Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence/Archive 2

One re to Thatcher
This isn't big enough to address in my evidence section, and I already mentioned it in my response to DonaldDuck, but in response to this:

"Edit warring at Tsarist autocracy


 * 20090507-0101 [440] [441] (never edited prior)"

I don't know what's supposed to be in the email you're referring to, but since I was not on the list at the time I never got it. I came to that page completely independently, via Białystok pogrom, where DonaldDuck was causing trouble already.

So while this looks like "evidence", it ain't. Which I think pretty clearly points to the problem here.radek (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly reassuring to know your memory is so good. I think some list members were worried that they wouldn't be able to remember what emails they sent or received or whether they acted on them. Based on the clarity of your recollection of your motive here (not just your not being on the mailing list), it seems like you should be able to help a lot in confirming the accuracy of the archive and the extent to which your actions were guided by it. It isn't so clear what you mean by "the problem" though. 89.180.30.42 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think my memory is anything special. I do remember roughly when I joined the list and I do remember being really annoyed with DD at the time.radek (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably you were not at the list at this particular time, but shortly after, in [20090515-1304] Piotrus writes that he exchanged a lot of emails with you and proposes to invite you to the mailing list, so you were at that time in contact with Piotrus by email.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have exchanged emails with Piotrus which if IIRC was him telling me I should be DYKing my new articles and me basically asking "how you do that?". The point is that trouble causing users attract others by the trouble they cause, with or without any off-Wiki coordination.radek (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this. You asked Piotrus how to start sockpuppet investigations against users you disliked. You surely were discussing how to harass other users.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I do not believe that you're really a duck. We was surely discussing where to file DYKs. All the false accusations in the world ain't gonna change that.radek (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case may be, the evidence points to the allegation that Radeksz was specifically recruited to the mailing list for the purpose of harassing other users. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence doesn't point to anything of the sort. And will you please stop trying to bait users and start flame wars.radek (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the evidence shows that you were recruited to the mailing list because you had the skills required to file reports against other users and you used the mailing list to do just that. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Radek and DonaldDuck have valid points. Thatcher 11:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the [WMP] mailing list?
Sixty-two messages in the archive have the prefix [WPM] [WMP]. "WMP" is presumably the prefix of a second mailing list, and represents messages that were cross-posted to two mailing lists or forwarded from one to the other. Of the 62 messages, 15 are thread-starters, and all were sent by Piotrus, suggesting that Piotrus is a member of a second mailing list. Is this an open, known mailing list, perhaps relating to Polish issues, or is this another secret list? Thatcher 11:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall in one of the messages Piotrus mentioning another mailing list. Which message it is in, I am not sure though. But there is definitely a mention of another mailing list in there. --Russavia Dialogue 11:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we assume that it is a Polish language list? Perhaps it is a coincidence, but on Wikimedia, WmP is used to refer to the Wikimedia Polska Association,.  There's also a mailing list, wikimediapl-l.  Probably unrelated? Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems Poland-related. On the one hand, this is a logical assumption, on the other hand, anyone setting up a mail server can set any acronym they want.  It would be useful if someone on that list could verify a couple of the cross-posted emails.  I'd like to assume that a WMF-hosted list would not be used for nefarious purposes, but someone with access (and knowledge of Polish) might want to verify this. Thatcher 13:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Russavia
Radeksz wrote this on the evidence page:

"... none of the accusations made by Russavia have anything to do with what actually got him banned – incivility, vowing to evade blocks and restrictions, making threats and spewing profanity at administrators. All these things - nobody made him do it, he did it himself."

I responded to this on his talk page but it was immediately deleted by Radeksz so I ask it here:

Radeksk, your mailing list openly admits baiting editors into acting out and having outbursts that could then be collected as evidence and used to ban them. How many AN/I reports, RfC's, and arbcom cases did your mailing list influence in this way? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, I realize that in turn you are now trying to bait me into something by asking loaded rhetorical questions but I'll answer. Probably none. All the AN/I reports, RfC's, ArbCom cases are closed by neutral uninvolved admins. Oh wait! But there actually WASN'T ANY AN/I reports, RfCs or ArbCom cases (except Russavia's which was his own damn fault) so I don't even know what the hey you're talking about. I mean, can you actually, like, point to one of these, rather than just pulling kaka out of places that shall not be named?


 * And next time you're interested in starting a flame war, please don't bring it to my talk page.radek (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try to follow what you are saying. According to you, the EE mailing list did not bait editors into acting out so that list members could collect evidence for administrative reports?  And, according to you, the EE mailing list did not use these reports against their opponents?  Did I get that right?  If I didn't, feel free to clear it up for me. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut the shit out with the leading questions. And please read what I said again. Here I'll repeat it for you:
 * there actually WASN'T ANY AN/I reports, RfCs or ArbCom cases
 * What's not clear about that? And this, is it really difficult to understand?
 * can you actually, like, point to one of these
 * And please quit trying to bait me.radek (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one? Where to begin?  The User:Hiberniantears incident started just days/weeks before you were recruited to the mailing list, so it's not surprising you aren't aware of it.  User:Digwuren began reverting Hiberniantears on Occupation of the Baltic states.  Digwuren then asked the mailing list what can be done about Hibernianears. [20090429-2128]  Digwuren files a poorly-formed RfC/U on Hiberniantears, but it gets deleted. User:Martintg declares Hiberniantears a troll, and insists that the only way to defeat Hiberniantears is to focus on restoring the EE mailing list's preferred version of Occupation of the Baltic states first.  According to Martin, after they restore their version of the Baltic article, then they can successfully go after Hiberniantears. [20090507-0450] Hiberniantears talk page is subsequently flooded by the mailing list members, (see the collapsed disussions at Archive 6) and Martin begins  collecting replies from Hiberniantears to be used against him in a new RfC/U. [20090508-2241]  However, Biophys steps in and warns  Martin to back off, since filing an RfC/U against an admin might not be a good idea. [20090509-0114]  In any case, we see this tactical strategy repeated throughout the mailing list archives again and again.  1) An opponent is identified 2) The list members descend on the article and make tag-team reverts, showing up on the user and talk pages in a swarm, harassing the opponent 3) Comments from the now distressed opponent (feeling the pressure from a coordinated attack) are collected in diff form and prepared for use against them.  This is only one example.  There are many, many more. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. So:

radek (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This occurred days/weeks (was it days or weeks?) before I joined, so you understand that I wouldn't be aware of it, yet you still put it into a reply to MY evidence section. That makes sense.
 * There was a RfC filed but it got deleted. Whoa! Some serious influence the list members had there. Are you serious?
 * Rest of your comment is completely irrelevant to the request: "can you actually, like, point to one of these" so you're still just making stuff up.


 * Your group filed a failed RfC on Hiberniantears, and prepared another one based on evidence collected from baiting Hiberniantears. The harassment of your opponent did not stop there. At 21:44, 1 May 2009, Martintg continued the harassment of Hiberniantears with this baseless ANI report and all the usual suspects showed up to harass Hiberniantears.  Nothing is irrelevant or made up.  This is a very small amount of evidence showing that RfC's and ANI reports were filed by your group against editors you perceived as opponents.  This is a documented fact, and is one of many examples.  The EE mailing list targeted their opponents with trumped up reports and evidence of "incivility" collected after baiting and wearing out their opponent.  The harassment at the failed RfC, User talk:Hiberniantears/Archive 6, and the ANI report are only small examples.  There is further information about Digwuren's harassment and your groups defense of it in this report.  Your comments in that report Radeksz, are quite telling.  The question isn't how did this happen.  The question is why is this allowed to continue.  Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. You haven't shown anything, especially that our group influenced any RfCs, AN/Is or ArbCom cases. And I'm done being strung along here.radek (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given you examples of one RfC and one ANI in only one incident, namely that of Hiberniantears, where your group tried to influence Wikipedia, and used the mailing list to "get him". The archives have many, many more. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The mailing list archives also show that your group blocked mediation regarding the Hiberniantears incident and refused to participate, at which point the mailing list proposed putting together an ArbCom case to get Hiberniantears desysoped, and Piotr recommended filing an ANI report as a step to this end. [20090501-1731] This was followed by Martintg's filing of an ANI against Hiberniantears at 21:44.  There is a clear record in the mailing list archive of harassing opponents and filing baseless reports to eliminate the opposition.  Here, we see the group attempting to bring Hiberniantears to arbcom and remove his tools.  And for what reason?  Because he wouldn't take their POV.  To quote Hiberniantears from the ANI report : "a look at the Medcom case which I filed last week to no avail clearly demonstrates that serious stonewalling by one group of editors is preventing any real consensus from being achieved." That is the crux of the issue at hand and we see it throughout this case: Delays (where's the analysis of the original archive that was supposed to be introduced into evidence), denials (no list member has taken responsibility for any of the problems raised here) and defense (what defense is there for bad behavior?) Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Piotrus
You are most definitely not getting the point here. Your evidence section is on one hand the most infuriating and on another the saddest thing I have seen on Wikipedia in a long time. This is not a matter of you "certainly tak[ing] even more care to add an involvement disclaimer in the future posts [you] make concerning users [you] know". You were an admin, who should have been looking out for the functioning of Wikipedia. Instead you led a large number of editors horribly astray. You deceived the general community and encouraged and supported deception by others; who surely must have seen your adminship as reason to trust your advice. You still at this very moment are so caught up with trying to maintain some sort of plausible deniability that you cannot see what has really happened. Your actions have ensured that EE topics have remained a battleground which you then fought to win. You are still trying to justify your battle tactics to those who are to condemning the battle. That is only wasting your breath. You have not done the simple revertible sort of harm can be shown in a diff; you have squashed the development of an entire topic full of articles by making straightforward collaboration impossible. You have ensured the destruction of the very functional underpinnings of Wikipedia in this area. I can only imagine that you do not really understand Wikipedia at all. It is about finding ways to collaborate from different viewpoints. You should have been able to collaborate with anyone; it would have taken less time and effort than was put into the plotting and been more rewarding. I think that you somehow believe, despite two Arbcom cases to the contrary, that these efforts of yours would have made Wikipedia better. And that is really very sad. Because this is a much better and more vibrant project than the sort that could be improved by such things. I am sorry you can't open your eyes and see Wikipedia for the beauty that it really has for the way it functions. But you don't get it. You haven't merely screwed up here; you've demonstrated that you don't belong here at all.-- Birgitte SB  00:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one thing I am very happy about. We did not invite a couple more good editors to join the list, although someone suggested them. Thanks to God, I did not invite anyone myself. But I can explain what was so great about this list. We could not talk freely about anything we want in WP space, because the atmosphere here is enormously hostile, at least for people who edit on hot political subjects. While at the list, we had the freedom of speech and friendly debate, something that we could not find in WP space. Now arbitrators and some others have a rare opportunity to see what this project participants really think.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the appeal of being able to discuss Wikipedia in a more trusting and relaxed atmosphere. We all want this.  The problem with this list is that in carving out your hidden discussion space; you all directed your energies towards deception and provocation which predictably ensured that the on-wiki atmosphere remained hostile.  An arms race is the wrong answer to dealing with your distaste on the hostile atmosphere on-wiki.  That should go without saying; but obviously not.-- Birgitte  SB  23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Did I "deceive and provoke" you? Did I "deceive and provoke" someone else? Whom? When? How? Whatever I talked in emails with others was not deception and provocation. Whatever I did in wikipedia space was not deception and provocation.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This diff pretty much sums it up. It is noteworthy that I was notified about this request by Offliner, by the report iself was made by PasswordUsername. Also note this message by Offliner: . There is a high degree of coordination between these three users. Should I file AE reports on two others?  While coordinating an experiment to see if AE reports will yield net desirable sanctions, you accuse others of a high degree of coordination.  It is deceptive and provocative to list your suspicions of others coordination as wrongdoing while keeping silent about your knowledge of your own coordination. ref 20090618-1957 -- Birgitte  SB  03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about my Evidence section, there was already enough evidence of coordinations on the both sides, and I only tried to provide something that is missing. If you are talking about the earlier events, how could I tell about the discussions off-wiki if the members of the list explicitly requested all the mails to remain private? Doing so would indeed be a serious misconduct. But your point is taken. Yes, I tried to hide something. Now I will tell it. No, it would be more prudent to see how this case develops. I do not want to create unnecessary publicity problems (see below). Biophys (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also noteworthy to observe that Biophys' accusations against myself and Offliner were, as usual, fraudulent, as the report was made by Offliner and the notification was made by Offliner as well, contradicting Biophys claims at that AE entirely (see my response: ).
 * In fact, I'd quite honestly say that what stands out is that the modus operandi of this little mailing list team is that they consistently accuse others of what they do themselves: coordinate provocations and false accusations against your opponents, while accusing them of being mean KGB agents standing in your path; push ultranationalist bullshit into articles and accuse all of your opponents of indulging in ultranationalist POVs; write to your mailing list goons while accusing your opponents of significant coordination at AE, and so forth. If Vecrumba, Biophys, and Radeksz shat on the floor in Jimbo's living room, they'd lie about it day and night, suggest that the KGB/FSB was involved, and lay the blame at someone else because they're good and holy, IMHO. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  the modus operandi of this little mailing list team is that they consistently accuse others of what they do themselves That's not some special page from their playbook. That is mundane human nature. It stems from the fact that mostly people are unimaginative and therefore they expect others to exploit the same weakness that they have found. And if you really and truly want to be helpful here and bring an end to your participation in this Battleground look in the mirror and add a new section to your evidence.  My wake-up call for you is that they only reason this wasn't stomped out before now is because of people like you choosing to engage with them rather than demanding full integrity from all participants in dispute resolution.  Please consider answering the following questions in your evidence as it would greatly help us to establish a base line for what this stuff looks like on-wiki and move out of the "groping in dark" stage of enforcement (and none is a valid answer I do not belong to the school of "only ask questions you already know the answers to").  How many yet undisclosed accounts do you have personal knowledge of having open to sharing?  How many private mailing lists of like minded Wikipedia editors besides this one are you aware of existing?  How many emails do you estimate that you sent to to like minded Wikipedia editors with more than two others carbon-copied a week in August? How many emails do you estimate that you sent to to like minded Wikipedia editors a week in August?  How many invitation only chat rooms with like minded Wikipedia editors do have personal knowledge of?  How many like minded Wikipedia editors do you estimate you talked to at least once a week on some form of private chat in August?  If your answers above indicate you have personal knowledge hidden collaboration yet undisclosed, please email the people involved and encourage to come forward and show greater integrity than the memebers of the EE list have done so far.  In order set a positive example for anyone that you might email, please compose a rough timeline of any personal participation you had in hidden collaboration and indicate in particular your own actions that while you felt were justified at the time given that particular situation you now would refrain from repeating.-- Birgitte  SB  19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're curious, Birgitte, please do read through my request for an ArbCom case regarding this matter a long time ago:, where I stated that there were no innocents. I came to Wikipedia to help with the content for the project, only to be accused of sockpuppetry and various acts of bad faith by the Digwuren team, who constantly reverted me whenever I sought to make a modification to some article, stuffed articles full of false sources, and neglected any wholehearted attempt to even engage me constructively on talk pages (see everything, from my first and earliest comments in the discussion from an IP at Talk:Neo-Stalinism). I wanted to have ArbCom look over the situation then, knowing that ArbCom would look at behavior (like 3RR violations) that various people, possibly myself, would be sanctioned according to. Wanting ArbCom to look at the case regardless of what the outcome could look like for myself personally, I said, therefore, that there were "no innocents" as I was well aware that on various occasions I, too, passed 3RR: this was, of course, because of the team tagging against my edits/reverts, which I had no way of proving at the time. (Now that we are well aware that this is clearly attributable to gaming the system by people like Piotrus, Radeksz, Martintg, Biophys, and others – practically the only ones who reverted my content, I am modifying my perspective accordingly – violations like 3RR are weightless when opposed to coordinated team reverts and other attempts to destroy Wikipedia, as practiced by the mailing listers who reverted my contribs left and right.) And as the case is not about me, I will not dilute evidence, but since you're curious, I'll answer directly, matter-of-factly, and right here.
 * "How many yet undisclosed accounts do you have personal knowledge of having open to sharing?" I am not sure I understand. "How many private mailing lists of like minded Wikipedia editors besides this one are you aware of existing?" I'm not aware of any. "How many emails do you estimate that you sent to to like minded Wikipedia editors with more than two others carbon-copied a week in August?" I sent no e-mails; I had no e-mail enabled at my old account, User:PasswordUsername (if anyone familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia is able to verify this, they easily can), and I first enabled my e-mail for this account after losing my password for the old one (I had a computer crash on Sept. 7th) and being notified of this ArbCom, whose members stated their intention of e-mailing people regarding evidence at the very outset. I came back to Wikipedia with a working e-mail for the first time days after the start of this ArbCom's investigation. "How many emails do you estimate that you sent to to like minded Wikipedia editors a week in August?" None. "How many invitation only chat rooms with like minded Wikipedia editors do have personal knowledge of?" None. "How many like minded Wikipedia editors do you estimate you talked to at least once a week on some form of private chat in August?" I didn't speak to any Wikipedians in private at all, nor did I ever get the need to – the only communication with like-minded Wikipedians I've had were: a number of messages posted to Offliner's talk page; one or – at the very most – two talk page messages to Russavia; and exactly one talk page message in May to Petri Krohn. "If your answers above indicate you have personal knowledge hidden collaboration yet undisclosed, please email the people involved and encourage to come forward and show greater integrity than the memebers of the EE list have done so far."
 * The sum total of my knowledge about any communication between myself and others like Offliner and Russavia is right here, Birgitte, and I've already made myself available to ArbCom if they would like to discuss my own participation in this project . I hope this helps. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am apologize because this was the wrong place for my last comment. Still I thank you for the answer. This situation has aggarvated me more than I like and I should stop reading it. I really wonder what it will take for the all the parties here to disengage from the Battleground. Can you see how the second part of your message above is still in the Battleground?  I will explain this but I wanted to post the apology.-- Birgitte  SB  20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for an apology from you, Birgitte. (To be very pecise here, there is a need, but certainly not from you.) The analogy I've made was, I think, a terrific and fully warranted one. I apologize if it was seen as confrontational, but it was the best analogy that could really have been made here. I have worked hard to be very careful and WP:CIV up to this ArbCom; the mailing list even noted my impressive patience in dealing with the various types of crap that was flung my way during my harassment on Wikipedia. My patience is not limitless or infinitely expendable: a human being who's fed up of being provoked, thwarted, and slandered at every possible turn soon enough stops trying to mince his words in an effort to keep pretending that the emperor's clothes are something tangible. If this seems harsh, it is very harsh indeed – but I'm going to stop covering my eyes for now and describe things as they fit my perception. And I think that WP:DUCK is the relevant essay here. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the wrong place. What follows below while applicable to your comments is not really directed at you.  I can understand your frustration but being confrontational keeps the oppostion on the defensive.  This reinforces the Battleground. I want people to abandon the defensives and exit the Battleground so your comments are working against what I want.  Also I think them inaccurate.  My own opinion is below. I don't think I had to mince words.-- Birgitte  SB  21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The way the list operated in my view is to organize members efforts to ensure that EE articles tell the TRUTH(tm). They discussed how improve the level of TRUTH(tm) in articles they were writing and they identified areas where they found resistance to the TRUTH(tm). They also discussed editors who regularly crossed their paths and interfered with the TRUTH(tm).  They did everything they could to identify missteps made by such interlopers while remaining silent about or covering for any missteps made by members.  They accused those they identified as opponents with anything they thought might stick.  They made little effort to determine if such accusations were true or false. They examined sanctions in detail looking for interpretations to promote that would result in more damage done to opponents and less list members. They alerted one another to opportunities to game the system.  And they did this because they believed they were being persecuted for telling the TRUTH(tm) by lying goons who may have had ties to organizations that likely scared them shitless.  This description is very different from saying the list members are lying goons who made false accusations in order subvert NPOV and who will always lie and blame others for what they did.   If we aim for accuracy we can actually learn something useful from all this.  The problems with my second paraphrase are as follows: the list members are not goons; they are regular human beings.  They seldom lied.  Liars generally completely understand what they are doing wrong.  Liars understand something and choose to pretend it is something else entirely.  This is easy to catch and reducing this situation to simply "lies" teaches us nothing.  While certainly some of their accusations were false they didn't put any focus on false accusations.  They likely assumed their opponents were using every systematic weakness available to them so they accused them of all the exploits they recognized. People that ONLY made false accusations are easy to catch and remembering their reports as simply "false" teach us nothing.  Their goal was not to subvert NPOV. They most likely don't even understand NPOV very well.  Unfortunately you don't have to understand something to damage it.  They will not continue to attempt deception nor to deny responsibility forever.  They will either give up or become forthright. In fact some of them are probably really wishing they could figure out a way to be forthright right now without betraying people they feel obligation towards.  It will be a lot easier for them to figure out how to do this if we all recognize that they are not goons who were out to destroy Wikipedia.  They are people who are excited and proud of Wikipedia and wanted to help improve it. They are people who are hurt and betrayed by all this. Some of them are truly scared. They most likely can't see a way out from this situation so they deny and stall and try and convince themselves it is not as bad as it really was.  And when people suggest they are lying goons out to destroy Wikipedia this helps them convince themselves that they have not done so badly as all that. So please everyone try and tone done the hyperbole.  -- Birgitte  SB  21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The problem is that what they have been doing is beyond a mere regrettable moment of extremism in defense of the TRUTH.  It's an organized and concerted effort to subvert the Wikipedia policies in order to spread that TRUTH.  And, yes, they have made many statements that can only be considered lies in the sense of known falsities.  And now that this has been brought to their attention, rather than showing some remorse and learning from it, many of them are still doing it.  Most of them are denying any wrongdoing, and those who admit any problems at all say that it's only a problem because the emails were made public.  You are probably exactly right about their motivations for doing all this but the problem is that when someone (for example) makes up a story about sending an email to themselves in order to create plausible deniability about them having sent it to the cabal list, I think the people around have to call them on this.  If there is a way to do that without putting them on the defensive that would be great - but part of the problem is that once you're looking at things from a siege mentality, everything that happens can easily be interpreted as aggression.  I don't see an easy way out of this without ignoring the problem. csloat (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ....and after such a good comment by B., the best I have seen so far (thanks Birgitte), csloat arrives with a "burning torch" and a "baseball bat" ready "to kill" :):):)--Jacurek (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing confirms my point about how difficult this will be - once you have the siege mentality, everyone appears as "the enemy." I don't even have a horse in this race - I don't care about most of the articles this cabal has influenced, and I only know about this whole scandal due to my limited interactions with some listmembers on a couple of articles.  Nevertheless, Jacurek, with whom I don't think I've ever had any interaction whatsoever, is quick to characterize my comments as a lynch mob.  As I said, it's very difficult to find an easy way out of this. csloat (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry csloat, take no offense please. I did not mean anything bad. Your comment is just VERY similar to all "one million" comments already here, nothing new. B's comment however stands out and I'm very impressed with it.--Jacurek (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @csloat You read my mere opening towards understanding and jump ahead to reject it as ineffective. How can we know what will work till we understand we have in front of us? I don't suggest that we refuse to call them on their deceptions and inaccuracies.  When I see someone offer an implausible explanation for their actions, I will call it out.  That is what should be done.  But done precisely and done towards the explanations that are being currently promoted.  Not calling them out in exaggerated terms against all past and future misdeeds.  It is not ignoring the problem; it is a surgical approach to the problem.  Regardless of what happens to the parties, a full understanding of what happened behind the scenes and how that presented on-wiki would be useful to have if merely as baseline for future situations.  So to say "they went so far over the line there is no point in wasting our time understanding them" is not true.  For my part, I do not need to see them as villains to condemn what they did. Their actions are incompatible with Wikipedia.  The damage done will be measured in years rather than diffs.  And they can't even see it.  And they are probably thinking that we can't what they see.  The first step is to show them that we understand what they are seeing, and still condemn what was done.  And challenge them to try and understand why we condemn it now that "misunderstanding where they were coming from" has been eliminated as a plausible reason.-- Birgitte  SB  00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't reject trying to understand; what I said was I don't see an easy solution. I still don't.  But you're right there is no benefit to exaggerating. csloat (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that it was easy. It is probably the hardest solution.  But it is the only long-term solution that I can identify.-- Birgitte  SB  00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * @Brigitte. A very interesting analysis, and I actually agree with most of it. I will dispute the following point: "Their goal was not to subvert NPOV. They most likely don't even understand NPOV very well." I think we tried very hard to understand and apply NPOV, and a string of hundreds of DYKs and dozens of GAs and FAs written by our members should show that at least some of us understood it in quite a detail. That said, you make a valid point that even if we trully defended NPOV, we used methods that shouldn't be used (although it is an interesting point to consider what's better: to work outside the system to defend NPOV, or to do nothing (controversial...) and allow an article to be damaged). I also want to thank you for saying that "They are people who are excited and proud of Wikipedia and wanted to help improve it." - this I think should show nicely how this case is different from SPA we have seen in CAMERA (for one of many examples). Now, how about a constructive question: if editor(s) want to improve the project but have (unintentionally) damaged it, should they be mentored (reformed) to make good use of their dedication, or should they be kicked out for making the mistake? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (I didn't see this before my other reply) I am glad you found my speculation to be largely accurate.  I think that you are significantly mistaken about NPOV, but that you have yet to learn that your interpretation is mistaken.  If I am correct, it would make sense that you would dispute what you have and claim to have defended NPOV.  As for your question.  I believe that such editors should be educated about the damage they have done.  The result of such education will mostly likely be an attempt at reformation or a realization that Wikipedia was not what they signed up for.  If they cannot be educated, they most likely they will eventually be kicked out.  That third option is the worst, because they still don't understand the problem and I suspect many of the banned users who repeatedly return as sockpuppets are stuck in a cyclical version of that option.  In this particular case things are especially tricky.  The length of time that the misunderstandings have been held valid and the number of individual successes among the general wreckage give an especially strong confidence to the misunderstandings.  I know you probably want me to tell you what the misunderstandings are.  But I am working this out backwards.  The above was written not from a psychic understanding of the EE list members but from matching what I know of common human actions and motivations with what people actually wrote.  You guys didn't talk as much about NPOV as you did about your opponents.  So I am shy of material needed to produce an answer that I can have any confidence in.-- Birgitte  SB  23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Time frame
Does anyone know when the period of time for evidence submission will come to an end? Sorry for asking; I'm not too familiar with ArbCom case procedures. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking from experience and not as a clerk, people can submit evidence up until the point the arbcom votes on the motion to close the case (i.e. through the drafting of the proposed decision, during voting on the decision, and during voting on the motion to close), however it is also my experience that the later in the process evidence is introduced, the less weight it is accorded by the arbs.  MBisanz  talk 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical question related to the evaluation of evidence
Since what is purported to be the mail archive at issue is now publicly available on a website, as noted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Workshop (and therefore effectively no longer private, which means I'm no longer feeling ethically constrained not to read it), I'm interested in reviewing it, and possibly submitting evidence, insofar as the messages in it relate to me. However, the archive as available on the Internet is in the form of many .eml files linked only by a chronological .html index, which I find a very cumbersome arrangement. Could any of those who have been reviewing the evidence so far advise what software they use to process the evidence? I'd be most interested in a method to view the messages arranged chronologically per thread, on one page per thread. (Note to clerk: I believe that this request does not violate the privacy rules governing this case, but if it inadvertently does, please redact or oversight it.)  Sandstein   14:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you use Outlook Express,you can create a new identity, and simply drag and drop all of the EML files into the new inbox. But note that timestamps will not necessarily correspond with the reality, which is why the use of the .eml files names is being used. --Russavia Dialogue 14:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Planting checkusers
I have a few related questions. How many checkusers are there on Wikipedia? Do you still think they all can be trusted? What can they exactly do? How could they abuse their tools? Is there a way to detect such abuse? (Igny (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC))


 * There was no "planted" checkusers or even attempts at getting CU or admin. Russavia's misrepresenting hypothetical discussions ("wouldn't it b nice if I wuz an admin and had cu") as some nefarious plot which has seriously compromised Wikipedia. It's more junk.
 * Or it's a "cloak" in case Russavia himself gets CUed.radek (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussions about getting some friendly account made an admin and eventually getting elected to checkuser were rather more detailed and advanced than "wouldn't it b nice if I wuz an admin and had cu". While it is true that nothing ever came of it, and the discussions contemplated that it would take years, you can not pretend to be ignorant of why such a thing would be frightening to people.  To answer the original question: for information on who is a checkuser, see WP:CHECKUSER, for information on monitoring checkusers, see WP:AUSC. Thatcher 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but discussions about "what I would do if I won the lottery" can also be rather more detailed and advanced then just "I'd party!". So what? This was all hypothetical, PRIVATE, musings and discussions that resulted in 0 action and no breaking of any Wikipedia policies. Or is this about committing a thought crime?radek (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the (alleged) timeframe of the plan to plant a checkuser - and Piotrus's (alleged) statement that it could take years, but be worthwhile - could you, Thatcher, give us more links to the Foundation's policies? AFAIK they discard IP address info after 90 days. Novickas (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all the relevant policies are linked on those pages. Checkusers are (currently) elected by the community from a pool of candidates approved by Arbcom, they have to provide positive identification to the Foundation.  The privacy policy and checkuser policy govern release of information, the Foundation Ombudsman commission investigates complaints of improper release or sharing of information.  Checks that might be run for illegitimate reasons but where the checkuser keeps the results to himself can be investigated by the audit subcommittee. Thatcher 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Radek's response here, like Biophys' above, and like (for example) Martintg's response to the charge of distributing William Connolley's email on the list, points to an underlying problem in this whole scandal, one that Birgitte points out above with respect to Piotrus -- fundamentally, the objectionable behavior at the root of all of this has not stopped. Not even with this huge Arbcom case, not even with the emails themselves apparently having been published for all to read. The "cabal" has admitted nothing, and continues to make a big stink about alleged "email theft" while ignoring the very disturbing charges raised. When they do address specific charges, they often can't be bothered with even the appearance of an honest argument -- I mean, come on, does anyone take seriously Martintg's explanation of how William Connolly's email wound up on the list? It's like Radek's claim above -- if even a portion of what Russavia claims is in that particular email is there, it is just laughably dishonest to brush it off as "wouldn't it b nice if...", particularly if the email actually came from an admin, as Russavia charges. The bottom line here is as Birgitte said above -- you guys just don't seem to get it. Which means suggestions that this case be dealt with as a learning experience, with mentoring or short term blocks being the only sanction to come out of this, are quite absurd -- Wikipedia is still being treated as a battleground by these individuals, perhaps even moreso now that the case is in front of Arbcom. I don't know what ArbCom will look at in making these decisions but I can't see any real solution short of a permanent block on all accounts and IPs associated with the cabal. csloat (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While some disgruntled editors cry wolf in Evidence about the AfD vote for Articles for deletion/Communist genocide, let's have a look at who's badgering whom at the Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination) pulled fresh from the oven. And no, nothing has stopped on your side.--Poeticbent talk  22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is or whose "side" you think anyone is on here. csloat (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to dishonest accusations, and yes, I'm pretty angry at the violation of privacy that some people perpetrated here. I'm also pretty disgusted at how some folks are twisting things for their own ends, the vultures that have showed up at this case and most of all how completely innocent folks, like Sandstein, have been dragged into this by unscrupulous editors. The demands for a show trial and calls for blood from interested parties (who's creating a battleground here?) are quite pathetic and hypocritical as well.
 * So I'm sorry if I have the gall to defend myself against dishonest accusations. I'd be quite willing to talk about where I screwed up, but let's get the total bullshit that is being shoveled (sock puppets! CUs! harassment of saints!) by some out of the way first.radek (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are acting indignant about charges of sockpuppets, conniving to undermine checkuser, and harassment of other users (you're the only one who suggested "saints") as if those charges have no basis in reality. I've not seen the evidence myself, but going by what people have written on the evidence page, with reference to very specific dates and times of actual emails, those charges seem to be well grounded.  Is your argument that the emails don't exist or that they are faked? csloat (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What violation of privacy? Where is the evidence of this hacking accusation?  All I see here is a whistleblower turning over copies of correspondence that they were entitled to possess.  Who are the people you are accusing?  Do please name names, and bring forth the evidence. Jehochman Talk 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence of this "whistleblower"? All here is people making a presumption without any proof. Every single person on the list has signed a statement saying they didn't do it. Sure, one of them may be lying, but that says something about their credibility and the credibility of the "archive". If you know something that establishes that there was a whistleblower, do please name names and bring forth the evidence.
 * And even if it was a "whistleblower" then this was still a violation of privacy.radek (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the number of admins who have now delved into the archive and found threads detailing coordination against them, I think it is very easy to trust the authenticity of the emails at this point. The idea that this is faked is laughable. That it may have been hacked is plausible. But there are far too many cross referenced data points to make the archive anything other than authentic. The stuff that concerns me in those emails constitutes a relatively small percentage, and was little more than a side show in the scheme of things. If this were faked, I would not expect to have found dozens of accurate emails regarding me that correspond to the specific dates in which on-wiki activities were taking place.
 * As for the emotional rhetoric, let's keep some perspective here: Plotting via email to undermine Wikipedia policies, editors, and hierarchy does not change actual historical reality or right the wrongs of the past. Getting caught plotting via email also does not change actual historical reality or right the wrongs of the past. No blood will be let, and nothing on Wikipedia could ever rise to the level of an actual trial, let alone a show trial. We are, after all, a website and not a sovereign entity.
 * I think it is fair to say that the members of the mailing list care deeply about their preferred topics of interest. While they were acting in bad faith and with malintent, I honestly think they believe that their efforts are for the good of the project. While this is not the case, I think we should all keep a level head about things and recognize that while these editors were fostering a battlefield, there were always other editors who were here solely to do the exact opposite of the list members. In a sense, we're not dealing with a situation where we need to mitigate conflict between groups of polarised editor groups. Rather, this is a situation where we as a project must all come together and recognize that this behavior is, in effect, intellectual antimatter wherein equal and opposite intellectual positions collide and annihilate each other. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I recommended on several occasions that various editors (including members of the mailing list) should become more involved in Wikipedia activities by becoming admins (and CU and so on). I wouldn't expect them to abuse that position of trust any more than I have abused my admin tools (look how often I have blocked my content opponents, unblocked friends and so on...); in fact I'd expect them to become more respectful to Wikipedia policies and use their new insights to educate and mentor others. The criticism here is as valid as portraying my welcome messages to new editors as the first step into corrupting them into evil cabalists :) I am pretty sure that one or two of my welcome messages were given to accounts later discovered to be socks; why is nobody using that to accuse me of encouraging socks I don't know... somebody should correct this and add this to evidence, would fit quite well next to the accusation that I was engaged in a campaign to destroy Wikipedia by supporting copyvio images :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I finally got curious and looked at the offending email where you suggest the notorious checkuser plot. To characterize it as recommending that people become "more involved in Wikipedia" and that you "wouldn't expect them to abuse that position of trust" is simply and utterly a distortion of phenomenal proportions.  The message clearly recommends a lot more than that, and the very obvious intent of the plot is to subvert that position of trust very deliberately.  Your blatant mischaracterization of this message as no different than a welcome message to new Wikipedia users is just execrable.  We really need to be more honest about these things. csloat (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And what I see is a bad faith mischaracterization of a bunch of email messages (if I wrote "you should be an admin" you are assuming - and I have no idea on what base - that I meant "you should become and admin" ). You'd have a better case if you could point out how I led with the bad example (by abusing my admin tools - please do point it out here...). But I have a feeling that we will have to agree to disagree till ArbCom comments on this (if at all). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But if you wrote "you should become an admin" and then described specific actions that involve deception and sockpuppetry, in order to get a checkuser "of our own" by abusing sockpuppets and the right to vanish, well, that would be more incriminating, now wouldn't it? Or if another listmember, for example, maybe Martintg, suggested running a sockpuppet who would act as a "mole" running fake edit wars and the like ... well, I think you see where this is going.  It's true - much of the material in the archive speaks for itself.  This is not a few wayward comments being ungenerously misinterpreted by your ideological opponents.  This is a vast archive of ongoing abuse and manipulation of the rules in order to "win" perceived battles with other editors.  Every time you try to characterize it as much ado about nothing, you put a further dent in whats left of your shattered credibility. csloat (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to give me email timestamp so I can actually review the evidence you are building this on? And let's not forget that all of the above is pure speculation, as during the period of the existence of our group not a single member had a change of his user rights (and the only member of it with non-regular user rights, me, still asks, in vain, for evidence that he has abused those tools). Your bad faithed speculation that if that were to happen, that member would abuse his tools, is, in the end, just that: bad faithed speculation. At least my good faithed speculation that such a member would use his tools responsibly is good faithed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. You really don't give a shit about any of this, do you?  It's become clear that you have no intention of even pretending to take this process seriously.  The datestamps of the two emails in question, already entered on the evidence page (as you are no doubt well aware), are 20090606-0919 and 20090615-0607. csloat (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the problem is? Only one of those emails is by me: in 0919 I suggest that some editors could become more respectable if they'd vanish (which is legal for all editors not under any restrictions - I specifically stress that editors under restrictions should not do that), and start a new wiki career, avoiding controversial EE topics and striving to become wiki functionaries. I still think some editors could really benefit from a major refocusing of their wiki interests, to lower their burnout rate, teach them about other aspects of the project, and reduce the battleground (since for some editors, any edit by certain other editors is to to be questioned, to say the least). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. No, "vanishing" in order to return and hide one's controversial past is not "legal"; it is sockpuppetry to "avoid scrutiny" and cover one's tracks and thus directly in contravention of WP:SOCK. If a returning user wants to become an admin, not to mention a functionary, then it is illegitimate for them to hide anything that the community might reasonably see as a reason not to elect them; this includes not just formal sanctions but also, for instance, past involvement in heavy POV editing and cabal behaviour. And of course, you are misrepresenting what you wrote in that mail: you weren't just saying that people should "refocus" away from the EE stuff, you clearly suggested they should only pretend to do so, while secretly remaining connected to the cabal in order to act as one "of our own". In any case, you are also perpetuating that terrible misuse of the term "Right to Vanish" here – RtV is only for people who want to actually vanish and never return; once you return for whatever reasons and in whatever form, you are no longer under RtV. That you still have the nerve to defend this most outrageous post of yours here is the final nail in the coffin of any remaining assumption of good faith I could muster for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever implied that if asked, such a vanished user should deny his past account; in fact such things should be disclosed in RfAdm and such (although disclosed doesn't mean trumpeted about). The point is that some accounts, even if they have never been under a sanction, and never seen as disruptive or controversial by neutral editors, have become associated (in the eyes of certain POV warriors, not neutral editors) tainted (for example, as I noted in the email, some editors will for example vote against an editor simply because of his nationality). It is unfair to have such a stigma on oneself simply due to the fact that one is of a certain nationality, has a certain POV or is sympathetic to a certain group of editors. Hence restarting a wikicareer to throw off such harassing trolls seems to me within policy. You are however right that I confused rigth to vanish with the right to change a username, which is what I should have suggested. At the point I was writing that email I was misunderstanding the right to vanish (it is just now that I've read that policy in detail). Although I still think that there are editors out there who discard their past accounts, and start a new one, without linking them in any way. I thought that doing so was ok as long as one past account was not under any formal sanction. I assume now that this is an incorrect assumption, right? Out of curiosity, what is done if such users are found? Are their accounts "forcibly" merged? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

cabal involvement in editing
Am I the only one who thinks it is bad form for Radek and Sander Sade (and any other list-members) to continue editing the very pages they are accused of manipulating? I jumped on Radek over on the AfD because one of the reasons that article got relisted as AfD is because the cabal is accused of undermining the last AfD vote. I shouldn't have jumped on him; I looked again at the proposed temporary injunction and realize that it was defeated, not supported, so they are technically allowed to comment on those pages. The AfD will probably fail this time either way, so it's not really a big deal, but it just seems in really poor form, and again it points to the problem I mentioned above, which is that these guys just don't seem to get it -- the objectionable behavior continues; the obvious lies and distortions continue (especially on this arbcom page!) and everything is just business as usual. If you are accused of undermining an AfD, it would probably be best to settle that accusation first before you rush to undermine the AfD again. Anyway, just wanted to vent about this; my apologies if others feel these comments are out of line. csloat (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing objectionable about me expressing my opinion on an AfD, just like there wasn't previously. I know you'd really really really like to delete the article but this is really clutching at straws.radek (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what was disruptive in my participating in the last AfD, where I pointed out that the concept is used in hundreds of books (with Google Print ref). I am still drawing blanks on how such a comment can be seen as disruptive/objectionable/etc...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone taking this process seriously should recognize that it is not a particular vote on an AfD that is the problem; it is the orchestration of votes on an outside mailing list in order to push POV that is the problem. If you expect your defenses here to be taken seriously, you ought to stop making a mockery of the process. csloat (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they are making it clear that simply banning them, or blocking them entirely is going to be ineffective. Meat/sockpuppets will emerge from the ether and just continue doing what these guys have always done. Rather, I think we need to accept that collateral damage will have to be a consequence of fixing the problem once and for all via a number of hard range blocks, as well as devising some sort of objective template of behavioral issues that can be applied by admins to any editors on the pages in question to block anyone who makes so much as one edit that falls within the parameters of the template. That was quite the run on sentence, but complex problems call for semi-incoherent sentence structure... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're making stuff up again. None of us, unlike Russavia, have said anything of the sort. I'm going to fully respect any ArbCom decision. Apparently, what you are proposing here, is not to just have a mass lynching of your content opponents, but for good measure also ban any other Estonian, Ukrainian, Romanian or Polish (are Russians included?) editors ("hard range blocks") from editing Eastern European article. I'm sure it would be much easier for you to push your POV and make absurd claims in Eastern European topics without those pesky ... Eastern Europeans ... around.radek (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Hiberniantears: On one hand I think shows understanding that you acknowledge our "bans" don't actually ban people. On the other hand you suggest this means that we must be resigned to collateral damage done by sending the hair-trigger admin corps into the Battleground with inaccurate weaponry.  I prefer an armistice.-- Birgitte  SB  02:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid concerns by both of you. That's why it needs to be discussed and hashed out. While I think collateral damage is going to be an inevitable component of any process we install to mitigate this chronic issue, we need to find a way to mitigate the collateral damage as well. An armistice is obviously preferred, but things have really only grown worse over the years regardless of mediation efforts. A great deal of the emails in the archive actualy discuss how to thwart mediation efforts.
 * @Radek: You also raise an important point... where does one draw the line. Bear in mind I'm not proposing a process that focuses only on the editors in the mailing list, I think your "opponents" have behaved equally badly, and the behavior under discussion here is by no means limited to those editors identified in the email archive. This is a project wide issue, and is not restricted to Eastern Europeans, or editors who are focused on debating historical realities. We have major issues with political articles (look at anything having to do with LaRouche), religion, businesses... heck, I bet we even have issues with articles about hummingbirds. The issue at hand is how do we enforce "The Truth" on a project that is inherently biased toward finding consensus opinion instead of an objective overview of fact. Truth is not an opinion, and in order to find an accurate picture of what the truth actually is, editors with disparate views must be able to place all known or perceived facts on the talk page, and has out what is, and is not, an NPOV presentation of fact. Right now this process is merely overhwelmed by editorial groups that dedicate their time to gaming the system. In this case, we have your email archive as evidence of your specific group of editors behaving poorly. That said, we would do the project a major disservice if we devised remedies that solely focused on the editors in the email archive. You are not the problem, but rather a known symptom of a larger chronic issue. We need to treat that chronic condition, instead of your specific expression of it.
 * It is clear to me that the editors on the email archive care a great deal about a specific set of topics. You should be free to edit them to your heart's content. And we must devise a system that affords that freedom to everyone, rather than those who are simply coordinating en masse behind the scenes. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to keep my reply short. It is undeniable that we made mistakes (and thanks for agreeing that we are not the only ones, and that the situation is not white and black). A question to consider: are the editors being criticized (including me) showing remorse and willingness to learn from critique here and to improve ourselves or not? My approach to problematic editors have always been that since wiki restrictions supposed to be preventative, not punitive, one needs to see those editors are willing to change their ways and concentrate on constructive editing, or not (in other words: can they be reformed or should they be banned). As far as I am concerned, parties involved in this case who can show that 1) they have been able to edit constructively in the past 2) they realize how they have been problematic/disruptive (note: that doesn't mean agreeing with all spurious accusations, but some certainly have merit) and 3) are willing to mend their ways to avoid such problems in the future, should be put on some restriction/parole/mentorship and monitored to see if they can keep their pledge. If not, ban them. And those who refuse to acknowledge they did something wrong and continue/will continue disruptive behavior should be banned. At this point I am waiting to see what ArbCom decides were the points that the wiki-line was crossed; I expect I will agree with ArbCom on that and I expect a solution can be worked out which will allow parties to continue their uncontroversial edits (anybody has any problems with my mainspace edits or WPPoland assessments? I think not...) while ensuring, with voluntary (or not) restrictions/paroles that any controversial ones are not made (for example, I already promised to avoid commenting as an uninvolved party in issues I can be seen as involved due to past history with other editors). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, your mainspace edits were very problematic, like your contributions and subsequent edit war in Tsarist autocracy. You wrote "A[ref to google books search for A] is also known as B[ref to google books search for B]" (while none of the google books sources claimed that A is known as B). You misrepresented the sources. You linked Russian monarchy to oriental despotism. You pushed this bigoted POV by edit war. You WP:owned the article, not allowing meaningful contribution from other users. While your dubious contributions were disputed 1, 2 by other users, you preferred not to start honest discussion but to call for support in edit war from your mailing list cabal [20090102-1220], [20090506-1615], [20090512-1620].DonaldDuck (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Duck, you were the one reverting referenced text because you didn't like one of the alternative titles. I even added a large note explaining why this alternative title is not correct (because I agreed with you that it isn't, but there is no denying that the term is used and per NPOV:DUE WEIGHT we cannot justify censoring such content) - but you kept reverting and reverting and reverting, removing all mentions of the term you didn't like. And I fail to see what definition of "meaningful contribution" can cover your 17-reverts-in-a-row streak. But yes, you are right that I should've advertised the problem in that article via some other channel (RfC or such). That I didn't was an error on my part, an error I admit to and that I don't intend to repeat in the future. I can only hope that you learned something constructive from this conflict as well. PS. I am willing, per my offer, to work with you in improving that article - but please note that improving does not mean removing the parts one does not like (but we can certainly work on the note that explains why the term "tsarist despotism" is incorrect). PPS. Still, if you'd like, you can write a problem statement for an RfC and I will post it on the article and we can see what neutral, uninvolved editors would like to do with the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, 12 different titles for one article is nonsense, and should be dealt with cutting it to one title, not by adding notes explaining the differences between different titles and only adding confusion, like you did. Your references to google book search results do not support your key statements "also known as" or "also described as" in the article. Such fake referencing is actually much worse than non-referenced text. You called your buddies in the mailing list to join your edit war explicitly writing that you wanted to circumvent ArbCom warning to you to avoid edit warring, so counting my reverts is not a valid point. When you made false reports that resulted in my blocks, you knew thay your secret team made not less reverts than me, your knew that this was coordinated attack on me, but you kept it secret, deliberately misinforming administrators to drive me out from Wikipedia.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has one primary title (the one it is at), and our policies (see WP:MOS) clearly support inclusion of other alternative titles in the lead. If you think that tsarist despotism is something different from tsarist autocracy, please tell us clearly what's the difference; my understanding is that it is an alternative (and less correct) title, as explained in the article. The reports that led to your block where not false; nobody told you to revert - you did it yourself. And you were warned plenty of times about edit warrning, so don't portray yourself as an innocent victim of the system here, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good lord. I just saw that article for the first time. Thanks for providing the evidence that the claim of "no articles were damaged" is bogus. The introduction of that article that you wrote, Piotrus, is so tacky it hurts. I previously thought your method of POV-pushing was a bit more sophisticated than this at least, but apparently it's not. (Oh, and if you want to argue about naming policies and stuff, please get familiar with the difference between proper names and descriptive phrases. They are not treated the same way.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ?? Care to be more precise with your criticism? The term is defined (granted, the lead could be expanded), and alternate names are given and sourced (I hope you don't blame me for the relevant literature being so unable to decide as to what is the correct name that it uses 12 alternative titles for the same phenomenon - i.e. all possible combinations of tsarist, imperial, Russian and Muscovite with autocracy, absolutism and despotism - see also the explanation note I wrote). I guess we could split the list of names into its own section, which LEAD recommends if there are 3+ alternative names. I tend to dislike creation of tiny sections but it is not a change I would dispute. But I am pretty certain that removing the list of alt names (or the ones that one doesn't like) entirely is not the good approach to solving the problem... PS. Or are you simply saying that in writing this article I've damaged Wikipedia? Forgive me, I got lost in trying to parse how the word "tacky" applies to that article :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, if you can think even for a moment that adding these phrases to the lead brought Wikipedia closer to the goal of becoming a professional-looking, high-quality, informative, reader-friendly and neutral encyclopedia, I can't help you; if you sincerely believe this then your powers of judgment must be so clouded by your entrenched battlefield mentality that this alone makes your continued editing of the topic area problematic. About the error in your argument: none of all this "alternative names" stuff applies here, because none of these phrases are "names" to begin with. They are descriptive phrases, not proper names of anything. If you have an article titled with a descriptive phrase made of common nouns and adjectives, it's nonsensical to include all possible synonyms and near-synonyms of those nouns and adjectives in the lead – the existence of those synonyms is a trivial fact about the English language, not a piece of encyclopedic about the article topic. That article didn't need that list of synonyms any more than "Moon landing" needs "also known as landing on the Moon", or any more than Human rights violations in China needs "also known as human rights abuse in China, political oppression in China, violations of civil rights in China, ..." etc. Don't ask me to dig out some policy or guideline about this for you; it's just a matter of editorial common sense and good writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the article. I don't know how familiar you are with political science and (Russian) history, but bottom line is that what is known in Slavic languages as tsarskoye samoderzhaviye is variously translated into English, and the differences are not trivial grammatical/stylistic issues but revolve around the lack of direct translationof samoderzhaviye into English; some scholars translate it as autocracy, some as absolutism and some as despotism. Add to that that not all of them keep tsarist but some use Russian/Muscovite/imperial instead, and you get 12 alternative titles, all of which (but one, obviously) require redirects and to help the reader why one specific was chosen, others are listed and discussed in the footnote. I have no idea why would anybody have a problem with that - I do understand that Duck was offended that Russian government was compared to despotism, but we are not here to write politically correct articles (besides, the article makes it clear that despotism is rather incorrect to use in this context - but the fact remains it is used by some reliable scholars, and hence needs inclusion). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Samoderzhaviye is never translated into English as despotism (lingvo dictionary collins dictionary). Don't misinform other editors. That's exactly what the problem with your quality content is - fake references, fake translations, misleading interpretations of sources.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that's the most correct translation; I actually agreed with you several times it is not. All that I was and am saying is that some scholars translate it as such, and others discuss despotism in that context, something you were consistently trying to censor. Who's lying (or failing to do basic research) can be evident to anybody who follows this link: or . Also it is interesting to note that a search for despotism+самодержавие gives a several hits for English-Russian, Russian-English dictionaries . There is a problem of exact transliteration of Samoderzhaviye which means there are probably other hits that are missing, and which is also why many scholars try to translate it into an existing English word (usually related to despotism, autocracy or absolutism). It's easier in Polish, since there is only one transliteration - and here, there are plenty of works which discuss samodzierżawie and despotyzm: . And what about,  and ? Many of those books discuss the concept of samoderzhaviye, too. PS. Here's an academic discussion in the The Journal of Modern History which notes why despotism is related to (but is not) samoderzhaviye; instead it introduces another Russian term (for despotism), samovlastiye. How correct is this argument it is something to be discussed on talk, not via a 17-revert series of IDONTLIKEIT censorship attempts. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again. That's exactly what the problem with your mainspace editing is. You are inventing new theories and even new translations of words to suit your POV, using some vague and only distantly related google book search results. Counting reverts by someone, who repeatedly called his 15++ secret cabal members to enforce his POV through the edit war ([20090102-1220], [20090506-1615], [20090512-1620]) is not a valid point.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, that is interesting that for once you are actually pushing the Bolshevik POV into the articles. That was Russian revolutionaries, starting with decembrists and ending with Stalin who called Russian tsar as despots. No academic source actually claims autocracy=despotism, and yet you say tsarist autocracy=Russian despotism, don't you see anything wrong with that point of view? There is a difference between "autocracy aka despotism" and "some critics of tsarist autocracy called it despotic". (Igny (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC))
 * Which is what the article states, see note (which I wrote) that explains why despotism is not correct. But despotism is is used in this context, and hence we have the encyclopedic duty to discuss such a usage. Really, I don't see what the fuss is about, other than Donald trying to remove the referenced usage of the word despotism from the article (even through that referenced usage discusses why it is an incorrect usage... sigh). I think it is better to correct (notable and reliably referenced) errors by explaining why they are wrong rather than ignoring them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, what the hell are you talking about?!? Please actually look at the article and it's freakin' history (Here. Here is an actual wiki link, since nobody else wants to provide one when they make ridiculous accusations) Every single piece of the lead is SOURCED. And I edited the article way before I was on any mailing list (i.e. 4 edits in 4 days)- because I saw that DD was a disruptive user and committed the horrible crime of looking up his recent contributions after he tried to mess up the Białystok pogrom article. Even if there's something wrong with the article it's not because there was some "cabal" operating; look at the history - It's basically Donald Duck going buck wild with the reverts. "Tacky" is not ... well, it's not actually relevant to any Wikipedia policies or much of anything else for that matter. If you want to make it less tacky, please make the effort (though please don't take out reliable sources), it'd be much welcome. "Naming policies and stuff" - what's the relevance? And where did you happen to pick up this "please get familiar with XYZ" patronizing stuff? Yes, yes, I know. You got nothing to say to me and you don't want to be seen talking to me, though you didn't seem to have that problem in private off wiki conversations.radek (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were not on the mailing list but you exchanged a lot of emails with Piotrus at that time [20090515-1304] and were invited to the list shortly after. Do you think that 12 titles for one article is within reasonable range? DonaldDuck (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, I was not on the mailing list and in March or April I emailed Piotrus to ask him how to DYK articles and how to write hooks since I've never done that before. Horrible of me. Look, I know you're trying to milk this in order to make up an excuse for your own edit warring, but unfortunately, not everything bad you do is "someone else's fault".radek (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FP: It's not that it was damaged (it was started by Piotrus as a stub fairly neutral but containing at least one misunderstanding of history - Petrine bureaucracy was the nobility, then called szlachta, and was distinct from old landed arictocracy). What is important is that the group monopolized it to a state where few uninvolved editors will venture to step in and where a redirect to History of Russia seems the least evil. NVO (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Szlachta refers to the Polish nobility. Russian nobility uses different terms. You and anybody else is welcome to correct/improve the article, it is not OWNed by anyone. But removal of referenced text because IDONTLIKE it is not improving the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already told you, some homework and some understanding of history outside of your regular interests won't hurt; and wikipedia is not a reliable source. This name was adopted and used by Russians in the first half of the 18th century, and was omnipresent in primary sources, especially in Elisabethan times when schlyachetstvo and ubogoe schlyachetstvo were two official, and distinct social estates, when military school in Saint Petersburg was officially called Schlyahetsky korpus, etc. NVO (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting if rather irrelevant here. And this doesn't seem to be covered in any English sources - please don't blame me for my lack of knowledge of Russian. But please feel free to add appropriate info to above articles based on the sources you used to write the above post. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

csloat: a) please spell my name right; b) majority of arbitrators disagree with you; c) I welcome you (or anyone else) to go over my 10 000 edits to this project and find even one that resulted in a decline in article quality. Hiberniantears: an absurd and rather... unwise statement. As far as I know, not a single mailing list member has not created even one sockpuppet - and probably never will, no matter what outcome of this case. And "doing what these guys have always done" - improving Wikipedia, I presume? What is bad about that, unless you have some personal agenda or simply assume bad faith.
 * -- Sander Säde 06:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The archive speaks for itself Sander. That, and the accumulated experience of countless editors and admins who have locked horns with the editors identified as members of the archive. If you were not a member of the mailing list, than you really have nothing to worry about. That said, see my additional comment above. I recognize that their are many editors on the mailing list who have a lot to offer, and I recognize that as contentious as they have been, they have also been consistently faced with a contentious opposition, which is now attempting to take advantage of this case simply to bash you guys around. That is wrong, and will not lead to achieving a process that allows you to work together constructively. Our current process, as evidenced by the email archive and countless ArbCom decisions over the years, does not provide a framework for intellectual honestly or genuine cooperation. So long as we continue with the process we have in place, then groups of editors such as yours will essentially be forced to behave in this fashion. I really view the members of the mailing list as victims of our inability to provide an environment where everyone can actually work towards a consensus that is based on facts rather than voting or shouting down opponents. While I am personally annoyed with a small handful of the editors on the list, I don't view them as enemies of the project, since I really think the project has failed them. This goes not just for the Digwuren's of the world, but the Russavia's, and the Shuppiluliuma's who also have great potential, but find themselves having to assume a combative stance that is counterproductive to building a credible resource. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The archive speaks for itself Sander" - apparently it doesn't. One thing that really really needs to be clarified, before we can move on and talk about this reasonably is that nobody (standard Molobo disclaimer) on the list ever used sock puppets nor was planning on using them - you're either a) purposefully misreading what was said on the list, b) relying on the completely false presentation made by Alex and Deacon or c) totally missing the context of these discussions. Or some kind of combination of these.
 * I share your desire to get this topic area to be less of a battleground. But if you find yourself under constant attack sooner or later you're going to hit back. And this applies to articles as well; I try to cite (and Wiki's about verifiability, not truth) pretty much all of my edits to reliable sources but my "opponents", IMO, don't generally have such qualms and are willing to put the most egregious nonsense (i.e. "Children are molested there") into articles as long as it furthers their POV. Likewise I generally DO try to follow 1RR, but most of my "opponents" don't so I find myself being reverted left and right by people who frequently fully excercise their "right" to make 3 reverts a day (and tag team on it). And in many cases administrators won't do crap about this kind of behavior simply because this is a "controversial" area that they are scared to touch (not good for your Wiki politics, tsk tsk). And when they do touch it, they're half clueless about what's going on and just try to drop the nuke on the whole place. Not very productive either. And the ones that DO touch it, and are NOT clueless, find themselves the subject of harassment and false accusations.radek (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting indeed to see the eventual outcome of this. We can have: 1) all sides nuked 2) one side nuked or 3) an attempt to reform the editors (who show willingness to enter into dialogue and de-radicalize). I hope that option 3) will prevail, as I don't think that banning some of the most productive editors on EE subject (on both sides - I see nothing wrong and much to applaud with regards to this, for example) will benefit that project, but... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As part of the issue with the cabal was its targeting and baiting of Russavia, I seriously doubt that Russavia is going to get "nuked." Russavia did not respond well to the baiting, and is still paying an editing price for that response. No, I think that the only viable option is one that makes clear to those who would start off-wiki cabalish mailing lists or other types of groups, that this will not stand. Unit  Anode  20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. I'll just point out that Russavia, in his evidence about this alleged harassment of himself mentions me twice - once in relation to a post I made to ANI that did not even mention him, and second time in relation to a private email that was never seriously considered nor acted upon. I'll add to that that I vaguely recall commenting on Russavia once or twice more on Wikipedia in those last 9 months (I am pretty sure once was when I was defending Biophys who was being a target of harassment himself), although apparently he doesn't consider those comments notable to mention them. So out of 20,000 on wiki edits I made and several hundreds private emails I send in that period, 3 or 4 (heck, maybe 5?) concern Russavia. That appears to be my entire involvement in "stalking and harassing" him. But hey, Alex said that there were 1,500 emails about harassing Russavia, so who needs diffs to prove that, right? Anyway, if anybody has doubts that I can assume good faith and comment in neutral fashion on him, I can happily promise not to comment on him and/or participate in DR threads involving him (unless I am named a party by somebody else). Believe it or not, I have many better things to do than to concern myself with a user who almost never edits the same topics I do (and with whom my largest interaction has started when this ArbCom was opened...). More seriously, though, I do think that a similar restriction should be levvied on quite a few parties here, particularly those who show no sign of wanting to patch things up with others (and this is a non-partisan comment, as in I think this restriction should affect several members of the mailing list as well). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's astounding to me that you think there's still an opportunity to "patch things up" after the deception you all engaged in. It speaks to your denial of the reality of how bad what you guys did really is. Unit  Anode  21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be nice to be able to see everything in white and black. Unfortunately, being an optimist, I see everything in pink :) Hence I believe that if somebody wants to change and do something constructive (like improve the project, rebuilt trust and so on), he should be given the opportunity to do so. Mistakes were made, harsh words were said. We can keep dwelling on that and stir more angst, or do something nice, like work together to create a new encyclopedic article. I've made my choice and I'll stand by it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally seek out the nuance in a situation. However, this situation is cut-and-dried. What you all did was incredibly unwiki, and completely wrong. And, I've yet to see a complete mea culpa from any members of the list. Unit  Anode  22:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (cabal involvement in editing)
Ah, some recent comments from Hiberniantears and BirgitteSB are far more interesting than broadsides exchanged between both sides. They likely assumed their opponents were using every systematic weakness available to them so they accused them of all the exploits they recognized. I would say that person who doesn't take this into account while seriously engaging in hot disputes at heavily contested topics, will most likely get himself in trouble and sooner or later receive his first block log entry. I really wouldn't expect to have anything that can be realistically seen as violation of some rule to pass without any trouble while engaging in disputes at some hotter area. As participants of such heated conflicts see other side as anything varying from "ill-informed person" to "hardcore nationalist propaganda pusher", such picking out every mistake/violation is often seen as justified. And on few occasions I would say that picking out every damn violation is actually fully justified, because while majority editors are atleast somewhat reasonable, there are from time to time also blatant trouble makers(like User:Jacob Peters), who for "greater good" should indeed get removed from project as soon as possible. But then in heated area, its easy to start seeing large part of your opposition as such problem. I am pretty sure that if roles were changed, and other side had been caught using some ebil off-wiki communication, then general debate would be still largely same, with similar accusations from both sides. Hell, if there had been any plotting against me in some mailing list, there would be totally realistic chance that as first reaction I would suggest wiping out opposing side myself. Anyway, as some have said there should be general change in atmosphere to end this "battlefield situation", I am personally somewhat pessimistic about chances of success, but I am also very cynical person :P Although simply banning whole "ebil cabal" isn't solution either, there would be shift on "battlefield articles" due massive hole in lines of one side, some would see it as restoration of "balanced version", others would see it as "radical POV pushing". But in the end new editors would come on (with some inevitable "casualties" due lack of experience on "battlefield") and "war" would go on.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Any solution that would work should be about transforming radicalized editors into productive ones, and using their influence to prevent the radicalization of the newcomers. Otherwise, you get martyrs and more warriors :( See my essay on radicalization, sadly, I have to admit that even having written it did not prevent me from becoming radicalized over time. I will just end by pointing out to the solution section of my essay, one that I fully intend to apply to myself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well for specific proposals to deal with the general issue of EE as a battleground area, I think something like a standing and ongoing "EE Dispute resolution committee", composed of admins and non-admins might be useful. The key is that these editors would have to be a) relatively uninvolved with either side, b) at the same time knowledgeable about the topic area on Wiki (by this I don't mean they need to be caught up on Eastern European history, politics and culture - rather they more or less have to "know" the editors and articles that have been involved) and c) willing. The hard part is always reconciling a) and b) - usually if somebody knows what's going on in a particular area, it's because they're involved. This isn't peculiar to Wikipedia in any sense, happens in the real world all the time too; see for example Regulatory capture (to try and regulate an industry, you got to have someone who knows the industry. Who knows the industry? ex-CEOs of firms in the industry and other insiders).
 * Some other useful things might be stuff like "automatic protection" - if there are more than X # of reverts on an article in one day, however they've come about, article goes on lock down (this may be open to gaming but I haven't though about how precisely - and I'm sure that if I do someone will accuse me of advocating gaming it). Or compile a list of articles that get put on 1RR (with reasonable exception for new editors). Things like that could be what the committee oversees.
 * This is just brainstorming at this point.radek (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus There are a couple steps that have been overlooked before you jump ahead to the rehabilitation. Acknowledge the damage done to EE articles, which your evidence currently disputes.  Correct your misunderstanding of NPOV.  And please, don't suggest that you have no misunderstandings of NPOV.  Because if that were true, your actions would become very hard to explain without relying on bad faith.-- Birgitte  SB  21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will happily acknowledge the damage to content articles - but I am having trouble seeing it (I am not denying that such damage could have occurred, hence I am asking, in good faith, for help in understanding this damage). Could we get down to specifics - can you point me which articles I edited were damaged, and hopefully show me the diffs of the damage? So far we have been talking a lot about generalities, but we do need to look at some specific examples to illustrate them. Just to make sure I am not missing something I went and reviewed all sections in this evidence that mention me by name; I am not seeing a single claim "Piotrus damaged article X by doing edit DIFF Y." Please help me understand what am I missing (preferably by saying in your responce "Piotrus, you edited article X and your edit DIFF Y damaged it in such and such a way")? Oh, and please tell me how my understanding of NPOV is wrong. PS. If you prefer, instead of evidence, feel free to look at my recent contribs and tell me if any of them are damaging that project, and I'll immediately review them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can not respond for Piotrus, but no damage was done to any articles. But I think that we made certain battleground actions which resulted from email discussions, even when such actions were mostly "talking" and did not lead to any administrative sanctions (it seems that I personally was invoved in at least three episods of that kind). As about the original proposal by Piotrus ("to build trust"), this sounds great but this can only work in theory. Everyone should be ready to compromise with others on the subject or move to another subject if he can not compromise. But this approch does not serve to improve the content in a number of cases, such as these: (1) one of the sides has so poor  knowledge of the subject that all his/her edits significantly degrade an article; (2) one of the sides removes any sourced information he wants to be removed; (3) one of sides makes articles non-readable by placing very long citations by non-notable people. And such side usually does not want to compromise. I have seen a number of examples that clearly belong to these categories. One has only three choices in such cases: (a) bring more editors to such article (but in many cases no one comes); (b) allow such article to be degraded and move to another subject; and (c) try to do something, which ultimately leads to edit warring on the both sides.Biophys (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need to make a bad edit to do damage, but perhaps it semantics issue. I am not attached to the word "damage".  Here is a thought experiment, your comments above read to me as though you think banning all the parties here from Wikipedia would be bad for EE articles. Any negative effects of such bans could not be displayed in diffs.  Why are the articles not indifferent to what happens to some editors?  If they are not indifferent to the banning of editors; then how can they be indifferent to battling of editors?  I truly believe battling has been harmful to the articles and to the project.  However I am too unfamiliar with the evidence to pull together a case to convince you of this myself.  It is a good thing I am not here to oppose anyone.  Such admissions would definitely lead to my quick defeat.  Don't you think it would be nice if you could go about Wikipedia without worrying about the weaknesses in your arguments and just lay everything out for what it is like I did?-- Birgitte  SB  22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is an experiment for you Birgitte, look at the articles before and after the list was created, attempt to detect what impact the existance of this list has had on them. And how exactly did privately discussing the actions of editors who are intent on inserting the kind of stuff like this andthis damage Wikipedia? --Martintg (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "I truly believe battling has been harmful to the articles and to the project.". And I totally agree! And there is no denying that battling occurred and it involved all parties here (myself included). I am all for remedies that will prevent battling in the future (other than by nuking everyone and enforcing peace on a glass desert :>). I have mentioned above that I'll be happy to stay away from discussing conduct of certain editors (which, as evidence shows, I did only sparingly anyway). I am also willing to discuss other restrictions, and I will certainly support harsh remedies towards editors who show no willingness to admit they did something wrong (and contributed to the battleground). PS. Please note that our group actually tried to prevent battling with some of our initiatives such as the recent Polish-Ukrainian mediation that was brainstormed on our list (and that, sadly, is now on hold since most of the participants of the mediation are too busy here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PP, as anyone who actually read those particular emails should know, your "Polish-Ukrainian mediation" was a attempt to recruit more sympathetic cabal members, along the lines of Hillock and Ostap (as opposed to other Ukrainian editors like Irpen). Now you're are depicting it as an act of virtue? Transparently shameless! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody reading those real emails will know that the mediation involved creating this article Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia (1930) and opposing nationalist Polish sources used in articles on Wikipedia.--Molobo (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Deacon, will you please stop making shit up? I mean, really, it's obscene how straight faced you are when saying this stuff that you know not to be true. Seriously, how do you do it? Both Hillock and Ostap where already on the list when Piotrus proposed a mediation so it wasn't about "recruiting" anyone. And hey, the way I remember that little incident playing out was that the supposed "ultra Polish nationalist" Molobo turned out to be more pro-Ukrainian than the Ukrainians themselves. I'd call your comment shameless but you've managed to strip that word of its meaning at this point.radek (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can take this opportunity to redeem yourself: Will you give me permission to post emails sent by you? I mean, obviously I'd omit personal info, but on that understanding, will you give myself (or others) this freedom? This way we can prove all the good faith and honesty you claim to have, and the truth of any claim you make? I asked your meatmaster PP above for this permission, but he didn't answer; maybe you have more confidence? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Piotrus What makes you think remedies can stop the battling? Can you tell me somewhere that enforcement measures have actually transformed a battle into a collaboration? If so, how often are these proven enforcement measures able to generate this type of success?-- Birgitte SB  00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DIGWUREN sanctions, for example, had significant and desired effect, but in the end proved not enough (as in a lot of editors who should be on it are not). A wider application would certainly help. Remedies can stop battling if they are backed up and followed with a threat of a block. Is somebody reverting? Put him on 1RR and block him till he learns or is blocked indef. Is somebody uncivil? Put him on DIGWUREN civility parole and see if he is civil, if not, bye bye. And so on. A cop known to arrest offenders observing a previously unruly square is as efficient (and probably more desirable) than nuking it :) PS. Bottom line is that you cannot encourage/force all editors to collaborate, and some need to be kicked out, unfortunately. But you shouldn't start by kicking them out without previous attempt at reforming them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Birgitte-a good start would be 1RR restriction on Central and Eastern European articles involving history or politics.--Molobo (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are defining Battling too differently from me. The sanctions you mention were continually being gamed as a tactic in the ongoing Battle.  A Battle which has still not stopped. I have no faith that better sanctions or better cops can stop this Battle.  Such things can only mitigate the damage the Battle does.  Stopping it rests on your shoulders.-- Birgitte  SB  00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that without the will of the participants to change, little will. I think there is evidence that such a will exists: proposal, proposal, proposal I hope those ideas will be refined, and similar ones presented to boost them. As far as I am concerned, they are our last, best hope to deal with the problem (or we can just ban over a dozen of very productive editors from multiple sides of this conflict, gut several WikiProjects, and hope that the problem will not reappear - which it inevitably will, because how many newcomers will read old ArbComs...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there is will to change! Continuing as you have been clearly leads to being banned. But to change into what?   What exactly do you aim to change about yourself?-- Birgitte  SB  01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I think the response of cabal members illustrates the problem. Sander, for example, takes the high ground and not only denies there was any problematic behavior involved, but claims that the only crime they are guilty of is "improving Wikipedia." That's just the problem -- if they see this sort of covert orchestrated effort to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies as "improving Wikipedia," there's not going to be much attempt to address the problem. Other editors, Biophys and Piotrus for example, seem to admit wrongdoing but seem genuinely confused as to what harm could possibly come from all of this wrongdoing (and even a cursory glance at the archive, which I finally have done, demonstrates pretty conclusively that the wrongdoing was ongoing and was manifestly prohibited by Wikipedia policies). Yet I can point to very specific harms caused by these two editors specifically in the absurd introduction and long term retention of original research and fringe viewpoints on the few articles I have had interactions with them on. If arbitrators want diffs we can certainly get to them, but that is not the point here -- the point is that by circumventing and undermining the Wikipedia process, the entire project has suffered. We cannot have confidence that these articles truly reflect a transparent consensus (in fact, in many cases, they demonstrably do not). We also have seen productive editors on both "sides" of this sidetracked by games designed to chase each other off Wikipedia or otherwise get opponents sanctioned. Energy expended in this direction is energy that is diverted away from improvements to Wikipedia. I have no doubt these editors believe that every character they type is an improvement to Wikipedia, but it is precisely their clinging to that belief in the face of opposing viewpoints to the extent of taking steps to undermine those viewpoints in illicit ways that has turned the Wikipedia articles the cabal connived over into "battlegrounds" rather than encyclopedia articles. These actions undermine the collegial working relationship among editors at Wikipedia, who are supposed to be collaborating on a project rather than re-fighting ethnic or nationalistic conflicts that certain articles symbolize. csloat (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * These actions undermine the collegial working relationship among editors at Wikipedia, who are supposed to be collaborating on a project rather than re-fighting ethnic or nationalistic conflicts that certain articles symbolize

There is no "collegial working relationship" on Wikipedia. Incivility and harassment is a daily problem, and ethnic conflicts exist. If it would be otherwise keeping the CIV noticeboard wouldn't be a problem(IMHO it's very unfortunate that it was dismantled and it is among the reasons why Wikipedia is failing). Could you provide any examples as to the articles you speak about ? So far I see only general remarks. --Molobo (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure there is an AfD out there where some of us disagreed with certain editors (and since we agreed with one another and discussed that article off wiki => proof of evil conspiracy). And since they are obviously right (POV-wise) and we are obviously wrong, that's the proof how we damaged the project. CED. PS. Yes, I agree we shouldn't have discussed certain articles on a private forum, but doing so doesn't necessarily translate into damaging the project, it's an obvious fallacy. PPS. Anyway, if some AfD were unduly skewed, solution is simple: 1) relist them 2) ban editors who discussed them off-wiki and voted there without any substantial arguments from those particular AfDs and 3) topic ban obvious "yes-men" from AfDs for a longer preriod. Damage fixed, lesson learned. And if any of the restricted/topic banned editors lapses in the future, lengthen the block period till they learn or leave. PPPS. I am perfectly happy to discuss any of my AfD votes with anybody, and I am certain I have never "yes-men-voted" nor that I have ever seeked brainless "follow-the-leader-yes-men-voters". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Other editors, Biophys and Piotrus for example, seem to admit wrongdoing but seem genuinely confused as to what harm could possibly come from all of this wrongdoing (and even a cursory glance at the archive, which I finally have done, demonstrates pretty conclusively that the wrongdoing was ongoing and was manifestly prohibited by Wikipedia policies).
 * It is pretty unlikely that such "confusion" is genuine. Read the emails and discover what a slick operator PP is. He's got a lot of experience slithering out of these predicaments, and such "confusion" most likely stems from its perceived usefulness for such a purpose. Piotrus is smarter than almost everyone here, and has always been fully aware of all the wrong and damage the community would perceive, as can be seen in the emails when he writes about the frightening possibility of a leak. His confusion is as "genuine" as the Piltdown Man. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I detect some faint traces of bad faith here...? Surely not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Deacon Please refrain from assigning this all to bad faith. That just the easy way out and does not move us forward. While Piotrus is certainly does not seem to be sharing his full opinion with us, it still more than plausible that he has just not accepted the ramifications of his actions. We always like to think well of ourselves and tend to discount our personal responsibility for problems. People are not rational. So Poitrus telling us 2+2=5 does not mean he has chosen to be false.-- Birgitte SB  01:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks Birgitte, I'll keep my brain turned on and use my own judgment on these matters, and you can keep your orders to yourself. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Brigitte, please let me know which part of my argument is not making sense, and I'll reconsider it or try to explain it better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Your actions have not harmed articles) + (Battling has been harmful to the articles and to the project) = 5 -- Birgitte  SB  01:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point, but such a great simplification risks running into some problems. In particular it is (just like the evidence) significantly lacking in specific, diff-backed examples of the articles I was battling at. Let's take a look at WP:BATTLE: it talks about violations of CIV, NPA, POINTless disruption, and NLT. In the entire evidence presented so far, my alleged violations of those are presented in one section which has three diffs of my comments; you are welcome to read them and decide if they are really PAs or not. But let's say for the argument sake that all three are PAs (and if this the community consensus is that any of them are, I have no problem with publicly apologizing for it/them). In either case, that means that the argument about me battling is based on 3 diffs in the period of 9 months (out of 20,000 edits I made in that period...). And note that those three diffs were made in Wikipedia namespace, not content namespace (so no articles were harmed by me making those comments). They can be actually tied back to the argument that I have commented in dispute resolution procedures in which I was too involved to comment neutrally; I've already acknowledged this in our discussion here and I will repeat that I can happily pledge to refrain from joining such discussions (as long as I am not named a party) for the next 6 months or longer (at which point I'd probably seek a mentor - maybe you, Brigitte, would offer to help me? - to discuss if I am ready to rejoin such discussions and to monitor my posts in that environment). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But it really is simple, you are making it unnecessarily complicated with the wikilawyering. You refer to WP:BATTLE as if we need to clarify whether you were in one when you have never disputed that this topic is a Battleground before.  You sketch out a narrative of your participation that implies that your contributions to the Battleground were questionable and insignificant.  Yet you never really offer an clear assessment of how you rate your overall contribution to the Battleground. Do you concede you contributed to the battleground? Significantly?  It's rather all rather debatable. Going forward you have room to argue that you intended either yes (you're contrite) or no (you're innocent). That is an interesting tactic.  Many people will read a greater admission of guilt into that statement than you actually made.  It is also interesting how rather than explain your participation, you explain the evidence submitted about your participation.  You are neglecting to consult the best expert we have on your participation: your memory.  You keep the focus solely on your wiki contributions, as though all contributions to this topic were made transparently on the wiki.  Are you trying to deny or concede the premise that you participated in the Battleground?  I don't know, it is all rather ambiguous.  Did you just try to shrink the boundaries of the Battleground down only those diffs that are violations of other policies?  Maybe, it is rather hard to determine where you were going with that.  Did I learn anything about how you judge your own actions?  No.  Was I even able to confirm the nature of our disagreement? No.  These are all things (but not the only things) that I need to understand before I could consider commenting about your proposed restrictions or lack there of going forward.-- Birgitte  SB  04:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You lost me, I am afraid. I have already noted the errors I made and pledged various ways to improve both my behavior and to use my experience to improve the entire conflict arena (and I am not saying either of those subjects is completely exhausted, but than, what subject ever is?). I am prepared to discuss general wiki-theory (although this is probably not the best forum for it); however I'd suggest discussing specific diffs of mine and of course, suggestions as to how I (and others) should change our editing to avoid problems (real or imaginary) that were caused. May I suggest refocusing this discussion on how we (me, you, all of us) can improve the editing atmosphere (and content) of the EE articles? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to figure out how to improve things, first we must all agree on what the problems are. But the EE lists members have been unable, so far, to discuss the problems in a completely forthright manner.  The biggest problem I notice with your participation is that you keep ending up at Arbcom.  Your efforts to improve the conflict area keep bringing you back to Arbcom.  So your pledges with that focus in and of themselves give me little hope of being a workable solution.-- Birgitte  SB  12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will just point out that the two previous arbcoms were launched by editors with content grievances (see below) who tried to stick everything but a kitchen sink on me and this is reflected in ArbCom decisions (which discarded 99% of their wild allegations). The fact that I had to go through those two tiresome excercises which nonetheless failed to clear (restrict or ban...) those problematic editors from the project (hence they were able to keep harassing others) was a major reason which convinced me to join the discussion group, since it was apparent to me at that point that on wiki attempts to deal with it are largely ineffective. In retrospoective, I was wrong to do so; instead I should have done what I am doing now - an all-out attempt to engage the other editors in a productive discussion on how to improve the project (although, do note that parties in this arbcom are quite different from the parties in last arbcoms, and I did try to engage the parties in the last arbcoms in productive discussion and they refused...). Not to try to shift the blame or anything like that, but please note that I am really not a major party here (although I am by far the most active editor involved in those proceedings simply due to sheer amounts of my edits and time I am dedicating to the project, including discussing stuff here - you know, being the 59th (still) most active editor on this project and such...see also this essay), as my participation in the Russian-Baltic conflict (which is the driving force behind this arbcom, see evidence and who are the active parties here) was rather minor (this arbcom is not "Piotrus 3" but rather "Digwuren 2"), as can be seen (as I pointed out) by counting the diffs in evidence about my participation in that conflict (which end up being a single digit for the 9-month period I made 20,000 edits or so...in other words, this arbcom is discussing much less than 0.5% of my total edits in that period). This is why I am able to retain some focus here on things other than "me, me, me (victim)" or "them, them, them (evil)" and try to engage everyone in some productive, content- and good faith- building activity. PS. And yes, you are very right that "Your efforts to improve the conflict area keep bringing you back to Arbcom." Some people don't want to see me improve it and succed in ending the battleground, they want to see me (and some other editors) driven out of this project so they can POV-push in peace (they don't want peace and cooperation, they want a one sided victory). On one level, our entire mailing list can be seen as a giant and successful bait from editors who significantly contributed to battleground creation and eroded our good faith in the wiki system (and who is to say that our "mole/whistleblower" - if we want to analyze this aspect rather than hacking - wasn't planning to blow this up that way from Day 0, pushed the discussions towards more controversial subjects, all the time (or in the past ~3 months...) editing through proxy (and we know he had one good enough to use Tymek's account) - or not editing at all - and once his cabal account is banned/restricted will not rejoin the project in his more true identity?). Of course, this is pure speculation (just like the fact that our edits were not to the liking of the "real" Russian-state affiliated web brigade with plenty of resources to mess with amateurs like us... make what you want of it, I personally never found it likely they would target us but hey, I am known to make errors in judgment, right? :). Anyway, I'll repeat once again: let's try to focus on making something constructive out of this mess (prevent future damage) instead of pointing fingers and wikistressing other editors (punitive damage). I have admitted that I made errors and we need to focus on good faithed cooperative efforts; it's time other parties did the same. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will address new points that you bring up tonight, but there is one thing I most want to point out. I believe that the others DO want peace and cooperation; they just don't believe that you want it. They most likely believe that you are skilled and dedicated enough  to single-handily prevent peace and cooperation in this topic area.  I personally think that a single person can neither fix nor destroy the functioning of the wiki (which is really at the heart of the damage).  But whether you set out to be or not, you are an extremely effective leader and your actions and advice have more practical weight than any other party.  You could probably do more to lead everyone off the Battlefield than any other individual. But the longer you hold on the the idea that you have opponents who do not want peace and cooperation, the less likely you are to succeed.-- Birgitte  SB  17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying my best to assume good faith about everyone here. Some of us were opponents; I am all for eliminating this word from our dictionary and becoming a collegial group of friendly editors. I made offers (three proposals linked above) that should enable cooperation: discuss, mediate, create content. I encouraged and I am encouraging others to take them up. I acknowledged part of the fault behind the present situation is ours (mine) and proposed specific remedies to prevent the situation from reoccurring. I am pretty sure I am not engaging in any battlefield promotion activity (look at my recent contribs, please). What else can I do to help end the conflict and promote reconciliation? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Refraining from comments like "Some people don't want to see me improve it and succeed in ending the battleground, they want to see me (and some other editors) driven out of this project so they can POV-push in peace (they don't want peace and cooperation, they want a one sided victory)" would help end the conflict and promote reconciliation. -- Birgitte SB  18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will, but please note that 1) I am purposefully avoiding talking about specific editors to avoid damaging what good faith is present here 2) for the same reason (as stated in my opening section in evidence) I am not presenting evidence on other parties (besides, arbcom is reading the emails which are full of such evidence anyway :>). I'll leave it up to you (and other neutral editors) to decide who is being cooperative and who is not; I'll just end by saying that I find allegations that my cooperative attitude here is deceitful less than helpful, to say the least. Again: I am assuming good faith about everyone here and willing to prove my words are not meaningless by working on content creation that those editors request (and that I have expertise to help with). That's all I wanted to say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to ending the conflict and promoting reconciliation, it is probably more detrimental to not direct such remarks at specific editors (even though vagueness is more likely to avoid rebuke). More people than you could possibly name will imagine they are being smeared.  They will likely feel insulted and dismiss everything else you say.  The things that deteriorate a situation most != The things you are most likely to be rebuked with a link to policy. -- Birgitte  SB  21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A point to consider: there is a type of an editor who, when he realizes he cannot POV-push content, will refocus on an attempt to harass his opponents in order to make them leave the project and/or get their content opponents banned. A simple test to detect such an editor: in a given content area, lot's of arguing/edit warring/incivility, little to no peer-reviewed (GA/A/FA) content created. I'd advice all editors commenting here to consider, carefully, if such editors are not participating in this discussion (and if they do, which side they support). PS. This is not to say that if one is opposing such editors one has the right to ignore wiki policies (an important lesson to learn from the current debacle for quite a few of us) - although please consider this policy. Just an addition to the background on why the EE battlefield is such a mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a lot of detective work to arrive at a conclusion that probably shouldn't be shared on-wiki. I suggest we just try very hard to take everyone here at face value.  And when that is impossible refrain from responding.- Birgitte  SB  01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BirgitteSB, thank you very much for this discussion. I modified my evidence accordingly. It does not mean I am right, but that is what I think.Biophys (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure we are all of us wrong on some point or other. Sharing what we think is the best we can do.  Thank you.-- Birgitte  SB  17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dojarca
I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense. On Soviet invasion of Poland Dojarca is removing sourced info and making false edit summaries (that stuff is too in the source, and in fact someone rewrote other parts of the text to stuff that's completely at odds with the sources). On German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk is trying to weasel a caption despite what the sources say and is removing text under a completely irrelevant pretext (one which I don't quite understand). Repeatedly. See the talk page please. Loosmark ain't on no mailing list. I've had Soviet invasion of Poland on my watchlist for some time. I *created* the parade article. This is just another user who thinks that s/he has a g*d-given right never to be reverted, no matter how disruptive their actions. And s/he's edit warring (3 reverts in <24 hrs on the parade article)radek (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my take is that what's happening is just your own POV coming in. What happened at Brest-Litovsk, contrary to the article you guys made out of it, was a hand-over ceremony with German and Soviet troops marching past each other. While the Germans thought of this as a parade, the Soviets did not. Even in the present day, historical interpretations today differ. Some historians, like Nekrich, argue that this was a parade. Other notable historians, like Alexander Dyukov, state this pretty clearly. As such, German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk is a POV fork of German-Soviet handover ceremony at Brest-Litovsk or 1939 Brest-Litovsk handover ceremony, since the first title is disputed, whereas the fact that a hand-over took place is not disputed. You guys simply had the article tagged and done with the "right POV" from the start and would simply take no alternative POVs, so I really see no sound basis for this protesting when someone tries to neutralize the already well-embedded POV there. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alexander Dyukov is a crackpot rather than a historian. For relevant policies see NPOV. Colchicum (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I think Russavia's evidence discussed slandering real-life people in the interests of promoting your own POV. The man is a historian, has a history doctorate, and writes historical work – and he's not the only one who writes what he does (the article itself notes the scholars who concur with Dyukov's description of the event). I strongly recommend you revisit your perceptions as to how Wikipedia works.
 * What exactly would be lost by moving the article to the alternative title – please explicate? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The move is a blatant attempt to WP:WEASEL an important historical fact. Dyukov, is in fact considered a non reliable source, is considered "controversial" (to put it mildly out of BLP accusation paranoia) and has been described as "revisionist", his publisher dropped him due to his fringe views - basically writes books about how wonderful the Soviet Union under Stalin was. On the other side I've provided something like 20 reliable sources (and there are plenty more out there)by historians and other academics which clearly discuss this as a "parade" and not some "handover".

Someone somewhere asked why the supposed "cabal" was ineffective against people like PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist and company. I think this example clearly serves as an answer. You can provide 20+ reliable sources for something but PU/AN and similar editors don't give a fig about RS - they ignore their existence. They bring up fringe authors and works and try to pass these off as legitimate. If that fails they claim that something is "disputed" and first "consensus needs to be reached" - which they have no intention of adhering to, the idea being to stonewall as long as possible. Or else take the reliable sources that have been included and completely change what these say in the article - sometimes turning the RS on its head. And then make totally ridiculous claims and statements in the hope of exasperating other editors and baiting them into a personal attack.

The thing is, most people who are unfamiliar with EE topics are not in a very good position to judge what is a reliable source and what is straight up fringe propaganda like Dyukov, and to generally adjudicate these disputes. So PU/AN and others get away with this over and over and over again. They're simple POV-pushers and edit warriors. But they are very skilled POV-pushes and edit warriors.radek (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't address the personal insults. You really mean that Dyukov's "dropped" by his publisher, and neither of your mailing list friends saw that as something fit to add to his article? That Dyukov is downright hated by the anti-Russian sections of the Estonian press isn't a key discovery. Why, however, does critic Ilya Smirnov of the Russian service of the American Radio Liberty, in this 2008 transcript from the program, describe him as a "careful, academically conservative historian," whose overall work is characterized praiseworthy? Kind of rare to have an American station praise a Russian "revisionist", right? Closet Stalinism in the West? Then there are the other Russian historians, like Oleg Vishlev, who also don't share Radek-POV – these you have not slandered yet. So I invite you to discredit them. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you all stop engaging in slander of individuals in an attempt to push your own POV. It is absolutely amazing that Radeksz and others are still going on about Dyukov, when it is not Dyukov, but Vishlyov, an historian connected with the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences who has stated what is what. Dyukov has merely mentioned him. Watch people such as Radeksz and Co. slander Vishlyov now. Oh, and if anyone wants a copy of "Накануне 22 июня 1941 года" contact me, and I will send it to you. Unfortunately Radeksz and Co. crow on so much about Dyukov after seeing his name, that they entirely forget that it wasn't even him that wrote was has been suggested, so they are slandering him for absolutely no reason at all. --Russavia Dialogue 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was PU/AN who brought up Dyukov - who apparently is considered UNacceptable and UNreliable even on Russian wiki. I don't know much about Vishlyov. Even if he is reliable, that's still 1 source vs. 23 reliable sources (atm). That could *maybe* justify mentioning him in the article. And I love how I'm being accused of slandering Vishlyov whom I have never commented about before - typical "lie like hell but with a straight face" tactic being employed here.radek (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought up Dyukov as a correct example. I'm positively sure that Russian Wiki considers him fine (though I'm not very active there as I'm not a native speaker and it's not my best language) – please find some evidence and don't throw empty accusations. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You listed yourself as having a "professional level" of Russian language proficiency on your original user page, I think you can find the evidence yourself on Russian wiki. --Martintg (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look and couldn't find it at first. I found this – but this is very different from "his publisher dropped him due to his fringe views." As I understand, Regnum complained regarding Dyukov's representation of the publisher and his comments regarding the Historical Memory Fund . He was not dismissed due to his (supposedly) "fringe views." Claims like this, when included in encyclopedia articles, are often perceived as misrepresentation of sources.
 * Instead of making claims about him with a straight face, please provide links as backing for them, as I've done here. I still do not see where Dyukov was dismissed for his fringe views, and I kindly ask that you (or Radeksz) kindly substantiate your assertion, so that we see that there is something to your claims. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm basing the statement that Dyukov is considered UNreliable on Russian wiki on the statement made by Galassi on the parade article talk page. I'm basing the statement that Dyukov got dropped by his publisher on the guy's article on Wiki which appears to be sourced. If you actually bothered to read the talk page you'd see that Dyukov's role and "interpretation" had already been addressed on the parade article talk page. By people who weren't on any mailing list. But like I said, when presented with reliable sources, you just ignore them and keep on pretending... Anyway, at this point this discussion belongs elsewhere.radek (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now your source is Galassi, who's a Wikipedia editor and not a reliable source (no offense to Galassi here, it's really just that it's the way Wiki works), so I think I'm getting to the heart of the dispute. Seems, then, that some Eastern European Wikipedians characterize him that way, but that others, such as Radio Liberty, beg to differ. That Vishlyev addressed the topic much more thoroughly than Dyukov remains unaddressed. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The question is "is Dyukov considered reliable on Russian wikipedia". Yes? That's not the kind of question that needs to be sourced in order to be answered. We just need to ask somebody who's active on Russian wikipedia. Are you suggesting that Galassi is lying? And you know what remains unaddress? The almost 30 reliable sources I provided.radek (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what you said. You've just attempted telling me that Russian Wiki doesn't consider Dyukov reliable by telling me that Galassi, on Russian Wikipedia, doesn't consider him reliable. Yet, Dyukov is still cited on Russian Wikipedia. (To be sure, I just saw him being cited in the Russian version of the disputed article in question...) So if you can provide me a link where it's apparent that there was consensus that Dyukov doesn't meet WP:RS on the Russian-language Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it. Simply put: when you concede me the evidence, I'll concede you the point. Extra credit if you explain why Vishlyev et. al are unreliable as well. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of responding to these attempts at baiting. Look at the talk page for the article. Take it there if you really want to continue this. 26 reliable sources vs. 1 fringe source + 1 maybe reliable source at best. And you're still arguing. Completely absurd and ridiculous, but very illustrative.radek (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dyukov completely meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable source and of your 26 sources cited all come from only two countries: USA and Britain. Wipipedia's policy is to represent worldwide and neutral point of view.--Dojarca (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant article has a talk page you know.radek (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry: what talk page? This one ? I don't see where Dyukov is discussed as being unreliable there. This is now what, the third or fourth time that I am asking you and co. to provide a link to where Dyukov is considered unreliable by Russian Wikipedia? As I've said: concede me the evidence, and I'll concede you the point. So far you've given me personal attacks at ArbCom, but no actual link. Where is the link to back up your comment that Dyukov is considered an unreliable source by Russian Wikipedia? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * radek (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not even Russian Wikipedia, my dear sir, not at all! That's Galassi, on English Wiki, claiming that Dyukov is considered unreliable by both Russian and Ukrainian Wikis, a statement that is certainly false insofar as Dyukov is cited on Russian Wiki (on the Russian version of the very same page that's under dispute here). I've already told you this: Galassi is just a Wikipedia editor and, while he is not an involved party here, for that matter, he happens to be a very pro-Ukrainian Eastern European one, especially when touchy subjects like Russia come into play.
 * To recap the thread of this discussion, then, Radeksz... look:
 * 1. You've managed to openly accuse me of being a POV pusher who relies on fringe sources. When I inquired how Dyukov was fringe, you submitted a few sharply critical quotes, countered by me with his fulsome praise from Radio Liberty, an American-run station (and something deemed a reliable source on English Wiki), in 2008 (just one short year ago).
 * 2. You proceeded to insist that Dyukov was really a fringe guy anyhow, telling me that Dyukov was dropped by his publisher for being fringe. When I asked for the source, you failed to provide me with it. When I found the statement from his publisher, it turned out that Dyukov wasn't dropped for being fringe as a historian/writer, but for matters of an entirely different sort.
 * 3. You proceeded to present it as undisputed fact that Dyukov is considered "unreliable" by Russian Wiki, a fact that is seemingly in obvious contradiction to the citations of him found on Russian Wikipedia articles. When asked for a link to where Dyukov is considered unreliable on Russian Wikipedia, you told me that the statement was made by Galassi on a Wikipedia talk page.
 * 4. When I told you that Galassi isn't a reliable source, that his claims are apparently, given my admittedly limited experience on Ru-Wiki, actually contradicted by what actually goes on at Russian Wikipedia, and that, again, given my natural skepticism coming from my own experience of the fact that Galassi's statements are plainly contradicted by the fact that Dyukov's words appear on Russian Wiki and haven't been challenged, I'd like to see a Russian Wiki discussion where Dyukov was actually deemed an unreliable source, since I'm completely unaware of any such discussion, think it unlikely to have happened, and would simply like to see it for myself, you... just accused me of baiting you.
 * 5. When I told you I would concede your point if only you show me the exact WP:RS discussion on Russian Wikipedia to where Dyukov, the American Radio Liberty-praised historian, is considered unreliable on Russian Wikipedia, you initially refused to do it, then finally told me to look at what Galassi said.
 * Do you realize that you have still failed to link me to the relevant Russian Wiki consensus that Dyukov is unreliable? Do you realize that you take the mere claims of like-minded Wikipedians, such as Galassi, completely uncritically, and proceed to throw them against living people like Alexander Dyukov, thus outright slandering them in this very fashion, in the process, without actually seeing the evidence of their veracity for yourself? And that you evade the question and refuse to cooperate when you are presented with repeated requests for such evidence from others? So much for Dyukov and the accusations against him, apparently. Do you, my dear sir, at long last see anything tragicomical in all this? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record- Dyukov claims that Poland and Nazi Germany were secretly allied against Soviet Union. He also demanded that historians from Russia that took part in documentary about Soviet atrocities should resign from their work and be banned from their profession. The first view seems quite fringe, the second indicates heavy political POV of the person.--Molobo (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite so, Molobo. It's not that Dyukov refers to a German-Polish alliance all independently; what he actually said was that the Germans and Poles may have agreed upon a secret protocol to their 1934 treaty (the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact), as was indeed not an uncommon element in early 20th-century diplomatic maneuvering. Consider the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 – and the significance of this pact – according to various historians. In the West, the "German-Polish alliance" of 1934 is discussed, for example, by Max Domarus, a specialist on Nazi documents, and, moreover, in this Nuremberg Tribunal excerpt from Yale University : "'In the Polish affair, for example, it was Goering who, on the 31st of January 1935, gave assurances to the Polish Government through Count Czembek, as revealed in the Polish White Book, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, that 'there should be not the slightest fear in Poland that on the-German side it'- meaning the German-Polish alliance-'would not be continued in the future.' Yet, 4 years later, Goering helped to formulate plans for the ruthless invasion of Polish territory.'" Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)