions are senceless (the Mafia game demonstrated that an ill-intentioned group can develop many ways for secret communicatios), and the only thing we can rely upon is the Wikipedians' good will.

Finally, I would like to tell about an outstanding case (that, probably, will be the major point of my post, and that, I believe, will help to tone down a discussion). I recently had a short but fierce edit war with some newcomer who managed to violate several key WP rules in few hours. I notified him about that and proposed to cease a war and forget the incident. His reaction was fantastic: he admitted that he violated the rules (without knowing about that) and reported to admin requesting for punishment.,. I believe this newcomer presented a good lesson of nobility to all of us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add me to this case
I left a note on Daniel's talk page to have me added to this case, but it looks like he's been offline for a few days. Would someone mind adding me to the case when they get a spare moment? My perusal of the mailing list indicates that at least 38 emails were focused on how to "deal with" me. As a direct result of my run in with this group, I was almost completely disenchanted with Wikipedia and our inability to deal with groups who chose to act in this manner. I'm here alone. I edit alone. I pursue topics of interest that interest me alone. I believe that most people who use Wikipedia are in the same boat. Groups such as this mailing list's members are here solely to take advantage of Wikipedia's potential to offer a genuine compendium of the diversity of views and topics that make up Humanity's learning.

When we allow groups to bastardize this project by using our own policies against us, so that patently subjective representations of facts are defended through the use of a meatpuppet administrator, stonewalling, and death by process... then we have abandoned the project. Our job, as dedicated editors, as administrators, and as members of this committee is to defend this project from those who would use it to to attack other groups by misrepresenting subjectivity as objectivity, and subjective consensus as an objective NPOV.

In the past I have made a lot of noise and raised opposition to the actions and decision making process of ArbCom. Most of this has been in regards to ArbCom stripping the mop from admins who I feel represent those few on this project who are willing to take the time and expose themselves to the inevitable frustration of trying to contain the type of behavior that this mailing list was fostering. Until now, I have argued that ArbCom should either start ruling quite heavily on content, or stop hitting those few admins who can negotiate the subtleties of tendentious editors operating with good hand and bad hand accounts specifically devised to thwart CU requests, mediation, or ArbCom rulings. I do not excuse bad behavior by admins who did get punished by the committee, but most of us (I think) realize that this mailing list is not a rare occurence, but we just happened to get lucky that someone mailed it to us.

I hope that I speak for the majority of this project when I say that I'm interested in Wikipedia only so long as it provides an honest repository of objective knowledge that spans our varied perspectives and experiences. I'm not naive enough to believe we have achieved that, but I've remained here as long as I have in the hope that we might begin taking the neccesary steps to see that this vision is achieved. I want to be added to this case as a representative of all those who have thrown up their arms in frustration and walked away from Wikipedia, because it is the type of people who subscribed to the mailing list who are responsible for driving so many of us away. Without any significant, high impact decisions from this case to help actively curb this type of coordinated, vindictive, and hateful behavior, I honestly can't continue to advertise Wikipedia to friends and family as a meaningful project. Ask yourself whether or not you could, in good faith, direct someone to Wikipedia for answers while knowing full well that that person might blindly encounter an article which has been goal tended by a vicious group of editors solely to denigrate another group of users. None of us want to send anyone here if that person's respect for our intelligence is something we value.

I appologize for rambling, but I am passionate about this project. I have given a lot of time to making Wikipedia an unbiased and diverse resource. I have grown highly frustrated with the project this year, as evidenced by a number of rambling posts questioning the judgement of the committee or our impotence for protecting the project from manipulation. I'm simply tired of watching the good people walk away exasperated and broken. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added you to the case as a party. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just taking this opportunity to ask why Future Perfect and Sandstein are still on the involved parties list. And why Deacon ain't.radek (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Committee are the only ones who can answer that. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel! Hiberniantears (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to active clerks
To all concerned parties: Clerk Daniel is on real-life vacation and hence has withdrawn from clerking this case. Clerk KnightLago is his replacement, assisted by trainee clerk Manning. Manning (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not apparently a good development. KnightLago has blustered into the case removing large sections of text without informing the authors based on a rather narrow and intellectually naive view of what "evidence" is, including my own. Seriously annoying, compounded by the fact he's trying his best to sound like a computer, with no benefit to anyone. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a clerk's perogative and duty to maintain order on the case pages. I have reviewed the evidence KL moved to the talk page (he didn't remove it entirely), and concur that is not evidence to be posted on the evidence page. You are welcome to your opinions, however they should be made in the proper location. Much of your statement does not appear to be relevant to the matter at hand; your assertion that "ArbCom needs to reform itself in certain regards" has nothing to do with the matter of this mailing list. If you are able to refactor your evidence to include links and examples of how your comments are relevant to the dispute, then the clerks can review it again to see if it may be included on the evidence page once more. In the meantime, I would remind you of the notice posted at the top of this page, asking all participants to observe proper decorum. Ad hominem attacks such as calling someone a communist, naive, or mechanical (above) will not be tolerated. Please remain civil, and review the guide to Arbitration for further information. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a hike with the pontifications, Hersfold. No-one was called a communist, although naive comments where styled such. And if you wish to discuss why they are naive, I'd be happy. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you meant by "acting like a government official from the 80s Eastern block" then? And naive was your choice of words, not mine. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The first and second posts on my talk page sound like the comments of a rigid official enforcing the iron cold will of the all governed state with all the charm and flexibility of a computer, just like officials of these states (communism as an ideology is irrelevant, and as the grandson of a communist activist, no insult). But actually, he was just enforcing his own discretion based on decisions I view to be flawed, and then restating the same thing again as if nothing else could compute. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he was removing inappropriate comments from the evidence page. Manning and KnightLago were acting on the general principles of the evidence page; it's not explicitly stated on this case, it seems, but is on the Speed of Light case, and is as follows:
 * Submissions to this page should be limited to evidence. Personal interpretations, general rebuttals, statements of belief, and other such commentary will be moved to the talk page. In cases where it is difficult to disentangle evidence from commentary, the submission will be moved to the talk page and the posting editor will receive a message asking them to correct the submisison. "Wall of text" postings, excessive argumentation, and other contributions that overwhelm the evidence and discussion may be refactored or removed entirely. Personal attacks and excessively inflammatory language will be removed. Repeated incivility or other disruption will result in a ban from contributing to this arbitration case.
 * If you wish to appeal the refactoring, you are welcome to contact the Committee as indicated on the evidence page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And now you're sounding exactly the same. No class at all. I suggest you and Knight take some lessons from Daniel, who could easily obtain the same objective if he actually wanted to without inducing anything like contempt you guys are inducing in me. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I can get a thesaurus and use some different words if you'd like my comments to at least look different. I'm sorry, but this is the job of a clerk. If you don't like it, too bad. Talk to ArbCom. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And there you go again. You're not understanding me at all, I'm afraid. Just drop it ... if only for the sake of my stomach! I'm not too fussed about the removed evidence anyway (, though as ever I am fussed about the professionalism of you and most of your colleagues). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that evidence by Petri Krohn has been rejected entirely by the new clerk .--Dojarca (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... what can one say? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One can say that neither are evidence. We have been patiently trying to explain that to you. It does not seem to be working. KnightLago (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could compute my previous comments, you'd be less bemused as to why it's not working. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading foreword of Petri Krohn's "evidence" I would find it highly amusing if it had actually been included.--Staberinde (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "Goals of the Cabal" section for instance would be useful. That an experienced editor in this area perceives these things counts as evidence, and it is up to the reading arbs to make of it what they like. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being available to comment until now but I was asleep. The comments were removed by me and not by KnightLago. This is a huge case, hence every effort is being made to keep it manageable. I removed comments from the entire evidence list strictly based on the criteria in the terms of evidence as given in guide to Arbitration. As a trainee I had all of my proposed refactoring actions reviewed and confirmed by a full clerk (I do not recall which clerk reviewed this specific action however). I apologise if offence was caused, as that was not the intention. Manning (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't do anything wrong, Manning, as far as I'm concerned. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled.
All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Wikipedia. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?
There doesn't seem to be any information anywhere as to just what is going on here and what exactly is this "Eastern European mailing list" case. Could somebody be good enough to post a link to a definition page? Thank you so much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk response - This is a complicated case and there is no easy definition. However the Signpost give a good overview: Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-09-21/Arbitration_report (also see subsequent issues). The proposed findings of fact (see here) is also a good starting point, though bear in mind these are not yet "official".Manning (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much. I'm sorry I overlooked your message when it was first posted. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by EEML member Jacurek
I have requested arbitration enforcement due to disruptive behaviour of Jacurek. Since Jacurek is a party here, but the issue (a) requires quick administrator attention since sourced material is being falsified/deleted and thus can not await this case' closure, (b) should be actionable under WP:DIGWUREN, and (c) is not directly related to the list itself, I chose to post it on WP:AE and leave a note here. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved - user has been blocked because of other issues, AE thread thus closed and archived. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Extended irrelevant section removed. Warning to be issued to Molobo for posting a comment which served no purpose other than to attack the credibility of Skäpperöd. Manning (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Skäpperöd - a note to me would have been helpful. I'm just going to blitz the entire thing because it's all irrelevant. Molobo was way over the line and I'll issue a formal warning later (too busy IRL at the moment.) Manning (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Manning-I sincerily believe that that presenting the non-reliablity of the claimed "sourced material"(in fact one author being described by his own university as "polonophobic") and warnings by administration regarding repeated attempts of banning other users was not an attack, but attempt of providing a wider context of the situation.I would be greateful for your description how should the information be phrased in properly manner.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Molobo: The original post by Skäpperöd was an alert about an ArbEnf he had launched, which was an acceptable alert as it concerned someone involved in EEML. You then wrote an extended series of comments that were clearly an attempt to discredit Skäpperöd and his intentions. Now your comments were not particularly uncivil. But I don't tolerate overt criticism of another editor at the best of times, and doing so in regard to something not directly related to EEML is completely unacceptable.


 * Now on further reflection I've decided to not issue a formal warning as your comments were not uncivil as such. But they were not relevant. The place to discuss your opposition was at ArbEnf, not here. As it is now over it's a moot point regardless. Manning (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek AE (2)
I requested arbitration enforcement at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This note is only for your awareness, please do not comment here (arbs and clerks excepted, of course). Skäpperöd (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note - as per OP, take any discussion of this matter to AE. Manning (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DonaldDuck's indefinite block
was unblocked by Coren with rationale "Unblock to participate in an ArbCom case". DonaldDuck was indefinitely blocked by for sockpuppetry and block evasion. As the ArbCom case is over, does this mean his indefinite block is overturned - and if yes, what is the rationale for it? -- Sander Säde 08:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of how compelling the evidence against them was or whether it can or should be viewed in a different light after this case. The default position is to not block, but Thatcher (who knows in detail the rationale behind their block) is the best person to ask.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After a history of edit warring, WMC blocked him indefinitely. He negotiated an unblock with WMC about 3 weeks later.  However, he was using a sockpuppet during that time, which I feel invalidates the negotiation and original unblock by WMC.  Of course, WMC is no longer an admin, and I have no particular opinion of DonaldDuck other than that he really shouldn't be using sockpuppets. Thatcher 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Either DD was unblocked for participating in this case and he has to be re-blocked exactly the same as Molobo was or he was unblocked for other unrelated reasons prior to that. In that case he shouldn't be re-blocked. Rather than writing these nebulous statements like the one above which nobody understands just make it clear which it is. Dr. Loosmark  19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... or extend the same courtesy to Molobo with the same proviso (no edit warring).radek (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to bargain with DD's unblock reflects poor on you in the light of this: [20090506-1615] [20090512-1922] [20090512-2040]. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is over Skapperod. And whether something reflects poorly on me, or you, is not up to you to judge. In fact that kind of comment borders on a personal attack.radek (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that none of those messages were written by anyone commenting here or Molobo and I wasn't even on the list at the time - but like I said the case is over. Nice try at 'guilt by false insinuation' though. Shouldn't people be required to stop wikilawyering the case and hounding others with these [2009xxyy-zzzz] messages (falsely in the present situation) once the case has been closed? Drama's done, let's move on, stop flaming people.radek (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list (2)
Initiated by  The Four Deuces (talk) at 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Statement by The Four Deuces
Are Mass killings under Communist regimes, Communist terrorism, Putinism, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection and similar articles included in the topic ban for articles about Eastern Europe? Mass Killings under Communist regimes was originally called Communist genocide and part of the findings of the arbitration was that Martintg had canvassed other members of the list concerning the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide. The article includes mass killings by the Soviet Union including in Ukraine. Martintg says that this article is excluded. However I made a request to Martintg and received no response.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR begins "The Mass killings under Communist regimes have occurred in the Soviet Union..." (my emphasis) which is a clear reference to Eastern Europe. The first historical example is the Soviet Union and there is a section about famine in the Ukraine. Communist terrorism is described as a "term... used... to describe... repression... in the Soviet Union (my emphasis). The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please strike out your comment concerning the "purpose of the complaint". (It is not even a complaint, it is a request for clarification.) You should realize that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles about Eastern European emigres and their organizations
Are these articles included under the topic ban? One article, Lia Looveer is about an individual who was a director of several organizations, like the joint Baltic Committee, that lobbied local governments concerning political relations with the former Soviet Union. Vecrumba has commented on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Martintg
Offliner already asked, see User_talk:Coren, and The Four Deuces is aware of this query. Mass killings under communist regimes has significantly changed since Communist genocide and now is an international topic of general scope that also includes subsections on China, North Korea and Cambodia, as well as a general discussion on communist ideology as a factor. I've attempted to adhere to the spirit and letter of the EE topic ban and have kept well away from any EE sub-topic within this article. On a practical level I would like to expand the section on Ethiopia (having found an interesting book that does a comparative study of the mass killings of both the Cambodian and Ethiopian regimes), in addition to North Korea and other non-EE sub topics. I had previously sought guidance on the case page, with a number of arbitrators offering advice, for example FayssalF stating "What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones", but I have asked Coren for additional clarification and he replied that it is okay to edit non-EE subtopics within Mass killings under communist regimes here, as long as I am careful, as I intend to be. As far as the other article examples mentioned by TFD: --Martin (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Communist terrorism - that's okay since most of the article is international in scope, just avoid the bits related to EE
 * Putinism - obviously not okay since the article is about a peculiar form of Russian nationalism
 * Eastern Bloc emigration and defection - obviously not okay

Response to Steve
Perhaps Steve wasn't aware that Coren was the one who originally drafted these topic bans, so I am some what astonished that he would disagree with Coren's own interpretation of what he himself drafted. Despite the fact that Coren is expressing his own opinion, I would have thought that he would know his own mind when he drafted these topic bans, and thus his interpretation of the remedies he himself drafted after spending several months hearing this case would carry some weight. Why does Steve finds "it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere"; it was extensively discussed on the EEML case Proposed Decision talk page, was that not the appropriate forum?

I must say that Fifelfoo's argument, that many other portions of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article can be linked to eastern Europe, stating "One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics" is some what disingenuous. Fifelfoo and his colleges have long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs, boards and on the article talk: that article violates WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK because there is no linkage or relationship between the various communist regimes discussed in the article, hence their inclusion together amounts to synthesis. I know some people adapt their arguments according to the forum audience, but this 180 degree reversal of position in order to convince the committee to broaden the topic ban against adding material to Cambodian, North Korean or Ethiopian sub sections seems unreasonable.

The problem with broadening these topic bans to include topics like Communist terrorism, is where now do you draw the line. It turns an easily interpreted boundary into a fuzzy line which is open to interpretation. That currently about a third of Communist terrorism is devoted to EE is more a function of WP:BIAS than anything else, the remainder is unrelated to EE and in need of expansion which would greatly increase the proportion of non EE content within the article. Is Pacific War now off limits because the Soviet Union was a part of that war for the last 3 weeks of WW2? Is it now the mere existence of 20, 15, 10 or 5% of EE content within an article that puts it off limits? --Martin (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fifelfoo
If you believe there is no central theory linking the various regimes together and thus the article is a synthesized coatrack, how is it possible that you "find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage"? Either you can argue the article is a coatrack and hence the subsections can be alienated from each other, or you can argue that the subsections are related and cannot be alienated from each other (hence it is not a coatrack) and thus I should be banned from editing those subsections. But you cannot have it both ways. --Martin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that you are already on record as believing the article to be synthesis, I can only imagine the kind of mental gymnastics involved in maintaining that belief in the numerous forums and boards where you promoted the article's deletion while coming here to state "I find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage". --Martin (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Commodore Sloat
There was no "locus of dispute" determined in final decision. The closest thing being this, which stated in part that certain members of the mailing list perceived those editing from the Russian nationalist viewpoint as opponents. There was nothing in regard to "ideological agenda" or "anti-communist agenda" as Commodore Sloat falsely claims. Nor was Communist terrorism ever discussed on the maillist, its AfD occurred in 2008, well before the maillist was even created. It is sad that those who hold pro-communist viewpoints attempt to exploit reductio ad EEML arguments in order to expand these EE topic bans to all those they perceive as their anti-communist opponents just because one former EEML member (myself) has an interest in communist related topics. --Martin (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fifelfoo
This is an important clarification. One problem is that cross cultural comparisons or general theory ought to speak into Eastern European topics. (but I do await seeing the theorisation in the Ethiopian-Cambodian study you mentioned) Another is that article content has barely changed since canvassed AFDs despite title change. A third is that article process which impacts on EE subtopics is stewed, and any involvement with process will be involvement in EE process (for example the theory only versus subtopics argument). Similarly participating in an AFD would be impacting on the EE components. Moreover I find it a curious argument that subportions of an article could be separated out. So please make a clear determination.
 * Regarding the need for clarification of extent, Martintg is currently participating in broad article process at MKUCR, and the discussion of who to solicit on the topic of the appropriateness of an AFD is ongoing. The issue is pertinent and current and needs resolution. 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "at least two failed AfDs," there were three, and they were No Consensus rather than keep which doesn't seem quite like a failure of the AFD process. Regarding the EE content of MKUCR, 2 1/3 units are clear EE, 3 1/6 units are clear non EE, 1/2 unit is mixed, 3 units are refs lede and toc (units being a screen length in front of me).  Of the body content, the article is about half EE, or, of the entire article about a third is EE.
 * To Martintg, "Fifelfoo…[has] long been arguing precisely the opposite position in various AfDs". Actually, I have systematically argued that the article should be supported out of sources which theorise all the events listed as linked by a cause inhering in their communist nature: a general theory.  A general theory will thus necessarily cover Asia, Africa, Europe (including EE), South America, etc.  An RSed general theory would remove the COATRACK and SYNTH (as long as not-covered events were deleted).  This has been a consistent and fixed position of mine, that the article must exist on the basis of an RS that theorises communist mass killings[etc] as linked and as caused by a common feature of communism.  I'm not particularly interested in a broad or narrow restriction, but a definitive one; but I do find the idea curious that a section of an article can be alienated from the article's coverage. 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If its a COATRACK and alienable, the article shouldn't exist at all, as it would be OR. If it isn't a COATRACK then it must have a general theory to over come SYNTH/OR, and thus its sections are inalienable.  I don't want to push the article at AFD (yet again) until the article is in the best possible state it can be in (I measure this time in months), which means searching for a general theory to justify its existence (and believing that the article had a cause to exist as persuaded to do so), which is precisely what I have been doing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect
Time to put down such use of ArbCom, ANI etc. See with same complainants clarificants. same complainants clarificants. And the multiple quick-order AfDs on the article. Tznkai said "Also, I may start censuring people for throwing around EEML like Colonial Americans used to use the word "witch"--Tznkai (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)"  The purpose of this complaint clarification is to remove editors with whom the complainants clarificants have a content dispute on any basis that they can find - including by going to every notice-board and process available. Use of ArbCom in order to have it get involved in content disputes is verging on abuse. Six bites at the apple should have been sufficient, no? Collect (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck out a word objected to by The Four Deuces. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To igny: I am totally uninvolved in the EEML arbitration. Clearly if I make a comment here, I am "involved" if that is your criterion.   is my major edit in the article, which, I submit, is quite non-controversial.  I made zero substantive edits to the article, so I find your claim of me being clearly "involved" regarding EEML to be rather unimportant.   Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I am commenting only because Four Deuces solicited my presence. Dialog would be better served without observations contending collusion: "In this article canvassing occurred and note that Vecrumba, Martintg, Biruitoral, Radeksz, Poeticbent, Biophys, Sander Saeda, Jacurek, Hillock65 and Piotrus have all participated in editing, discussion and/or voting in AfDs on this subject" which propagates the meme that the editors named were impotent to find the article on their own or express their own opinion. I stated clearly what I thought "Communist genocide", the article, should encompass at the start of the brouhaha. The Cold War meme is that the Soviet Union was behind the spread of all Communism (capital "C"). The reality is that more than one despot perverted communism (small "c") to their self-serving purpose. Where the article in question here and others are concerned, it's up to the editors currently topic banned to show good judgement. It's also up to their editorial opposition to similarly show good judgement. Lastly, to request clarification for hypothetical edits which have not occurred ultimately only invites continued rhetoric. As for myself, I am looking forward to putting my sources regarding Russia to good use outside the area of conflict. I suggest closing this and opening a request for clarification if and when required based on an actual edit (and not open a request for enforcement, which is more often than not an act of bad faith assuming bad faith, i.e., guilty until proven innocent). <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A better mechanism might be for ArbCom to review editor contributions periodically, say monthly, rather than editors generating a potentially endless stream of requests for clarification or enforcement. Or contending Aspic is an area of geopolitical strife. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I regret my perception of Nsk92's below that seems to paint the EE conflict as exacerbated by the editors sanctioned as the result of the EEML procedings. Rather than dwell on possibilities of bad faith actions (gaming et al.), I suggest the periodic review to insure keeping heat out of the system in 2010. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Nsk92
I think it would indeed be useful for the Arbcom to explicitly clarify the scope of the topic bans in this case, given how much poking around the edges has already occurred and in order to prevent matters from getting out of hand. In my personal view, the topic bans in this case should be interpreted as broadly as possible, to cover any articles and project-space pages that are in a significant way related to Eastern Europe (and not just pages/articles on EE subjects as such). Thus articles like Communist terrorism and Bering Strait ought to be covered by this topic ban, even though only parts of them deal with EE-related matters. Moreover, again to avoid confusion and to prevent gaming attempts, it should be made clear that if the topic ban applies to a page, it applies to the entire page and not just to sections of it that are EE-related. Basically the informal test should be something like: if you even need to ask, then the page is covered by the topic ban. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose of the underlying topic bans, which is to prevent the spread of the kind of POV pushing and WP:BATTLE activities on EE-related subjects that led to the underlying arbcom case in the first place. Also, it should be made explicitly clear that the topic bans cover EE-related discussions at user talk pages. For example, non-sanctioned users should not be trying to engage the users under the topic bans, at the user talk pages of the latter, in EE-subject related discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Biruitorul
Of course, Nsk92's statement (just like the bans themselves) sort of ignores what was actually happening. POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE activities were not happening at Bering Strait, or at Bărcăneşti, Ialomiţa, or at The Good Soldier Švejk, or at Mikhail Lermontov, or at Valdis Zatlers, or at Dormition of the Theotokos Cathedral, Varna. Nor are they ever likely to. Trouble was generally confined to Alexander Litvinenko, Nashi (youth movement), Anti-Estonian sentiment, Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Human rights in Russia, Anna Politkovskaya, 2008 South Ossetia war, Mass killings under Communist regimes, Russian apartment bombings and at most a couple of dozen other hotspots. The current topic bans are both punitive and damaging, and do nothing to address the underlying issue. The Committee was offered a constructive solution: find mediators to work with both "sides" to minimise conflict at those articles by referencing them thoroughly with high-quality sources. Instead it chose to decimate a slew of productive contributors who generally behave well, while neither addressing the wrongdoing by the other "side" nor proposing steps to defuse conflict at that group of articles. Personally, I believe the Committee would be wise to revisit the bans and retrieve the baby it has discarded with a few cups of bathwater. - Biruitorul Talk 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Igny
This group of editors as well as the related case were called the EEML only because most of them (not all) came from the Eastern Europe, not because they edited the EE related articles exclusively. Some of them were placed under the EE topic ban with a wrong premise that most of the conflicts in which they participated originated from Eastern Europe, and that is also only partially true. Rather than restrict these editors from contentious areas (such as ideological information wars or wars over propaganda issues) the ArbCom chose to ban editing of obscure EE related topics (which are not all problematic as pointed out by many). Moreover, only parts of the article directly related to EE are covered by the ban, not the article in general.

Hence a question. If only part of the article is related to Eastern Europe, are the restricted editors allowed to participate in AfD process (say, due to irreparable POV issues of the article in general and the EE related part in particular) of these articles?

And, Collect, you are not uninvolved with regard to disputes over Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Statement by Radek
I was not going to get involved in this but in light of Steve and Fritzpoll's comments below I find it necessary to make a reply.

Ok, let's get things straight here:


 * NOBODY here thinks that Putinism does not fall under the ArbCom topic bans. The ArbCom doesn't think so, those under the topic bans don't think so, Four Deuces doesn't think so. It's covered, everyone knows this. Likewise, Eastern Bloc emigration and defection pretty much falls under the topic bans, for the most part. Except that NOBODY, AFAIK, has any interest in editing that article anyway (article history - can anyone find any one related to arb case in it?). So why is it being brought up here? Why are we even discussing the obvious cases that everyone agrees on (as Steve points out)? Why is Putinism - an obvious case - being brought up here for that matter? And what makes those two articles different from the other two; Mass Killings and Communism Terrorism?


 * Basically Four Deuces includes these two articles along with Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism simply to create an association between articles which are obviously clear cut cases of falling under the topic ban with those which aren't. It's a cheap manipulative trick, mixing in one with the other, in the hope that it can be sold as a wholesale package. And judging from Fritzpoll's comment, it's working (hence this reply).


 * Furthermore. What else makes "Putnism" and "Eastern Bloc emigration" different from "Mass Killings" and "Communist Terrorism"? Well, the first two - the clear cut cases - are NOT being considered as candidates for deletion and no one is interested in deleting them. But, the other two - the ones that don't have much to do with Eastern Europe - are. In fact, if you check the talk page for "Mass Killings", this whole "request for clarification" arose after somebody there said "[|"Should we try again to just delete the article?"] - and it is important to note that this "request" was made after the question was already answered by the arbcom here, here and here. Of course the answer provided wasn't the one that Four Deuces and Co. wanted, so now we are presented with this instance of Forum shopping. Stick with what the arb com already said - no need to start of the New Year with ArbCom schizophrenia.


 * After a bit of discussion the relevant parties realized even without any EEML members (ex or otherwise) voting, they probably STILL would not suceeed in deleting the article (if they tried that would have made it the fourth AfD nomination in five months!). This isn't surprising since there've been at least two failed AfDs which saw no or very limited participation from anybody on the mailing list.


 * So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else. As such, this is just an attempt at putting one's (or actually, several) thumbs on the scales before the AfD can commence (and hopefully that AfD can be flown under the radar so that nobody except the right people show up). Yes, this is disruptive and bad faithed which is why I'm being frank about what's going on here.

Bottom line:
 * Yes, Putinism and the Eastern Bloc emigration articles are covered by the topic bans. But no one ever thought otherwise.
 * No, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism are not covered by the topic bans, as already stated by Coren and articulated by Flo Night and others. Yes, the topic bans are "broadly construed" but obviously there are limits to what "broad" means in this instance, otherwise these would've been site blocks not topic bans. In particular, "broad" does not mean "theyz banned from MAH articlz!"
 * Yes, this is a bad faithed "request for clarification" as a) this question has already been asked and answered, b) it seeks to misrepresent the situation by mixing obvious cases with wrong cases in an attempt to 'sneak by' the ArbCom some articles with a view towards POV pushing on them and c) it aims to manipulate the consensus by anticipating the AfD process and through a pre-emptive exclusion of those who are expected to disagree.

As such (while personally I wouldn't mind seeing some slaps on the wrists to those involved in orchestrating this little charade) the proper course of action here is to AfD-ban the two articles in question (rather than those involved in orchestrating this little charade). Mass Killings should be put on a 6 month AfD restriction - seriously that many failed AfDs in such a short period of time sets some kind of a record, and the repeated re-listing of it at AfD is VERY disruptive to any improvement work that is attempted at the article (as even some "opponents" of the article, like Igny or Paul Sieber, recognize). So let the article breath. In similar vein, Communist terrorism should likewise be restricted from being AfDed in the same way that an edit warrior is still censured for edit warring when they move from one related article to another in order to avoid violating 3RR while carrying on the fight.

Bit of clarity here, please.

radek (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Steve
Oy, Steve, I realize that it is very difficult to get someone to change their mind, especially once they set out their original position in writing, in the full view of the public. So please keep in mind that no less an authority than John Maynard Keynes has said that changin' ones mind is often the right thing to do.

Unfortunately I get the sense that you're relying on users' statements here rather than looking at the actual articles themselves. Communist_terrorism has hardly anything in it about Eastern Europe aside from a mention of the Soviet Union in the lede (which statement should probably be removed anyway - and of course a statement about the Soviet Union can be inserted into almost any article. Those Soviets, they got around you know). The article is instead about organizations in Peru, Columbia, Malaysia, Phillipines, Greece (not EE), Basque region, United States, Germany, Nepal, and India. Not Eastern Europe. Yes, there is a section about general "Marxism" and "Leninism" but please see FayssalF's clarifications on the arb com pages where he answers to a similar question with "No. We are talking about a global ideology.". And anyway, I think everyone under the topic ban has a pretty clear idea that if a section has anything to do with Soviets or something similar it's off limits.

Likewise, the mass killings article is to a good extent about Cambodia and China. Yes, there is a good chunk about Soviet Union, but again, it's not a problem for anyone to avoid that section, to continue participating in talk page discussions as to the viability of the article as whole - in particular since most of the ongoing controversy is centered around Valentino's work which has nothing to do with Eastern Europe.

For myself, I'm staying away from that article just for the sake of my own sanity. But these kinds of cheap tricks that are being tried here are pretty noxious.radek (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Framing effect.radek (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for the clarifications. I still disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to carefully consider the question.radek (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to csloat
My belief that you are not acting in good faith is simply the result of your (voluntary) participation in the ArbCom case. There's nothing incredible about this, given the comments and the attacks you made during the case. It is reasonable and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines to assume good faith in regard to editors one hasn't encountered much before. It is unreasonable and in fact not required by Wikipedia guidelines to continue assuming something which has been demonstrated to be false by a user and his actions.

Please note that you share roughly the same position in regards to these two articles, and possibly other issues, with editors such as Igny, Fifelfoo and Paul Siebert, and I have no problem assuming good faith on their part - they have never given me a reason to believe otherwise. You have. So it's not your POV that causes me to assume bad faith on your part, but the way you have acted in promotion of this POV.

The article on Communist Terrorism was never discussed on the list, AFAIK. There was no "EEML disruption" on it. I had no idea that you voted to AfD in 2008, despite the fact that it is very well sourced, but that doesn't surprise me. MKUCR, back when it was Communist Genocide, was mentioned (in fact people disagreed on it) but it's been such a lightning rod and such a highly visible article that pretty much anyone who's voted on its AfDs or took part in discussion on it did so of their own volition and would have done so regardless.

And there's no "ideological agenda" here - either by me or by people who were on the list - except to ensure that reliable sources are used, fringe theories and authors are treated as such and that folks who actually DO HAVE an ideological agenda don't go around trying to sneak through article deletions based solely on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds.radek (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Csloat, I am not violating the AGF guideline (not policy). The guideline simply doesn't state what you think it states. In particular the guideline is clear about the fact that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I think your actions and comments in the past definitely fall within this provision (without which, this'd be a really dumb policy as it's impossible to require people to assume something that they know not to be true).

And what makes this "controversial" is that previous statements by some of the ArbCom members indicated that these articles would not be covered by the topic ban - hence, this being an instance of forum shopping.radek (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys
The restriction was clearly formulated as anything about Eastern Europe. Any sections about Eastern Europe in articles like "Mass killings" are obviously covered. Any sections about China (or whatever is not Eastern Europe) are not covered, obviously. If you said: "anything related to Eastern Europe", then one could not contribute even in articles about Jack London because he was the most popular American writer in the Soviet Union.Biophys (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since you are talking about Communist terrorism, here is the diff between my last edit and the current version. Obviously, a lot of materials about terrorism by the communist states and organizations have been removed, even though they were sourced to books by notable historians. Is it better now? That is what you are going to achieve with sanctions. And you will not even notice anything in many other articles because you do not edit Russian history.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that all specific articles mentioned by Steve fall under the topic ban restriction (and some of them are garbage), an arbitrary interpretation of the sanctions allows blocking the editors for almost anything. If that is what you want, then fine.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Commodore Sloat
Umm, this is weird. I am only commenting here because I have been named by in a most inappropriate way. He says "So csloat came up with the bright idea (Mass killings talk page, again) to try and delete the article Communist terrorism instead. You know, when at first you don't suceed, try to game the system and try somewhere else." This is an example of the incredible amount of bad faith assumptions that EEML members continue to bring to Wikipedia discussions. I am not a party to most of the discussions that the EEML people were found to have disrupted; the discussions on communist terrorism and mass killings under Communist regimes, and their surrounding AfD debates, were the exception. However what I saw on the arbcom list was truly appalling. The fact that they appear to continue wikilawyering even after sanctions from arbcom is alarming. In any case, I did not "come up with the bright idea" of AfDing Communist terrorism in order to "game the system." I originally voted to AfD communist terrorism back in 2008, and I pointed out that this article raised the same issues. Radek surely knows this as the point was obvious in my comments; his blatant distortion of my comments here is troubling.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that people are focused on clarifying the topic area "eastern europe" without reference to the history of these articles. The question shouldn't be "is 'eastern europe' covered geographically by articles about 'communist terrorism'?" but rather, "does this article fall within the rubric of articles that the EEML has chosen to disrupt?" In this case, both articles should clearly be covered by the ruling because both articles not only fall within the ideological agenda these editors single-mindedly pursued in violation of Wikipedia rules, but in fact these were articles they actually did collaborate to disrupt in a demonstrable way, at least during the AfD process. csloat (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

response to responders
Unbelievable. I would think that users who have been sanctioned by ArbCom would make it a point to follow Wikipedia policies to a T rather than continue to flout their abuse of those policies. Both Radek and Martintg blatantly violate WP:AGF, with Radek even stating boldly (and without any rationale) that he will always and only assume BAD faith when dealing with me. He claims this assumption started when the EEML case started, but anyone familiar with the evidence (e.g. 20090821-0105) can see clearly that is a blatantly false statement. Martintg absurdly calls me "pro-Communist" when I have said nothing of the sort. If you want to pigeonhole me for my participation on these particular articles, my stance would be "anti-synthesis violations" or, simply, "pro-Wikipedia." I have never claimed to be "pro-communist" and only an absolute refusal to read my actual arguments would lead to such a conclusion. Both martin and radek are likewise distorting my claim above about the Communist terrorism article. The fact is that I participated in AfD in 2008 on this article because it was a hotbed of WP:SYN violations and WP:FRINGE theories elevated to the status of fact. The vote was indecisive primarily because of significant collaboration by members of the EEML, whether or not it was actually discussed on list (we don't know, since the archive doesn't go back that far). But we do know that the Communist genocide article suffered the same fate from many of the same players, and that there was a "call to arms" published and discussed on the EEML list (see 20090806-526 for example) on the communist genocide AfD; there was a similar call to arms on related articles on nuclear terrorism where at the time there was a discussion of some other WP:SYN violations created by another EEML member. (see 20090817-1427). This was all spelled out by multiple commenters on the evidence page of the arbcom case. I also think these guys misunderstand my point completely -- nobody is calling for further sanctions here; the point is just that the sanctions we do have should be interpreted broadly as Arbcom explicitly called for, and that articles where the EEML members have shown themselves likely to engage in objectionable off-wiki coordination should definitely be covered by the sanctions. I don't see how this is even a controversial point here. csloat (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting more statements, and noting that two of the parties listed are currently serving bans. I would ask them to e-mail ArbCom, but a period of disengagement from Wikipedia may be better, and they can bring themselves up-to-date on how the topic bans work out in practice when their bans expire and other conditions associated with their bans are met. Of the other parties listed, five have yet to comment, as of the time of writing this comment. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be premature. Can we have a list of any arbitration enforcement threads that have been filed since the case closed? Carcharoth (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse due to prior involvement. Shell  babelfish 11:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned (and especially Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection—I cannot fathom an argument that those are not related to Eastern Europe). The purpose of prescribing a broad construction of the ban in the first place is to avoid situations like this. Steve Smith (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging Radek's comments, and affirming that the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection in the request did not affect my views on Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism. Both of those articles, as Fifelfoo notes, have substantial chunks devoted to Eastern Europe, and many other portions of both articles can be linked to eastern Europe as being in some ways offshoots of the cold war (though Vecrumba's point that Communist highjinks != USSR is well taken).  There is a case to be made that the articles (or at least significant enough portions of them) are not eastern Europe-related.  But there is also a case that they are eastern Europe-related, and in light of the "broadly construed" portion of the remedy, I find the latter case more persuasive.  While I thank Radek for providing the link to Coren's earlier answer of this question (I was not hitherto aware of it, having somehow missed Martin's link), that answer was provided on the talk page of an individual arbitrator, and all I can say is that I disagree with Coren's answer there.  As for the proposed "AFD-bans", those are outside of the scope of a request for clarification, and I don't see the need for ArbCom intervention on those subjects for the moment. Steve Smith (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A few scattered points in response to Radek: first, I can assure you that if you watch all arbitration pages, you will see me change my mind at least once before the end of February; I'm very unreluctant to do so. Second, I don't see how you can say that Communist terrorism has little Russia-related content: the single largest section deals almost entirely with Russian communists.  Third, I acknowledge that both articles have substantial chunks unrelated (at least on the surface) to eastern Europe, but a broadly construed topic ban means that the editors subject to it should not be poking around the edges of the topic, which editing non-eastern Europe sections of an article having substantial eastern Europe content qualifies.  Fourth, it is regrettable that this question has been so extensively discussed elsewhere, because that's created confusion.  This page is where we clarify things.  Fifth, the topic-banned editors appear to have been operating in good faith; we're not talking about sanctioning them, we're just talking about clarifying the ban's scope so parties know what will be considered sanctionable in the future.  Fifth, after a review of the articles' histories and related discussions, I am as suspicious as you are about the inclusion of Putinism and Eastern Bloc emigration and defection.  If they were included in an attempt to affect arbitrators' perceptions on the other two articles—and it looks very much as though they were—The Four Deuces is advised to knock it off. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Steve - these articles clearly fall within the broad scope specified within the case. In general, my advice would be that if you feel an article is pushing the limits of the ban definition, then it is probably included in the scope of that ban.  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that this is exactly what I meant by "they hover close", and that Steve Smith is correct that my own opinion is exactly that: my own opinion of the interpretation of the remedy and not a statement from the committee. Fritzpoll's advice seems sound: play it safe by staying away if there is a genuine question.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Broadly concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. Vassyana (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to handle topic bans is to think "Will anyone credibly think, no matter how mistaken, that editing this article will fall under the topic restriction?" And if the answer is not an immediate, unequivocal "No".. don't do it SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Steve. KnightLago (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. These are unquestionably covered by the topic ban. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, agree with Steve here. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Steve Smith and Fritzpoll. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with my colleagues' comments. I would add that in voting on the remedies in the case, I favored substantially narrower topic bans than voted by the majority, but several of these articles would have been covered even under my proposed language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)