Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision/Archive 7

Sanctions too weak
Sadly, the proposed decision is yet another untenable decision that will do naught to prevent the recurrence of the same problematic behaviors that we have seen exhibited for the past three years. At the very least, we should see sanctions proportionate to the degree of misconduct issued for all of the EEML members who violated policy: Piotrus, Digwuren, Radeksz, Martintg, Jacurek, Vecrumba, and Tymek (who revealed his password in an attempt to incite meatpuppeteers to get me). Biruitorul and Dc76, given their more occasional level of disruption, should be at least admonished. The Eastern European battle has not yet ended; it will go on, much as before. Long-time violators of core policies will not change their skins upon being prompted to engage to participate in a collegial editing atmosphere. We have a long enough track record to be able to discern things for what they are.

Thus, I can only concur with Offliner's thoughts above. What we have seen has it own laws, fundamentally based around the EEML's use of numbers, and will not subside without firm guidance and a reinforcement of what is right and wrong by an effective mechanism. The battleground will perforce only go on as before. It has not even seen the slightest respite in the course of the Arbitration case. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but where do I "violate" policy in all the evidence that has been presented? This is not the USSR, Wikipedia does not use the Soviet procurator model (describe and address defendants as already having been found guilty&mdash;I think that's rather where Star Trek got its idea for the Klingon justice system). You yourself choose to escalate the conflict you blame on others by bringing your content disputes directly to A/E and here instead of simply discussing edits in a civilized manner.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One evidence section where evidence that you violated policy would be the one here, Vecrumba. Leaving aside framing issues that are not worth my time bringing up, contrary to your charged insinuations to the contrary, this is indeed not the USSR, and there is no "Soviet procurator" model and I am not the "Soviet procurator." If I may be so presumptuous as to ask, however, what – if anything – did you, specifically, learn from this ArbCom? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your evidence. Yours, and other's, invocation of "WP:EEML" (which redirect I will request be deleted) as proof of guilt before the end of these proceedings speaks directly to the procuratorial model. And what is it that this and all the other ArbCom's before it have taught?
 * Not to shoot the bystanders as much as I believe they deserve it. I was flummoxed when Jehochman opened an arbitration request as Offliner's proxy (my perception), which was at odds with the thoughtful impression I had of him based on an off-Wiki interview. I have since come to the recognition that my initial impression was the more correct and that I should not leap to guilt by association.
 * Somewhat the same for Hiberniantears and Dojarca, though that Hiberniantears recognized that they needed to report their own conduct rather speaks to a situation that is better left behind by all.
 * That you are guilty until proven innocent. That mud sticks (if they/you were doing nothing wrong, then...). That victim-blaming is the preferred method of attack.
 * That personal privacy means nothing, that personal correspondence can be read by anyone in violation of Federal (and as far as I know EU, certainly with regard to revealing privacy information) statutes, that personal vetching can be construed to be the most vile and despicable conduct imaginable including plotting to harass people in their private lives. That I can be publicly described as an fascist Euro-trash faggot off Wiki through no offense of my own, complete with my picture and all personal contact information, and there is nothing I can do about it short of becoming a multi-millionaire so I can afford to sue the Wikipedia foundation and every individual on the planet who has read the purported evidence without my authorization and who has defamed me in connection with the proceedings here.
 * That allegations of "timing" and "conspiracy" count more than whether edits fairly and accurately represent reliable sources as ArbCom cannot rule on content. I have come to realize that Viriditas' seeing conspiracies everywhere is not a character failing, it is because that's all that can be ruled on. Metrics drive behavior. If Wikipedia processes don't improve, we'll all end up in the same condition, Viriditas just has a lot more edits under their belt than most here.
 * That editors who attempt to bring integrity to Wikipedia are immediately accused in such a vile manner off-Wiki that they retire from Wikipedia after contributing to, and being a pillar of, Wikipedia since before a time anyone knew much about it.
 * Most of all I have learned to bite my tongue off if need be when provoked. As ArbCom can never rule on content, and even what is deemed reliable is based on consensus, the only option is to maintain composure at all times and at all costs. In the end, the pushers of unsubstantiated accounts of history and of blatant attack content will overstep the line themselves.
 * The proceedings here have been a revelatory litmus test on both Wikipedia and individual editors. And there are lessons that are being taught which I prefer to not learn, because if I do, I will be the lesser person for it. I'm deeply saddened that it could be a far prettier picture. But I wouldn't still be here if I had given up hope.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That evidence is funny. "Vecrumba issues call to arms on Ethnocracy", I looked up the e-mail and Vecrumba talks about NPOV. In effect,Vecrumba is accused of calling to follow one of the major Wikipedia guidelines, obviously a horrible thing to do. -- Sander Säde 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, we all know by now how well the group "enforced NPOV" on all articles concerned with various Eastern European controversies of some sort. It's interesting how you focus on the least incriminating diff of all the ones supplied about him, but even there you have it wrong and it's all a matter of context and clearly a part of the larger backdrop. In this case, it's not even about "enforcing NPOV": that was Vecrumba mailing the more than a dozen members of the list about getting opponents by trying to "invoke NPOV" in an active content dispute he was then participating in. If Vecrumba's preferred content changes for the article were good, neutral stuff, why did he have to ask for backup in defending them by secretly canvassing on a mailing list? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk NPOV, it's easy to figure out which party respects it: the one with community peer-reviewed (for neutrality and stability) DYKs, GAs, and FAs. Which one would that be, hmmm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I've created lots of content in the relatively short time I've been here. The reason I don't go for DYKs is because I don't care about my contributions showing up on the main page, which I don't think speaks ill of me as an editor. I like the idea of building an encyclopedia where people looking for some kind of content can just search for it or follow the Wikilinks. Something showing up on the front page for one day isn't really my idea of a scholarly achievement. It's also obvious (I was just looking at the leaked archive) that you guys constantly supported each other in going for those DYKs, and that getting them for non-neutral content isn't exactly perilous when so few editors are actually aware of what the nuances of Eastern European politics and history, and are – more often than they are not – simply satisfied with whatever prima facie looks like a satisfactory article in the Eastern European topic space without any exacting scrutiny. So I'm not sure why you're even going there at all, really, although I understand how much you love your DYKs and how often you bring them up when sanctions for the clearly inappropriate warring and a host of other things are discussed now. And I don't think it really pertains to my comment above either. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics." (agreed on unanimously by uninvolved arbitrators)  Triplestop  x3  19:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet oddly enough there are no diffs presented that indicates where Piotrus had actually participated in these "edit wars, disruption or bad faith dispute resolution". The only diff given is where Piotrus protected an article in the "wrong version" to what his colleagues would have wanted. --Martin (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So Martintg, you disagree with something approved unanimously by uninvolved arbitrators, who hold the highest position of trust on Wikipedia?  Triplestop  x3  19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Using Argument from authority? I think the Committee's failure to identify where this disruption actually occurred has led to the formulation of unnecessarily broad sanctions that has a net negative impact on the project. The targeted remedies as proposed by Piotrus are constructive in that they allow good content creation to continue while placing safeguards to prevent future problems. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, authority is very important here. Who should we believe, Arbcom or you, a partisan editor in this debate? The committee is elected to be impartial arbitrators of disputes while it is apparent that you are trying to give support to your allies to win a content dispute. Yes or No. Do you disagree with what the committee has unanimously passed?  Triplestop  x3  20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the point of answering your question if you are going to claim I am partisan anyway. Sure the committee is elected to be impartial arbitrators, but you seem to be arguing they are infallible, are they? I think when the only evidence presented in a FoF in relation to on-wiki disruption is off-wiki correspondence, then there is disconnect between alleged intent and absence of effect. --Martin (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Infallible or not, they are certainly more credible than any of the participants in this case.  Triplestop  x3  20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Credible in the on-Wiki edits the participants have made? That the detractors of the EEML members can't tell the difference before or after the list or between the list and not rather speaks to on-Wiki activities being totally consistent for years. If you wish to convict editors for lack of credibility, do it based on on-Wiki edits and then your argument for your position can stand on the merits of actual observed behavior.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that evidence is not valued highly in those proceedings. After all, my 12+3 ban is being discussed without a single diff to back up the FoF, and most of the editors about to be sanctioned don't even get that much :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Did you see all those evidence pages? And you're getting banned for a long pattern of abuse, but you would rather wikilawyer over diffs.  Triplestop  x3  01:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me that long pattern of abuse. Here. Diffs. Should be easy, right? I mean, you have all those evidence pages to draw them from... PS. Regarding the evidence pages - have you ever heard: "size is not everything"? :D PPS. Also, this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Triplestop and Piotrus, this is not the place to question or challenge each other. If you two would like to talk, I suggest trying one of your talk pages. KnightLago (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Break

 * Certainly there are several major problems with sanctions. I have outlined some of them above. Another crucial one is that they indeed ignore battleground mentality shown by many editors who are not members of this list... Evidence for this can be found in our evidence section, as well as can be seen here in the form of posts of editors who have continued battling since the case begun (I agree with PU here), on various pages, including this one. I think it would be helpful if an analysis of the past two months (since the case begun) was carried out, and if it focused on the question: which editors, mentioned in evidence, have expressed regrets and mended their ways - and which have kept on battling? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Ant-Nationalist/PasswordUsername himself has continued battling, with this vexatious ANI report, and this currently open vexatious AE report. What is lacking in the proposed decision are any sanctions against some of the more disruptive editors like AN/PU. Given the evidence presented and the ongoing disruption while this case is open, I would have expected that AN/PU would at least receive a topic ban. I can't recall any previous Arb case where both sides were not addressed. --Martin (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That outing complaint is from October. I did not want to answer it then, because Anti-Nationalist (not Ant-Nationalist, of course) was clearly disruptive reporting on Martin or Martintg without warning him. But since he brings it up himself: Martintg once tried to out ME surreptitiously. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That outing complaint is from September. 2007 :) And how is calling you somebody's compatriot outing? What kind of personal information was posted?? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Following this logic Anti-Nationalist calling fellow editors a bloc of nationalist editors is a form of outing since it may reveal personal information about their political affiliations! --Martin (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The case of "evil cabal vs. saints"? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could fill us in as to which side edit summaries like this one (from a November 21 edit) belong to? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would fill in as to which side sourced content removals like this belong to? -- Sander Säde 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as the side of editing – verification requests for claims coming out of advocacy groups and a dose of BRD, perhaps? (You did see the edit summary?) Here they are side by side, in straightforward chronological order (my diff goes first):, . I'm going just go forward with my opinion and say that comprises a good contrast with regard to normal editing vs. EEML. Thank you for making my point. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to wish to discuss the Zumbakis reference regarding the article published with trial results prior to the trial occurring everywhere except the talk page of the article in question, at your filing against Sander Säde and now here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to abstractly "discuss" anything – what I wanted was page numbers and verification, as indicated in my edit sum. (The source I'd asked to verify had been identified as Cold War-era work produced by an advocacy group.)
 * What Sander Säde did in response to that edit and its summary was an egregious personal attack, completely characteristic of the ways in which he's attacked his other opponents (as I noted at the AE thread), and completely unwarranted. I honestly find this to be a very clear indication of the battle ground and its culprits – however, it's funny what you manage to make out of this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You evidently know how to use an inline tag, if you had an issue with the source you could have easily placed a tag rather than wholesale deletion of a section of text with an edit comment that a couple of uninvolved admins over at WP:AE say was unnecessarily provocative given the highly charged editing environment you created. --Martin (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the source to begin with was a single Cold War-era work produced by an advocacy group (there aren't any big-name Holocaust scholars who claim the Estonian trials as fabricated stuff, right?) – poorly sourced already but also with not so much as page numbers given to boot; so, what was the tremendous deal with simply removing the material as dubious? Despite Sander Säde almost immediately surfacing with two new personal attacks, there clearly had been no battleground or controversy there – the article wasn't even edited by anyone for months on end. (The last actual edit was a minor fix as old as October 15.) Are you really saying that a simple edit like that was something that deserved a nasty and all-around ugly battlefield reply like this that Sander made? And he was jusitifiably "provoked" into doing so? Shame on you, Martin. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Zumbakis was expert enough to engage with the head of the OSI on public panels discussing Soviet evidence, so get over it. It was your choice to revert and file for enforcement. Again, get over it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 20:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I appeal to ArbCom to please keep this case going longer in order to address the recurring problems caused by users who did not belong to EEML, but who were exposed for their extremism and their disregard for Wikipedia policies in Evidence. The Evidence page is filled with concrete proofs of appalling editorial abuses on their part, thus explaining the presumed need for joint effort against further disruption. However, your unwillingness to deal with the source of the matter could leave the Eastern European corner of Wikipedia crippled. --Poeticbent talk  18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And again the usual us against them slugfests. As if nothing had happened. I am not even very symphathetic when it comes to the editing of Anti-Nationalist, but the calls for an investigation and topic bans for the other side make me feel uncertain about the extent to which lessons have really been learned. Pantherskin (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With less than 400 edits, you evidently are not very experienced. Arb cases looked at the behaviour on both sides in the past and have ensured that one side is not given the upper hand. At least Offliner has had the good sense to keep well away from the fray while this case is open, not so AN/PU however, who continues with his disruptive behaviour. Non action in his case will only send the wrong signal. --Martin (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a framing. Astounding – utterly astounding, really – to hear such a statement from Martintg. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of understanding the problems stemming from partisan editing in main-space, versus character assassinations and payback, plaguing arbitration and notice boards. ArbCom is there to promote good editing and protect content. It is not a father figure. Meanwhile, the evidence of misconduct works both ways, and it should not be ignored. --Poeticbent talk  20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are the topic bans which passed already in force? How to deal with ongoing disruption by Piotrus and Radeksz?
As this thread is focused on something other than the proposed decision, I am closing it. Evidence and accusations of bad conduct should be placed on the evidence page, not here. Questions for the arbitrators should be emailed directly to the committee at. I can tell you that as the case has not closed, no proposed remedies are in force. KnightLago (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answers from arbitrators only Dear arbitrators,

(1) Radeksz' and Piotrus' topic bans are already agreed on. Are they in force or not?

(2) If they are not yet in force, how is disruptive behaviour of Radeksz and Piotrus supposed to be dealt with in the meantime? Usually this goes to AE, but since this case has already remedies passed, I doubt that taking disruption to AE at this point would make sense.

(3) Piotrus  and Radeksz   are currently engaged in presenting a view of some scholars from Communist Poland as a fact and remove all sources, including other Polish historians from the Communist as well as the post-Communist era and German historians. Thus, right now the article is presenting only the view of a faction of Polish scholars and not that this is disputed in and outside of Poland. The removals go along with either deceptive (Piotrus) or personalized and insulting (Radeksz) edit summaries (see aforementioned diffs), and in the discussion I have to endure being labelled as weaseling POV pushing nationalist spreading OR etc pp. From the EEML archive, you know that the EEML is after me ever since I opened the SPI case that led to the block of EEML member Molobo. From the evidence, you know that Molobo and Radeksz used this case to file the RfC the EEML fabricated against me. In addition to the ongoing deletions of Radeksz and Piotrus outlined above, now blocked Jacurek has engaged in similar behaviour against me during this case. Since the attitude of the EEML has not changed, how am I going to be protected against the kind of attacks I faced since Molobo's SPI case and that I am still facing right now? Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by non-arbitrators

 * This is surreal, Skapperod is once again trying to get rid of content opponents. I mean how many more times is this guy going to get away with that? I lost the count how many reports on Polish editors has he filled already and he keeps presenting "evidence" against Polish editors whenever he can. No Polish editor working on the same topic as him wasn't reported by him by one time or another. It's beyond comical and lately he's trying to milk the EEML affair big time. Btw he was already told that the Polish communist sources cannot be dismissed en block but has to be analyised case by case and yet he's again going on about that. I urge the ArbCom to topic ban Skapperod because his ownership of all articles which are connected in any way with Pomerania coupled with his battlefield mentality make it completely impossible for Polish editors to work with him. Loosmark (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly this would happened if Arbiters took proper measures at the beginning of this case. Now, I would advise to wait any see the final verdict, which for some unknown reason is taking far too long. In any other case most active EEML'isters would received permanent ban long time ago.M.K. (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody is welcomed at Talk:Pomerania-Stolp. The situation is quite simple: I added a claim, Skapperod challenged it, I started discussion on talk and restored the info once we've had references (and not before!), Skapperod did not add any reference contradicting (or discussing) our sources but started weaseling the text ("A few Polish sources from the Communist era interpret..."). I and Radek have dedicated several hours to finding and translating dozen or so sources (including non-Communist era - not that any source was presented to discredit the Communist era sources...), and I've proposed an RfC to gather more opinions. The above complaint is, sadly, a good example of trying to use wikipolitics to get an upper hand in content discussions :( While I proposed several compromise solutions (ex. this one, where I clearly attributed a controversial claim to certain scholars who make it) Skapperod was skirting 3RR and doing full scale reverts. On talk he ignores arguments he doesn't like (most sections (atm end in him not replying to our simple arguments and requests for sources (per WP:V)), not a single source contradicting our sources and support his ORish in-text discussion of reliability of other sources have been presented (hence our reverts - not approaching 3RR - are quite justified, per WP:OR and WP:V), and now his newest argument, apparently, is "EEML people are evil and as they disagree with me, make them stop editing the article where I disagree with them". I urge the arbitrators to examine this case closely - the talk page is not that big. I think this is a perfect argument against the topic bans. PS. As far as I am concern, Skapperod (nor anybody else) is being disruptive in the article (although it would be nice if Skapperod would revert less and discuss more), till his report here I would say the article was undergoing a regular WP:BRD, with sources being added and a content for new articles being researched (I stubbed Warcisław VII and I suggested to Skapperod we create an article on the Treaty of Pyzdry where we could move most of the extra information that is being controversial in the Pomerania-Stolp article). I am - as my post on talk and compromise edits in the article demonstrate - quite open to further changes in the article, provided the other party (Skap) actually takes constructive part in a discussion. What is disruptive is an attempt to bypass the normal article development process via wikipolitics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff you cite as a "compromise" is actually the removal of the sourced views of all scholars cited who offered different interpretations than one view of a few selected Communist scholars that the "compromise" edit left in place. To call that a compromise is deception. And no, EEML going after Skäpperöd is not "normal article development". Skäpperöd (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you accidentally forgot to mention, "unimportant" fact, that you and your EEML buddy engaged in edit warring yourselves. Typical. M.K. (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD, with the stress on discussion. I and Radek did far more discussing than reverting; in fact I believe I stuck to 1RR almost throughout the entire time, with one exception of 2RR when I disputed the really weasel-like and ORish "A few Polish sources from the Communist era interpret..." (same with Radek). Of course you attempt to present our edits in the worst possible light. Typical :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Illustrates pretty well one of the strategies the EEML was set up for and which are under scrutinity in this very case - revert as a group to not accumulate individual reverts. With the effect that now all sourced views differing from your favourite one are removed from the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which source, pray tell, that you've added, has been removed in my latest version? And if you are worried about numbers, I've offered to start article RfC - surely, if your version is more reasonable, neutral editors from RfC would help you out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. "Piotrus has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics."
 * "Radeksz has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics."
 * This discussion is about YOU. Yes, the OP might have been edit warring as well. That may very well be. So unless you are denying what arbitrators have unanimously agreed on (the evidence is on the evidence page, don't ask me to copy it here), I don't see how attacking the reporter is relevant.  Triplestop  x3  18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even get what you are trying to argue here. I've presented my arguments above, and any neutral editor who would read the talk and diffs would see who is trying to help the encyclopedia (finding and translating dozens of sources, proposing compromise versions, etc.), and who is trying to POV-push (violating WP:WEASEL, WP:V, WP:OR...). But then, this case wasn't about helping the encyclopedia from day one, but about getting rid of certain editors, with any means necessary, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have hopped, that then these bad editing practice were pointed out here, EEML'isters would finally distance from such practice for good. After reading "replies" above I have no hopes, that EEML members are willing to change their behavior at all. M.K. (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What bad editing practices? Daring to disagree with editors who violate WP:WEASEL, V, and OR? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What? WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The Arbcom has unanimously agreed that what you try to label as "disagreeing with editors who violate WP:WEASEL, V, and OR" is "participating in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics."  Triplestop  x3  18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Before this unnecessarily spirals more out of control than it has already, it would be nice to get an answer to the original question. Are the topic bans in force or not? As for all the supposed offers of compromise, Prokonsul, you are no Henry Clay. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remedies do not go into effect until the case is closed.  Triplestop  x3  18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing? Fine: show me a diff and explain to me how it is disruptive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must you continuously Wikilawyer over diffs? The evidence page is loaded with diffs. Sure, you can accuse your content opponents of presenting you in a bad light, but that argument wears thin when you use it against uninvolved arbitrators.  Triplestop  x3  19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Skapperrod's rants against communist sources, as he calls them, is more and more weird. Should wikipedia dismiss all sources written by scholars who lived in communist countries? I think not. It's hard to work on articles with sb with such attitude. Loosmark (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've raised the issue of using communist era sources on RS several times; I've also noted possible bias (of Polish sources) on talk of Pomerania-Stolp. The community consensus at RS in the past was however that in order for such bias to be discussed, sources have to be cited that discuss it (and they weren't - which is why Radek raised the OR issue on talk). In the end, even most problematic, Soviet Stalin era sources are not always wrong - it depends on what is being discussed (they are probably reliable if they discuss history of the Byzantium Empire, not so if they discuss Marxist economy :>). In this particular instance, to recapitulate what I said on talk of Pomerania-Stolp, it is possible for both Polish and German sources to be biased, as the history of Pomerania is seen somewhat differently on both sides of the border. That said, no sources discussing bias of this issue or of any sources have been presented on talk, and the article does contain not only attributions, but key qualifier (added by me over the course of trying to create a compromise version) - that the vassalage was short lived and of relatively little consequence to the history of the region. This confirmed by both Polish and German sources, and the only problem the article has were strange attempts at ORish weaseling and attacks on Polish sources ("Polish communist historians claim", etc. - even through in conclusion they agree with the German (communist or not) ones...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Before Piotrus' and Radeksz' deletions (edit summaries "compromise ..." and "Jagiello"), the article contained After your deletions, the article offered one interpretation of the treaty, presented as a fact. To call this "ORish weaseling and attacks on Polish sources" on my part is a baseless personal attack, and the quote "Polish communist historians claim" was never made by me. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourced fact that the text of the treaty does not define what the oath was for
 * Four sourced ways the treaty was interpretated in Polish historiography, with the respective dates, scholars' names and periods
 * A sourced view of a German scholar with respect to the Polish discourse


 * To Skapperod: here's another compromise version for you. This should include all referenced cited. Is this satisfactory for you? I would have proposed this one earlier if you had answered my post from 4:16 pm yesterday (I am still not clear what is it that the German language source you cite exactly says). I really don't understand why we have to bring a regular and up to this point civil content dispute here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This case is here exactly because it is not a "civil content dispute", but the coordinated deletion of sourced views from the project, and presenting the one left over as a fact, with deceptive and personalized edit summaries, with personalized and insulting talk page postings, by two EEML editors who have coordinated reverts against me before and whose topic ban is already agreed on. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the FoF
I'd like to ask for FoF like this one to be clarified with diffs to disruptive edits and with a statement whether this FoF summarizes my entire 100,000+ edits wiki-career or a few exceptional situations. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One does not have to present specific diffs to show that the overall sum or pattern of your contributions has been disruptive. Even still, the evidence page is lined with diffs, that provide actual context. Your post above amounts to Wikilawyering. Can I say this any louder?  Triplestop  x3  19:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Triplestop, stop this nonsense immediately. Anyone is free to ask for clarification of anything. Accusations in the face of such a simple request are uncalled for. KnightLago (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As two arbitrators - NYB and Vassayana - noted, the wording of this FoF is problematic. It uses few exceptions and generalizes from them (the fallacy of activity). Diffs are crucial as they can actually allow quantification (although the cited five emails do that, to a certain extent: five emails don't make 5+ years of editing disruptive). My challenge for anybody to dispute that evidence presented is composed of anything more than a few exceptions still stands unchallenged. I believe that the evidence presented should allow to address this concern fairly easily, for example by saying "participated in edit wars (twice - diff, diff) and bad faith dispute resolution (thrice - diff, diff, diff)" or something along those lines. If you believe that exact quantification is too time consuming, then perhaps a clarification could be made whether examples listed in this FoF are or aren't exceptions to my behavior, something like "on several exceptional occasions participated in edit wars and bad faith dispute resolution". I consider this very important, as without clarifications, this FoF can be used, out of context, for years to smear my name and ALL I've ever done for this project. PS. For the record, I believe that such negative reinforcement is exactly the reason why experienced editors are leaving the project. Who wants to stay and edit when his 100,000k edits, dozens of FAs/GAs and such will be summed up as "he was disruptive" (and then cited over and over again, out of contexts, by editors seeking to drive one away from this project). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes I agree. Something like Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes will be good. Except, now not only are there diffs (see the evidence pages) but also "definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred" that can be used. And I did not label your "100,000k edits, dozens of FAs/GAs" with that FoF, it was similar behavior that led to that FoF. And Piotrus, how does asking your "why restrict editors whose content creation is 99% uncontroversial?" not amount to gaming the system? And you accuse me of wanting to "get rid" of you "whatever the cost". Where is the evidence that I have ever edit warred against EEML users?  Triplestop  x3  19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Triplestop in the last 5 days you made 23 posts here. Is there a reason for this sudden mega interest in this case? I have never seen you editing in the EE topic area before. I think you made your position clear and repeating yourself at naseum is a bit tiring. Loosmark (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, in a case like this, the input of neutral editors is, or should be, very much appreciated. They cannot be accused of having a personal agenda to get anyone off the project. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the input of neutral editors should be appreciated however the problem is that the neutral editors here are few and far between. I mostly see people who hold grudges and try to settle old scores or content opponents of the people from the list who try to get rid of them. And you can very well tell apart the neutral editors from the non neutral ones by the way they present their points and the tone they use. Loosmark (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, which group do you consider yourself to be part of, the "neutral" or the "non-neutral" one? As for..."opponents of the people from the list who try to get rid of them", I think you're neglecting the fact that the evidence shows that the EEML participants conspired to "get rid of a lot of people". If by providing evidence of this, or questioning statements and remarks made here, strikes you as inappropriate, that's something you need to work out by yourself. Just the same it is logical that the parties that interacted with the EEML in the past, positively or negatively, would be in a better position to participate here. As for your other observation, regarding that the participation of presumably "neutral" parties would be welcome and benefit the discussion, this "diff" makes me wonder about your belief concerning that. Or does a "neutral" and "uninvolved" party that takes a different position than yours become "non-neutral" all of the sudden?  Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I am reasonably neutral. What about you, do you consider yourself neutral? As for everything else I think you should re-read what I wrote again. Everybody is welcome to express his opinion about the situation however there are ways and ways to do it. I won't reply to the last part of your comments because it's a straw man. Loosmark (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not neutral. How could I be? As a target of this group which strategized (sic) ways to "get rid of me", I'd have to be a fool to pretend neutrality. Would making a statement like, "I think I am reasonably neutral" make me so? Or would it give people a good laugh? So much hypocrisy has been bantered around here lately that I would prefer to not contribute to it. I'd prefer to be frank and express myself concerning this matter as I see fit. Civilly of course. As for "straw man" don't you think you guys overdo that one? Kind of like your comment on my use of "surreal" (but liked the word enough for you to use it shortly afterwords). Yes, I re-read your edit..."Triplestop in the last 5 days you made 23 posts here. Is there a reason for this sudden mega interest in this case? I have never seen you editing in the EE topic area before." When did not editing in the EE topic area before, preclude participation here? Another question, why your mega interest in this case, and why would your mega interest in this case be of more value than Triplestop's. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That and you will notice the arbs are 'not in love with the wording'. My interpretation of that is because the wording sounds like it is accusing you specifically of edit warring, for example, but read carefully it is really accusing you of covertly arranging and directing edit warring via the mailing list.  That would fit with the fact that they are quoting the mailing list emails and not the on-wiki diffs.  In other words, you are not being accused of disruption, you are being accused of aiding and abetting the disruption. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wording needs to be clarified, because we should not have different interpretations. Quantification is important, to avoid generalization from few exceptions. The emails cited are discussed here ([20090825-2011] [20090826-0252]) and here ([20090206-2304][20090216-0055][20090731-0652]); please note for example that with regards to edit warring, even if list members are treated as one, 3RR was not broken. Where is the disruption and bad faith DR? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first diff only leads to the proposed decision. I cannot look at those emails so I have no comment on them.  The following responses are based on your link to what of those emails are published.


 * 20090206-2304 - Arbcom and RfC's are concidered dispute resolution. Using them for your own political ends is bad faith DR.  Further, your thought crime defense hinges on the idea that you were discussing wether an admin SHOULD be desysoped, whereas the quote itself discusses HOW you're going to desysop him with the idea of should he be being implicitly decided already.  I personally would prefer there to be on-wiki follow-through before raising it from 'bluster' to 'disruption', but I expect there is enough bad blood between you and Deacon that Arbcom is taking it a bit more serious.


 * 20090216-0055 - Lacks context, but I expect the answer to "good start for what?" would be enlightening. Were I to assume the answer to that question was "A good start towards getting Jehochman discredited" then secretly arranging to harass and disparage people would certainly be disruption.


 * 20090731-0652 - There is a difference between discussing inefficiency in the current ANI/3RR board with an effort to fix it and discussing inefficiency in the current ANI/3RR board with an effort to exploit it. Obviously I would need to see the rest of the email to decide which of those two it was, but with what little I do see it leans towards the latter.


 * Also, I don't think I need to remind you that breaking 3rr is not the only way to determine an edit war is underway. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Link fixed. As you say, it would be nice to see on-wiki diffs that any of those emails lead to bad faithed disruption and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Link fixed but only leads to discussion of the emails, not the emails themselves. My impression is that you are asking for comment on the emails, not the discussion of the emails.  So unless you are willing to make those particular ones public then I cannot comment on them. I apologise with placing this out of timing order, but I really don't have anything helpful to add to the discussion below. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that discussion of edit warring "tactics" is important if you don't bring reputable sources to the place. If you already have reputable sources fairly and accurately represented, it's not reflective of "planning," it's reflective of vetching regarding the techniques other editors are teaching and of the concomitant cynicism WP has bred to which no one, unfortunately, is immune after years upon years of exposure. A pox on editors for vetching off-Wiki in personal correspondence which no one has yet shown resulted in on-Wiki disruption ? I've already dealt with a pile of evidence which (conveniently?) leaves out complainants starting the conflicts presented, and, IMHO, therefore points to bad faith in their original edits as well as their evidence presented here. I regret that I therefore won't dignify Offliner's "thoughts." Let's judge good faith and bad faith by on-Wiki activities. Period.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence of on-Wiki disruption is presented on evidence page. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently none of the diffs presented there were good enough to make it into FoF... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To Donald Duck, I believe I've responded to said evidence and that what has been characterized as "edit-warring" on my part has been, in fact, my countering of disruption of Wikipedia by other editors. Feel free to come discuss any disruptive edit of mine on my talk page. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Regarding "...Well, apparently none of the diffs presented there were good enough to make it into FoF" can be responded to with apparently the evidence against the EEML and its activities were good enough to make a strong case against it and to put a stop to it. One can only hope that it will set a precedent and warning for future like-minded endeavors not to be pursued on Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the precedent that wikilawyering trumps quality content creation and dedication to this project has been estabilished long ago, and this case is hardly challenging it. And the results of ignoring the basics are becoming increasingly apparent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To Dr. Dan, the case was started with a loaded release of the archive grossly mischaracterizing its contents. Again, let's see the on-Wiki activities and diffs. If they aren't absolutely clear, which they should be given the judgements and invective being heaped upon the EEML members, then there's a bit of a problem. Convicting an entire group of editors for plotting over the better part of a year when there's no on-Wiki evidence to show for it is an issue. (As I've mentioned, evidence even includes contentions that the mailing list has always existed. Even those here to denounce the EEML members can't tell the difference.) <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned repeatedly, too many of the participants in this EEML, and I'll admit they are not all equally guilty, some probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong other than defending the "honor" of something or other, remain in denial. A major problem, however, is that the ringleaders, who should have known better, have refused to acknowledge that their behavior was wrong, is wrong, and unacceptable. Even as late as now, with this case nearing its conclusion, it drones on. And Prokonsul, you are mistaken. If you truly understand that this concept estabilished (sic) long ago (and not by you), was violated, then you would not dispute that this case not only challenged the denial that it was violated, but appears to have taken care of it. At least for the time being. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus has already admited that some things they did were wrong so why are you pretending that he didn't Dan? Not to even mention that you are the last person who can give morals on wiki behavior but lets not go into that. Loosmark (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, is there any reason to keep debating this over and over? The horse is dead. Go have some turkey leftovers. Shell   babelfish 08:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go have some turkey leftovers? If you don't have anything smart to say not saying anything is always an option. Especially since your last appearance here caused the abandonment of the project by Manning. Loosmark (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps that was just too tongue in cheek to come across correctly in print - my point was simply that continuing the same argument for pages and pages isn't solving anything. As for your second remark, unless you have facts that the rest of us don't, please don't make those kinds of attacks. Shell   babelfish 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The same argument for pages and pages? I don't know about that, seems to me we are still on the same page. Apart from that everybody has the right to ask the ArbCom a question. As for the second remark I stand by it, the last time you made a sneaky attack on Jehochman, who is btw a candidate for ArbCom just like you are, and the clerk Manning banned you. After that you started to protest about it loudly and then somebody accused Manning of being biased off-wiki. I'm not saying that you are directly responsable or that you even know the person who attacked Manning but it's clear that your initial comments directed at Jehochman somehow triggered the whole thing. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, well I have to scroll a bit to get all the way down the page, but technically, you've got me there ;) And of course anyone has a right to ask a question, I'm actually referring to the constant back and forth about who's behavior is worse or whether or not there's any "real" evidence - something you seemed to allude to in your early post mentioning the lack of neutral editors commenting here.  As for the rest, in trying to understand Jehochman's vehement defense of the right to have "private" off-wiki bits that affect the Wiki, I came across the complaints that are now an ArbCom request.  I did not intend to attack Jehochman, rather, I was trying to quietly nudge Jehochman into realizing that his comments might be biased for that reason. If three comments to Manning about his decision on his own talk page is "protesting loudly" then yep, consider me guilty. Shell   babelfish 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm as far as I remember his comments, I don't think that is what Jehochman said or meant. I'm too lazy to check it again, maybe he'll clarify his position if he still reads this page. Oh and "quietly nudge"? ;) Loosmark (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jehochman's vehement defense of the right to have "private" off-wiki bits that affect the Wiki."
 * Let's please get back on topic and not go down this road again. KnightLago (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is just silly. Looking back at original question in the beginning of section, only arbs can answer that, others can only speculate at best and that doesn't really help at all.--Staberinde (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When proposing remedies like 3 month or 1 year ban, arbs should always ask themselves, what use would it be. Would it be beneficial for the project to ban Piotrus because he has caused some disruption in the past (let us presume he has), or just put some temporary restrictions in place, so that Piotrus could continue with the good job he's been doing here for years? At least in case of Piotrus, I have a firm belief that Wikipedia would lose more if it would ban him outright and have the risk that he wouldn't return once the ban passes. His content contributions are indeed huge (cf some of his main opponents' contribs: ), and I really don't see any serious, repeated violations of sensible guidelines such as WP:V, WP:UNDUE or WP:POV that would warrant a ban right now. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Piotrus continues
In the spirit of giving, soon to be upon us, I submit evidence of continued disruption by myself: I've just finished my 300th DYK (that makes 18 Eastern European DYKs since the case started - see full list). I implore the Committee to ban me as soon as possible; if this case drags on, it is likely I will commit more such infractions, or finish another dastardly plot, like 20th-something Featured Article. Woe be us all, if that happens. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DYK's do not outweigh your participation in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution. DonaldDuck (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that sanctions where not meant to be punitive, only preventative...--213.219.108.154 (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This post doesn't make it look like Piotrus really understands for what reasons the temporary topic ban is on the table. What pretty much answers the question whether a topic ban will be really preventative. Pantherskin (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he understands even less that if something were to happen to him, like an accident or illness, that Wikipedia would survive and still have DYKs. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Loosmark (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you and others tell, this decision by Arbcom is unfair and counterproductive. It would be reasonable to issue an RR restriction to everyone involved, just like Thatcher did. Who will now benefit from this decision? Russian and German nationalist users? Punks who are placing defamation in ED? BTW, I forget to congratulate all Russian users with the great celebration taking place each November: the Day of liberating Moscow from the Polish occupation. Nasha vzyala! ["we won!"] Tak derzat! And remember what comrade Putin said: "glavnoe, eto chtoby ushi ne torchali" ["leave no traces"]. This is my last word here.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it then that very few non-partisan editors agree with you? And in response to Piotrus there is no question that EEML particpants have caused significant amounts of trouble, wasting time that could have been spent on making more DYKs.  Triplestop  x3  04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? For many reasons. This is a hostile environment. It is so extraordinary hostile that people are placing each other's private emails in public places and debate them. In order to survive here one follows a number of rules that prevent commenting in such cases. Rule #1. Silence is gold. Rule #2. Do not care too much about the content if you do not want to end up like Piotrus. Shell said something about dead horses above. That's an attitude. They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. Happy editing. Biophys (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for bainer (and other ArbCom members)
In light of the fact that you voted to support the principle Off-wiki conduct:A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct, how does that justify a finding of fact that I "participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution" based soley upon off-wiki evidence? Has the standard for grave act of serious misconduct really been set that low? Since when is canvassing (which was admitted to months ago) considered such a grave act of serious misconduct such that a broad topic ban on content creation is preferable over a ban on participating in EE AfDs? It's alleged that remedies are meant to be preventative, not punitive, but if we are going to have punitive remedies, can we at least have the punishment fit the crime? --Martin (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FoF in regard to "canvassing"
In regard to bainer's FoF in regard to canvassing, the issue here, as I have stated a couple of months ago, is whether AfDs are merely a vote or conducted on the merits of the arguments. The evidence shows that the existance of the EEML had no material effect on the outcome of the debate, pointing to the maturity and robustness of the AfD process. To claim otherwise and sanction people for "canvassing" is to admit that Wikipedia is immature. In my case:
 * Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment [20090203-0500], of a total of 9 support votes (compared with 2 oppose votes), only three participants were EEML members at that time, including myself as the merge nominator and Digwuren who was previously involved in that article anyway. Therefore removing the one single vote of Vecrumba leaves a total of 8 votes in support. "Canvassing" had no effect on result


 * Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7 [20090407-2342] "Canvassing" had no effect, result was deletion.


 * The articles Articles for deletion/Estonia–Kazakhstan relations, Articles for deletion/Estonia–Mongolia relations, Articles for deletion/Estonia–New Zealand relations and Articles for deletion/Estonia–Uruguay relations which would have otherwise been deleted, were merged on the basis of Wikipedia's policy that implies if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion . Hence "canvassing" had no effect.


 * Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) [20090804-0059]. 6 deletion votes, 15 keep votes. Remove the 5 votes of EEML members who had not previously edited the article leaves 9 keep votes. "Canvassing" had no effect


 * Articles for deletion/Communist genocide [20090806-0526], was subjected to 2 subsequent AfDs  after the EEML was revealed to all during the AfD discussions, yet the same result: No concensus. Therefore "canvassing" had no effect.
 * --Martin (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the canvassing had "effect" is irrelevant. You are still disrupting the representative participation of the community which skews consensus.  Triplestop  x3  04:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course effect is important. How can there be "disruption" when there is no effective change or skew in "consensus"? --Martin (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So if I shoot someone I should get away with it because they survived? And who's to say if I keep shooting people some are not going to survive? My point is that canvassing is disruptive ipso facto and a preventative sanction to prevent further canvassing from having "effect" is needed.  Triplestop x3 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I miss Manning.radek (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a valid analogy. Notifying someone of a discussion is not morally equivalent to murdering someone in cold blood. We can all religously chant "canvassing is disruptive" until this article of faith appears ipso facto, but it's not what the evidence actually tells us. We are a part of the representative community in regard to matters involving EE topics, no EEML member is outside that circle of EE involvement. If all EEML members voted in every AfD mentioned, then yes, I would agree there was canvassing, but that did not happen. List members only participated in those AfD discussions of interest to them and supported/opposed according to their own view. So where is this "canvassing"? People have tried in the past to fly AfDs under the radar by miscategorising the discussion. I want to be informed of any AfD debate in my area of interest without having to waste time wading through discussion categories. Isn't it about time Wikipedia grows up and institute mature robust policies rather than play these silly games? This is resulting in people leaving the project in droves. --Martin (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are still defending the practices of the EEML is once again proof that a the temporary ban is preventative and not punitive. Pantherskin (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really miss Manning.radek (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In my perusal of the archives of the mailing list, two process discussions stood out to me in particular. Those being Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_29. The first discussion (notpropaganda) is a discussion which I myself instigated for the reasons stated at the TfD. One will note that most "uninvolved" editors in the discussion went the way of delete as per the nomination. It is my belief that the mailing list members have used the mailing list to skirt around policies such as concensus building and NPOV in an effort to push their own agenda - whether one wants to call it an anti-Russian agenda, that is up to them, but I am broadly construing it as an anti-Russian agenda. The comments by editors in the first TfD would back this somewhat. Because there was sufficient evidence that the template in question was divisive and pointish the list members were not able to subvert community consensus. However, at the Moldovan CfD, they were able to subvert consensus building by using the mailing list to canvass amongst themselves, and their participation in that CfD made sure that it stayed put. Several editors point to their interest in these areas, but for instance in the case of Martintg, I don't recall him being all that interested in Moldovan topics outside of being canvassed on the list. It is because there have been instances where the list members have created false consensus by sheer numbers, that the entire lot of them should be banned for a period of at least 6-12 months from all process discussions. If they abuse the good faith of the community, which they have, there needs to be consequences, not a pat on the head, and a "run along". But consequences.--Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) re: "Whether or not the canvassing had "effect" is irrelevant. You are still disrupting the representative participation of the community which skews consensus." Without the EEML, I would have found all the articles and talk pages I found and commented on and would have participated in exactly the same way. How do I know this? I can't even access personal mail during the day. I only read my personal mail every 3 days or even once a week and I check Wikipedia multiple times a day. 1 in a 100 times I saw a note about something where I wasn't (a) already aware of it and (b) had already participated if I had an editorial opinion to express. As I see it: I can tell you categorically in my case there was no effect and the charges of canvassing are not only circumstantial but also irrelevant, as there has been no indication of disruptive conduct on my part. Additionally, as no one has yet detected any change in editorial behaviors before the list and during the list, the list is irrelevant to on-Wiki events&mdash;in fact what we have seen is the opposite, that behavior has been so consistent on the part of EEML members that it is proof the EEML has existed for years, it's just not in the archive. I'll have more to say when the posting of findings is complete as I'd rather address everything at once. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The findings presented as the EEML conducting a "campaign" = a priori guilty as charged, presumes the EEML was formed in bad faith and participated in in bad faith and the members of the EEML list would not have found "items of interest" on their own anyway
 * 2) the findings of timings = proof of canvassing = presumes cause and effect
 * P.S. Russavia, you must be feeling awfully confident. Thank you for confirming that you want everyone banned for a year so that you and editors who share your viewpoint&mdash;as demonstrated by the attack content you, Offliner, and Anti-Nationalist (you three in particular) have attempted to create&mdash;have free reign. My perception, of course. As for my contentions of "attack content" on the part of yourself and others, I stand behind my presentation at Evidence, do not misconstrue my comments here as a "personal attack." Good luck to you on your ban-hammer request, I trust it is seen for what (I believe) it is. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Attack content that I, Offliner and Anti-Nationalist have attempted to create? That we desire to have free reign in this area? But alas, my dear Vecrumba, I can only speak for myself, and will do so, and I can say that I have absolutely zero desire to have any free reign in any area of Wikipedia, for I am not here to advocate and to pick off opponents as the list members have done, but to help build an encyclopaedia in a collegial atmosphere. If that means ensuring that disruptive editors, such as those on the mailing list, are removed from specific areas for a period of time, then so be it. Therein lies the difference between the reality and the reality that you wish to portray. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my dear Russavia, perhaps I was only imagining "Off with their heads!" here and your melt-down over Dyukov et al. at The Soviet Story. If you wish a collegial atmosphere focused on building content fairly and accurately representing reputable sources, consider leading by example instead of showing up merely to lobby for decapitation. Do please show me any on-Wiki contribution of mine which constitutes "disruption." <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I want to thank Bainer for his extensive review of the evidence and listing, one by one, all instances where inappropriate canvassing has occurred. This makes it easy to assess if any disruption occurred, and teaches all editors about what behavior is inappropriate with an example. I also want to note that in recognition of his concerns even before his detailed analysis was posted I've raised this issue before (see here and here). To summarize them, I do agree that canvassing requests should be made publicly, not privately. I also want to point out that I habitually make such requests publicly (by starting Requested Moves, announcing the votes on public noticeboards and such), and that I made private requests only in the few rare cases (the 7 cases in 10 months that Bainer has now listed). Further, as others have pointed out, some editors might have learned about the votes from notifications in other places, not via emails (some didn't read them often, some didn't read them at all); so to automatically assume all votes by group members are a result of an email is also a fallacy. Finally, I want to point out that canvassing done on the group was done not to gather yes men, but to inform editors of subjects of interests; I've had some people ask me to inform them of such issues via email as they don't watchlist on wiki pages listing them, for example. Please note in the links below 1) the lack of pure support/oppose votes and 2) that despite more than 15 email recipients, on average, 1-4 people had interest (and I would like to think, knowledge enough) to vote. Now, onto discussion of my actions:


 * Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States [20090711-1625]
 * I announced this on the group as it was precisely the type of content that the group members shared interest in, nonetheless only 4 group members joined. Please note that I've - as usual - canvassed to attract attention to this in other places, such as on the milhist deletion list (now, if I wanted to have only group member votes, why would I do that?). There were many other votes (close to 20 total), and, in any case, the issue was revisited in Articles for deletion/Soviet-run peace movements in the West after this arbitration case has started; this time, despite the lack of participation by the group members (as some of them, even having learned about the vote via other means, were now too scared to participate in it), the community verdict was a rather strong keep (again).
 * Files for deletion/2009 August 12 [20090818-0328]
 * This was an interesting issue, a rare image-centered discussion, and I raised it on the email list partially due to it being so strange. As usual, the group members did not outweigh the community members; a non-free user rationale was provided and expanded, and the discussion eventually ended in no consensus. While I think that the group members who voted there made sound arguments and engage in discussion, I would have no problem with restarting this discussion and vote, particularly - as you will see - it is the only one in which group members participation might have "swung" the vote.
 * a series of requested move discussions started by : Talk:Władysław_Siemaszko, Talk:Commission for the Determination of Place Names, Talk:Recovered Territories/Archive 4 [20090830-1820]
 * I stand by the requests I made there; they were all initiated suddenly by a user with little experience in moving articles, and were all problematic due to going against estabilished noncontroversial MoS policies. The first one was an almost unwatched article that was strangely to be moved against our long standing naming policies (use of diacritics); second and third ones were against naming convention (no need to disambiguate if there are no other entities to confuse this one with). They were all snowballs, even without members participation.
 * Talk:Tiškevičiai_Palace,_Palanga [20090907-0129]
 * Short story, this attracted 4 votes, but nonetheless there was no consensus to move. It is also the only example where it is clear that that the group members disagreed with other editors (although as the discussion had only participants from two camps that disagreed from the very beginning, and did not attract any outside voters, one can hardly talk about any community consensus in this case).
 * Talk:World War II evacuation and expulsion [20090910-2144]
 * I and others also canvassed by advertising this move in multiple places, including related articles and noticeboards (ex. here or here, here and so on). I have not voted in this vote; 4 other group members voted, disagreeing with one another (3 supports, 1 oppose). It is a complex issue, that will need to be revisited in the future.
 * Talk:Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki [20090913-1754]
 * Not a vote, just a discussion. Responses from the list: one. After convincing arguments by an editor whom I initially disagreed with, there was no opposition to carrying the move he wanted.
 * Talk:Web brigades [20090913-1833]
 * Responses from the list: two - one support, one oppose. Notably, the proposal also attracted support from some of the people who regularly disagree with us - such as Offliner. In fact, on that particular issue, I believed (and still believe) some of the group members were wrong, and it is the reason I started this discussion. In the end, despite what I think was a support for the original proposal, no merge was carried out.

Regarding my votes in other discussions, I stand by all of them - I have responded only to notifications where I found I could contribute to the discussions in question. Most of them did pop up on my watchlist anyway, and I voted often before I got the email :)

To sum up, only in one instance the community consensus might have been affected due to my actions regarding canvassing in private. In five out of those seven cases the community either outnumbered and agreed with the group members anyway, or there was no consensus among both the community and the group members. As I've pointed out above, I understand now more about issues with such canvassing and will not repeat it. But I do not believe than any of the cases above were disruptive to project; in fact, I think that they were all constructive, as they generated meaningful discussion. In the end, WP:IAR is still a rule. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Russavia and Vecrumba, (and to everyone else) please stay on topic. Let's also keep the sarcasm to a minimum. Calling each other dear is unnecessary. Please stay focused on the proposed decision. As always, this is not the place to be interpreting or justifying your or anyone else's actions. That can be done on the evidence page along with differences. The case is now in the home stretch, so please remain civil and remember, this case is not going to be won or lost on the proposed decision's talk page. Let me know if anyone has any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should mine and Martin's replies be copied to evidence, or are they fine here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the FoF, it merely states the facts (hence the name "Finding of Fact"). The part about who canvassed the list is not questionable, the parts on who participated after the canvassing is merely a statement of what happened; nothing is implied. This is important evidence and should stay.  Triplestop  x3  22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re to Russavia. Four highly productive content editors are banned for a year from all subjects they used to edit, and this is not enough for you? One suppose to be "everyone's best friend, not a shadowy figure in the corner", as one man said. Agree?Biophys (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Canvassing" et al.
I am assuming there is an appropriate point at which I may respond to the "findings." When is that? Thank you. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Waiting. As I have not had to defend myself against findings, ever, I don't know the protocol as I abhor these affairs and have intentionally avoided developing any proficiency at them. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to post your interpretation and views on the proposed decision on this page at anytime. KnightLago (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Regarding proposal 3.2), "Piotrus is allowed to create new articles pertaining to the topic area in his userspace and request them moved to mainspace by uninvolved administrators". It does not seem that this proposal will pass, but given this edit by Piotrus it seems that a temporary topic ban could be circumvented by creating English articles on pl.wikipedia which could then be posted on en.wikipedia by someone else. Would this count as a circumvention of the temporary topic ban? Pantherskin (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stalking me, and worrying how to prevent creation of uncontroversial content creation. Anyway, I'd appreciate clarification on this from arbcom, particularly in light of 1) the fact that Russavia has been doing just that (creating articles on simple en wiki and having others move them to en wiki (past example, latest request) - for the record, this is not a jab at Russavia, but an illustration of how topic ban are pointless - I don't understand why he is not allowed to create those articles here, they are constructive and helpful and so on) and 2) our policy on allowable meatpuppetry. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's cut to the chase, Prokonsul. Was there cabal? Did you participate in it? Did you contrive plans to "neutralize" contributors who you disagreed with? Were they stalked? Was it wrong? And lastly, if the shoe were on the other foot, would you be in favor of having such editors allowed to continue as administrators, and editors on Wikipedia without reprimand? That would be more enlightening than the number of DYKs that you've been working on, and all the rest of this banter. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really really miss Manning.radek (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Dan has been issued a first and final warning. The case pages are not for interrogating other users. Also, Piotrus has been asked to choose his words more carefully and email any questions directly to the committee. I encourage anyone who has an interpretation question to do the same thing. Please remain calm and civil. The case is close to wrapping up. I plan to work on redoing the implementation notes tomorrow, and have sent another email to the arbitrators asking them to work on concluding this case. KnightLago (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I may have been overly optimistic. KnightLago (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Decision needs to be revised: Network Piotrus, Radeksz, Digwuren, Molobo, Jacurek et al still active
As Coren mentioned, the arbitrators are aware of the additional evidence and are looking into it. As this is the proposed decision talk page, this is not the place to talk about new evidence. Therefore, this thread is closed. Regardless of the evidence, we must all be careful not to post other user's personal information. Questions about the substance of the case should be emailed directly to the arbitrators. Email is the quickest and the best way I know of to get your questions answered. Also, (as a reminder to everyone) talk pages are not the place to question other users. Try the user's talk page. If that does not work then you are out of luck. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This oversighted diff proves Radeksz, blocked Jacurek, blocked Molobo, Piotrus, Digwuren still coordinate off-wiki. Why Durova was mentioned there also needs to be clarified. The diff proves that the group is using other venues than the mailing list (which is also evident from the hints to the IM network in the EEML archive), that there is at least one subgroup of the EEML (Piotrus, Radeksz, Molobo, Jacurek, Digwuren) and that articles are still "developed" collaborative with all the blocked users on the list and then copypasted on-wiki by the ones who are not (yet) banned.

I am confident there are enough people who are able to analyze deleted diffs. Maybe some of them are able to translate the Polish traffic. I request this case not be closed as long as the analysis of the diff takes, and that the arbs discuss the relevancy, i.e. if not the remedies must be adopted now that it is evident that there is no intention at least of the named users to ever stop. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The cabal also seems to targetting arbitrators active in this case (Piotrus appears to say that Flonight has shown her true colours), and there also seems to be involvement against User:Jehochman. There appears to be some solid evidence that these guys just are not going to stop with their antics. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 23:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And what is that about: Radeksz setting up a private wiki for his "huge family"? See also this analysis of the diff, Abd and Vecrumba on board? Skäpperöd (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have emailed to arbitrators to make sure they are aware of the situation. Let's keep the speculation and accusations to a minimum. This page is solely for discussion of the proposed decision. Russavia, let's please avoid further use of the term cabal. It is a loaded word that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. KnightLago (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can stop using cabal for time being. However, of interest is that one of the emails has the subject identifier of [POLKAB], which most likely stands for "Polska kabała" (or Polish cabal). Interesting, no? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take note of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence. Private wikis are nothing to do with us, as anyone can sign up for wikispaces. I think it is quite telling that they are still targetting users - this time around arbitrators and admins currently up for election for arbcom. And also telling that User:Digwuren seems to have a somewhat unhealthy continued interest in goings on in WP, even though he has retired. His proposed remedy definitely needs to be relooked at. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We have been made aware of this, and will be looking into it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Polkab" stands for "Polska Arbitration". It was about the impact of the case on Poland related articles and WP:Poland. I replied to it after seeing Piotrus request for clarification above saying that if I had seen Russavia's "List of Ambassadors..." article on Simple Wiki I would have copied it to En Wiki for Russavia myself as it was a good article.

And Skapperod, yes, I do have a huge family and I started a personal wiki for us and you better step back on this. You're basically outting personal information from an oversighted edit.

Durova showed up because she's more or less randomly in my gmail sidebar (I had emailed her once in the past and the sidebar has all the email addresses I sent, arranged alphabetically).

I also send a message to a few folks expressing my opinions on the current AC candidates. I stated that at the moment I didn't plan to vote either "for" or "against" Jehomann - I was (and am) undecided. I forwarded him the relevant part of my message.

You people are insane. Seriously.radek (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Radeksz, can you explain why you posted Schieder commission on behalf of User:Molobo, who is a banned user? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, also, if Polkab, stands for "Polish Arbitration" what is the Polish word for arbitration? The Russian word is арбитраж; Google translate gives us Polish 1. arbitraż 2. sąd rozjemczy 3. arbitrażowanie 4. rozjemstwo. Is that list connected with the Polish Wikipedia? Or English Wikipedia? Just curious, because my lists on Simple Wikipedia were being discussed on that list, which is kind of odd, given that you say it is an arbitration list; or is Polska kabala the most logical guess? Look forward to your response. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of us on Wiki use a mixed Polish-English vocabulary-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but I can't fathom how one could get the word "arbitration" from "kab"? In either English or Polish? As I said above, "Polska kabała" (or Polish cabal) is the most logical meaning, is it not? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like a very bad-faith act of proxying to me. Funny how the arbitrators' notes on the participants excluded a lot of clearly incriminating information, like the obvious-as-day canvassing that was performed at Talk:Nochnoy Dozor (group) by Martintg, Digwuren and Vecrumba, after a couple of e-mails from Sander directing the members there, and Vecrumba's e-mailed confirmation that he had acted on it. (Vecrumba can always, of course, show up here and say that he'd been following the discussion page there all along, as he's done on so many occasions in the past, but I don't think that anybody from a neutral party looking at the thread of e-mails and the discussion would be pleased with that.) Can we actually address what has been going on? Is it just a plain old matter of the election-time lobbying, or does ArbCom really need to have some teeth put into it? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would read the email in Polish it would be clear that this is not proxing, but assitance in providing references for Radek's work, and in fact I state it clearly in Polish that Radek should organize and edit the article per his standards and views.. Also wikipedia allows editing on behalf on blocked users, providing the editor making the edit is willing to stand up for the edit.

If ARBCOM wishes I can provide the email I sent to Radek in full. It will be clear he didn't proxy as what I wrote is different from what he edited .The sentence about Radek organizing and editing his version of the article per him own is in the visible section though.

Oh and yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. In this case even that is very far from that, all sources are online from what I recall and Radek's version is independent from my suggestions to him(Again can provide emails to ARBCOM confirming that he reviewed sources, made his own changes, checked sources-all were online). Yes he did collaborate with me on writing the article, but this is not proxying.

.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz proxying for banned user Molobo today - is he still not going to get his preventative 3-month block?
Closing this as well. Same reasoning as above closed section. KnightLago (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The recently oversighted diff contains clear evidence that Radeksz was proxying for banned user User:Molobo today at Schieder commission. Look at Molobo's email (in Polish) at the bottom of the diff. In the email Molobo sent Radeksz text that he wanted added to the article. Radeksz then proceeds to do just that. I don't think there is any reason to believe that Radeksz is going to stop proxying for this banned user, so a preventative block may be necessary for the duration of this arbitration case. Why was the proposed 3-month block dropped anyway? Offliner (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you would read the email in Polish it would be clear that this is not proxing, but mostly assitance in providing references for Radek's work, and in fact I state it clearly in Polish that Radek should organize and edit the article per his standards and views.. Also wikipedia allows editing on behalf on blocked users, providing the editor making the edit is willing to stand up for the edit.

If ARBCOM wishes I can provide the email I sent to Radek in full. It will be clear he didn't proxy as what I wrote is different from what he edited. Oh and yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them. In this case even that is very far from that, all sources are online from what I recall and Radek's version is independent from my suggestions to him(Again can provide emails to ARBCOM confirming that he reviewed sources, made his own changes, checked sources-all were online). Yes he did collaborate with me on writing the article, but this is not proxying.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC) --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I informed Molobo I was writing the article on the commission and send him a draft for a proofread. He wrote back with some new sources I missed and some suggestions including some text. I reviewed the text, kept some, threw out some of the rest.radek (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Molobo claims that "what I wrote is different from what he edited"; however, if you look at the diff of Radeksz' post, it should be clear that the text he is inserting to the article is directly cutpasted from Molobo's email. The lines are cut off in exactly the same way as they are in Molobo's Polish text. Moreover, it's clear that the text has been cutpasted from a Gmail account - everyone is welcome to try cutpasting similar text from Gmail to a Wikipedia article, the result will be the same. Offliner (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Radek, how can we be sure that any of your edits, past present and future do not violate policies in this way? This appears to be just one example  Triplestop  x3  03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * At worst it proves that Molobo can write good articles. Feel free to AfD the article if you don't like it, let's see how the community will laugh such a proposal out :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, are you aware of one User:Peter Damian, and what he did? Are you saying that as long as you write good content you can do whatever you want?  Triplestop  x3  03:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment about questioning parties below. KnightLago (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption - note for Coren
In reference to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision, Coren, can you please remove User:Biophys from this, as I can not see Biophys in there. It is likely that an editor mistook a name that begins with A and ends with S for Biophys. As such, he should not be mentioned in this particular PD. Having said that, it would appear that User:Biruitorul is present, and whether he should be added or not, well I will leave that up to you. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Russavia.radek (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please email the committee directly. KnightLago (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste error; you'll note Biophys didn't end up in the remedies. Will fix in a jiffy. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is blatant lie by Offliner. If there is anything about me, this is forgery. I stopped participating in the list immediately after beginning of this case. Dear EEML participants, if you continue doing this, remember that all your emails will be intercepted one way or another. If you want to use such lists, please do it publicly. And no coordination by email. Period. Biophys (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I added your name by mistake, and corrected it afterwards. Offliner (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the reason for mistake?Biophys (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to believe that you and Russavia do not know name of Digwuren and decided that his name was mine? Fine, that does not really matter.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Offliner has lied in his evidence. I have not participated in the list either, there are no [WPM] headers associated with me in this oversighted diff. --Martin (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is evidence that you are participating. In any case, you are exchanging emails with other mailing list members as you have done before. Offliner (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I know that is a blatant lie, there is no such evidence, I've seen the oversighted diff. BTW, when did directly emailing a co-participant of this case in regard to the result be considered "disruption"? --Martin (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And which Wikipedia rule - or even remedy in this case - makes exchanging emails with others punishable? Btw, I am declaring that in few seconds I will send Offliner an email... beware :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. This pretty much shows the level of competence that Coren brings to this ArbCom circus (just like the ultra sloppiness with the supposed emails when he didn't even bother to correct date stamps after it was pointed out to him repeatedly... and listed same emails twice just for the hell of it). Putting Biophys in there is a sick joke. Hell, even Russavia noticed that Biophys is nowhere near these mails - only way I can make sense of it is that Coren was copy/pasting Offliner, who in turn was making stuff up again. Russavia making more sense then an Arbitrator ... my head's gonna explode.radek (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Radeksz, your comment is uncalled for. I have already warned Biophys about his comments. Everyone needs to take a step back, remain cool, and avoid unhelpful accusations. KnightLago (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren's actions
Seems Coren has posted year long site bans citing "Given the continuing disruption" for a slew of people. Presumably Coren has bought into the wiki-dramu generated by Offliner, Russavia and Anti-Nationalist over Radek's oversighted dif. Given that the principles Off-wiki communication and Off-wiki conduct were passed unanimously and since there was no proposed decision drafted providing guidance on the continuation of the maillist (I've curtailed my involvement in the list in any case), aren't Coren's actions a tad bit over the top? --Martin (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Same question to you as Radeksz above, how can we be sure that none of your edits violate policy behind the scenes like this, given what we have seen? This appears to be just one example.  Triplestop  x3  03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Triplestop, this is about the third time I have typed this today. Do not question parties. It is not your job and this is not the appropriate place. If the arbitrators have a question they will ask it. Otherwise try the individual user's talk page. KnightLago (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Triplestop, care to point to some Polish article I have ever edited, let alone edited on behalf of Molobo? I have to question the way Coren has made a snap judgment and precipitously posted these remedies unilaterally, without due consideration or consultation with other Committee members. I don't see why I should be equally held culpable for something that is permitted by policy but didn't do in any case. Coren also waived the Workshop phase saying it was an experiment in keeping order, which is the role of the clerks anyway, until Manning was forced to resign and quit the project. Now it seems John V has resigned from the Committee too. What the heck is going on here? --Martin (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, in response to KnightLago, sorry for questioning parties, I should have phrased my comment better. In response to Martin, Coren is posting the remedies for voting by others. It seems that John V resigned due to the Gerard issue.  Triplestop  x3  04:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren posted these remedies within an hour or so of voting to close the case, which indicates than due consideration of this evidence was not properly given. Apparently my name was mentioned in this oversighted diff. I would like to see this evidence that Coren claims warrants a one year site ban. --Martin (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence was supressed, you should ask Radek.  Triplestop  x3  05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Arbitration Committee can email me directly with this evidence against me that I am continuing to participate in this mailling list (regardless of the fact that the committee has unanimously endorsed the principles Off-wiki communication and Off-wiki conduct and made no other guidance or direction regarding the continuation of the maillist). --Martin (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What's going on? What continued disruption?
I have no idea what's going on, and frankly, I am fast loosing capacity to care. Real emails? Fake emails? All I know is that I have full right to talk to whomever I want about anything I want and that I have respected all Wikipedia rules to the letter since this case opened. Most certainly, I have not participated in any off wiki coordination of any disruptive actions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduct on this page
Please can all those posting to this page continue to show restraint and avoid unhelpful or provocative comments. The recent developments are being discussed by the arbitrators and I'm drawing attention to what is being said here, including calls for any new evidence to be fully or partially disclosed to the relevant parties. Please don't argue about it here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unhelpful and provocative comments are what is driving the remedies being proposed in this case, including Coren's latest. How can you ask the proles to behave themselves when some of the Arbs are very obviously playing up to those very "unhelpful and provocative" comments?radek (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon, Radek. Who are proles? And why are you following "eye for an eye" rule? I hope no hacking was involved this time, Radekz? Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Me. You. Etc.radek (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. And reading Orwell, you can't imagine a broad picture of what you are doing there? I was always amused by people enjoying Orwell and unable to apply its lessons. To this not "1984", but "Animal Farm" fits perfectly. And you owe me jedna zlotowka for this idea. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop with the unhelpful and provocative comments or I am going to start banning people. Enough is enough. KnightLago (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana's proposals
Vassyana's proposed remedies are a step in the right direction if these remedies are in lieu of 1 year topic bans (and a 1 year site ban just because I directly sent an email to one of the participants regarding the case result?), as they directly address the core issue of this case and why it was originally opened: coordination via maillist participation. Otherwise this case remains a train wreck. --Martin (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. Placing Ostap and Hillock under such restrictions can not be justified by any evidence. Besides, if these additional sanctions are reaction on the continuous disruption, they should not target any editors who are not involved in this disruption and changed behavior like me. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with both. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, 11C can only be applied to editors who are found guilty of canvassing in Fofs; and the remedy should only be applied to votes. Biophys (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [comment removed].Biophys (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And this is relevant to the discussion of Vassyana's proposals how? I'm not Polish or Baltic, I'm from Australia. Is this some kind of attempt to sow disinformation to discredit me as this mole? ;o)) --Martin (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not! I am sorry for this misunderstanding. It is inappropriate to bring any national sentiments here, but I consider you a Baltic editor and myself a Russian editor. This is not about place of living, but about national culture. As about the "mole", I can not really elaborate on that beyond noticing the existence of such. Did you notice how much trouble comes with the secrecy of the mailing list? Biophys (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I proposed before a wide restriction on 1RR on Eastern European topics similiar to Digwuren restriction.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposals by Vassyana would be just fine as an alternative to wide topic bans, but each editor mentioned there should be found guilty of serious violations in Fofs.Biophys (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, can Arbcome impose indefinite restrictions rather than restrictions limited by only one year? Biophys (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 02:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana's proposals – and the guilt by association

 *  Re: Proposed remedies 
 * Editors under revert restriction
 * 11B) All list members [..] named in this decision {see: 3.2 Proposed findings of fact: 3.2.4 - complete list of participants: NO EXCEPTIONS} are indefinitely placed under a group revert restriction {no like-minded individuals allowed}
 * Editors under discussion restriction
 * 11C) All list members [..] named in this decisions {per above, NO EXCEPTIONS} are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction

The above two proposals defy common sense, because they make no distinction between who is who, and who did what, and what is in their own contribution history. According to Vassyana all EEML members past and present (active, inactive, long unsubscribed, and clearly innocent) are to be banned forever from participating in anything East of the Berlin Wall. Wouldn’t that be a mockery of justice if it passed?

It is a well known fact that users with actual real knowledge (and the ability to share it), are usually busy living and have no time to waste on petty disagreements. Most people who are active professionally find ways to achieve their objectives with the least effort. Sometimes, they join groups of like-minded individuals which is the most traditional method of working toward an educated goal, even if in the end, the group fails to meet the expectations. However, there’s only one way to find out what is what, namely, by trial and error. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 11B makes a lot of sense as WP discussion should be based on reasoning, not !vote. However, as three-revert rule is in place, this would be necessary. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 06:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like Vassyana to please respond to my enquiry. It is extremely important that you clarify your intentions in light of the unbelievable severity of the above proposals. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefinite does not mean forever, but rather an unknown length of time. Some editors are unlikely to have the restrictions lifted in the foreseeable future. Others are likely to find it relatively easy to appeal at least the voting restriction in a comparatively short period of time. That noted, where you see unbelievable severity, I see extremely limited measures. The revert measure only prevents tag-team reverting. If anyone find that particularly burdensome, it speaks more to a need for a readjustment in editing approach than to the failings of the measure. The other is more substantive, but still extremely limited. Votes and vote-like discussions comprise a tiny minority of discussions and interactions, even in the most contentious and divided areas of the wiki. They are not even remotely complete topic bans. On the breadth of editors covered, it is admittedly a wide net with a variety of individuals. That breadth is based on a large amount of convincing evidence creating a perception of a tangible risk of canvassing, vote stacking, tag team edit warring, etc across a broad swath of editors. They institute limited impositions for a considerable level of prevention. Vassyana (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Vassyana, I see your point, even though conversing on this subpage feels to me like riding a runaway train about to plunge into a canyon with innocent people onboard. I don’t mind your far-reaching remedies, for as long as they relate to convincing evidence of misconduct. Please try to make a distinction in your proposed remedies between those who did nothing wrong, and the few culpable others. A little fairness shouldn't be too much to ask. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  00:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Topic bans aside, is it still permissible to an editor under a voting restriction to add a comment (clearly labeled as not a vote) to a RM or FA discussion, or start such a discussion, indicating one resigns his nominator vote? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please protect EE related articles

 * Due to new revelations of unchanged and continuous behaviour by EEML "members", presented on this page; after yet other attempt of proxying for banned EEML member (copying blindly too much text) and after ever growing number of heated dispute and perhaps intentionally swamping pages during arbitration; I encourage Arbiters to reconsider reinstalling temporary injunction - topic ban, like it was attempted to do previously. As we do not know how long this case will last - it may take days, weeks or even month and such injunction will end any future disruption on EE topics by EEML plotters.
 * That said, mistake of previous arbitration was not sanction plotting enough. I don't think that most "members" should receive sanction lesser than CAMERA mailing list members but also considering their reluctance to change and be deterred by sanctions. There should be nothing below a one year block at very least and a two year or indefinite topic ban. M.K. (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I also have the hairs on my head standing looking at these mild sanctions. But miss Fortuna is miss Fortuna. If they believe this Piotrus 5th arbcom would reform him, they have a right to that. The problem is that they can't evaluate Piotrus content contributions. DYK, FA, GA mechanisms do allow completely biased articles to get through. Nobody cares. Conflicts would stay, although not to the same extent and scale. But after one year everything would return back on a track. We can't hope that whistleblower would again strike or Radeksz would update the right IE window :-) with Cabal news. Look, Piotrus wrote to Radeksz talk page that he changed his signature! So they would cipher their correspondence like spies (Justas to Alex) to prevent disclosure problems. And they work right now to ensure their failures won't bring problems to them. Clearly they don't want to stop. Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, provocative comments are unnecessary and this is not the place to discuss evidence. Try the evidence talk page, and leave the provocative comments at home. KnightLago (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question/Absurd
Is communicating off-wiki not allowed ? If so why does an email function exist ? What exactly is "on-going" distruption mentioned-exchanging emails on Wiki issues outside Wiki public spaces ? Providing references ? All of this is allowed to the extent of my knowledge. Really, please show any evidence of distruption, because I honestly don't think exchanging private mails is classified as disruption. Perhaps I should publish my sent emails that contain such "disruptive" comments as: providing references, asking if somebody needs any sources from library, or pointing to previous discussions on Reliable Sources noticeboard ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page should answer most of your questions. The EEML was not about asking people for library assistance. csloat (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I am not precise enough. I am asking about the alledged "continued disruption" not about the initial EEML case, although a lot of that is overblown personal talk, and in fact article discussions, rather then horror stories on "evidence" page :)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the references were RevisionDeleted/suppressed because of privacy issue. I think, however, that Arbitrators have access to them. (Remember that Arbitrators, by default, are given OS rights - not sure about CU...) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have access to this. However It shuld be no problem to point any "disruption" if it accured on Wikipedia, the oversight deletion concerns one accidental revision only.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Question re disposition of cases and involved arbitrators' terms
Given the new evidence and the time it might take for the arbs active on this case to evaluate it and vote - could someone clarify how you have, in the past, dealt with cases that spanned terms? FloNight's term ends soon and Coren is now up for re-election. Novickas (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbs have a choice to either go inactive on a case or stay active for the open cases that carry over into the next year. In order to not get into the middle of a case and then leave, I went inactive on all new cases several weeks ago. Now that Stephen Bainer added his new proposals, we should close fairly soon. I anticipate that this case will close before the end of the year, but if it does not, then I plan to finish it out. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) ;
 * Thanks for clarification. Novickas (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "new evidence" and perhaps provide diff's to edits constituting that "evidence" ?

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On 03:09, December 4, 2009 Arb User:Risker struck out her support for this case's closure, stating: "On hold pending review of new evidence." . Novickas (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I am aware of that. However can we any diffs regarding alledged "disruption" which so far has remained elusive and unspecified.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC) "Some evidence, where applicable, are private enough that they are sent directly to arbcom-l mailing list." To the extent of my knowledge Arbcom deals with anything that has effect on publicly available Wikipedia pages. If anything damaged any article or election process as result of "new evidence" then even without releasing private emails(which for example I am quite willing to do) it should be easy to point to articles, votes or anything else where some damage accured as result. Unless of course this "new evidence" is not really condemning in any way.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC) PS:Some evidence, where applicable, are private enough that they are sent directly to arbcom-l mailing list-good, none of my mails that had misfortune of being shown in Radek's edit are private so much, that they can't be revealed. Should I present them ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some evidence, where applicable, are private enough that they are sent directly to arbcom-l mailing list. Re: Novickas, normally the incoming arbitrators are automatically considered inactive unless they choose to get involved. Basically, once an arbitrator participates in a case, he or she usually sees the case through. (So, in this case, you may potentially get up to 20 voting members.) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of amusing numbers, what's the longest case in ArbCom history? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of the older cases last 2 months+. The original EE dispute was almost 4 months. Highways 2 was 3 months.... - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Scientology which was almost six months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Scientology was the longest. KnightLago (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of morbid curiosity- does anybody know much text the longest one consumed ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean how long the arbitration pages were? You can find that rather easily, by going to them, clicking edit, and adding their kb sizes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification from ARBCOM/potential abuse of proposition 11C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Editors_under_discussion_restriction

''list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction.''

I am not quite sure how to understand this, and I think it has potential for very serious abuse. Examples:
 * 1. Somebody creates an article, one of editors that are in dispute here pops up and nominates it for deletion, other editors that are here in dispute show up and push over for deletion. Should we understand that a person who created this article is not allowed to comment or debate on the deletion of the article he created ? Of course he could contact other editors about this-but then he would expose himself to being accused of canvassing.
 * 2. Somebody enters an information into a existing article. An editor for example who was in dispute here, shows up, starts a vote "should we delete this information"(I have seen such votes on Wikipedia), other editors who were in dispute before with the person editing the information show up and press for deletion of that information. Does it mean that the person can't engage in debate regarding his edits in the article ?
 * 3. An editor is not sure how to put forward some information in the article he created or any other issue. He asks for comments and voting on what way he should proceed. Would he be banned for engaging in vote process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In effect this proposal creates unintentionally a green light for deleting any articles or information by editors named in the arbcom. Shouldn't this be a bit clarified to avoid potential abusive situations ? Knowing how wiki works, they are a lot of situations were only a few people patricipate on votes and this can create a potential flaw of neutrality where two or three people(or more) will be able to organize themselvs and constantly delete articles or information by editors pointed by the Arbcom by starting a vote about any edit or articles created.

I would kindly ask a clarification on this ruling.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed an addition that permits editors to use dispute resolution and normal content review processes where they are directly involved. Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only editors who found guilty of canvassing in Fofs may be placed under such restriction. Would not you agree? What would be a reason for placing Ostap or me under this restriction? Biophys (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding continued disruption
Please provide evidence that I have been engaged in activities on-Wiki which have been coordinated off-Wiki including "editing by proxy for banned users"&mdash;I categorically have not&mdash;so that I may respond appropriately, or please strike my name from this finding. Thank you. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the finding was in this section for the canvassing; regarding proxy-editing I currently interpret as certain named parties in the statement have done so, not all named parties in this section has done so. On that last front, you may want to ask Coren to clarify for you. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 09:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't over-react
I have been generally in favour of severe sanctions in this case, but with this latest rush of draconian proposals in response to Radek's involuntary disclosure I must interject: arbs, please don't over-react. Let's be clear about one thing. Off-wiki correspondence is, in and of itself, nothing illegitimate. People involved on the same side of an arbcom case will coordinate behind the scenes. Everybody does it; I did it too. This includes coordinating evidence submission, discussing tactics, venting about opponents, making unfavorable comments about arbitrators, and so on. If in this case some of the people involved were using the same existing structure of the mailing list for this business, that's only natural too. We all knew the list continued to exist; Radek kept telling us that for several weeks.

So, has there been continuing disruption caused through this coordination? One case in point would be if it could be shown that the initiatives of getting some arbitrators recused had taken the shape of a collective "targeting" and hounding of those arbitrators through coordinated action by several list members. From what I know so far it seems that only Piotrus alone made that attempt – and he has already paid the price for it, in terms of losing goodwill points with the arbs. Merely having discussed these attempts with the others is not in itself grounds for additional blame.

Another case in point would be if it could be shown that the level of content planning reached the level of illegitimate proxying for Molobo. This seems a borderline thing though. Whether Piotrus' and Radek's editing in their new articles also warrants the description of biased/tendentious editing is a different issue, and can be judged on the basis of the on-wiki edits alone.

In short, I would warn against over-reactions, especially against a rash assumption of collective guilt in response merely to the fact that the list still continued to exist and was used to discuss the case. I think some of the new proposals (especially the collective application of 3RR) may be a good idea, but the sudden move to outright ban the whole lot simply because they were still on the list seems not appropriate to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks. One thing though - the Schieder commission article was only worked on by myself and Molobo. Piotrus didn't have anything to do with it except once mentioning that it's a topic which deserves its own article. Of course I don't think I did anything wrong here - but Piotrus wasn't no where near it, except making one very minor edit after it was up. I would encourage anyone to look through the article, point out anything that is incorrect in it (be specific though please - no general and ambiguous accusations), expend it, improve it, etc. As with any other article on Wikipedia.radek (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My personal two cents here would be that because only the parties and the Arbitration Committee have access to these evidences, it is very hard for us commentators to know what is and what isn't warranted. Personally I think that participation would be on different levels and therefore I find a blanket 1-year ban to be excessive in certain cases. However, I don't have the list to look at, so I hope that the situation is grave enough to warrant it. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll post what was in it that was relevant here and on WR shortly - after removing all the personal info. FP is right below.radek (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've gathered (much is discussed on WR, as usual), there isn't really a terrible lot. The leaked material only contained e-mail headings and a few bits of text here and there; nothing seriously incriminating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please, do not make new additional sanctions for editors who were not even mentioned in the new evidence like Ostap, me and some others. I mean remedies 11B and 11C. The case was about to be closed. I am asking because this remedy prevents me from creating an alternative account to edit on different subjects (but some of them in EE area), which I was about to do after being outed three times and having defamatory posts about me on the internet.Biophys (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have never discussed this case offsite with Radeksz. The only reason he had my email address was because we had a brief correspondence for two days last June. I have no idea what else has arisen lately. Durova 371 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry, I don't think anybody is still talking about any role of yours. Wasn't that misunderstanding about your name having accidentally been on the same page cleared up quite quickly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure hope so, thanks. Durova 371 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, we're all glad that got cleared up quickly. Durova, would you be so kind as to update us on your work concerning this and if you've been able to contact your former associates at Amnesty International? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FoF - Miacek
There's more to come but I feel I have to comment on this right now: Account sharing 20.1) Miacek offered to share access to several unidentified alternate accounts that he controlled to other members of the list in contravention of both the user accounts policy and the alternate account policy. [20090602-1428]    Support:

1. Indeed, the offer was extended to a user who had recently been blocked for abuse of alternate accounts. --bainer (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is gross misunderstanding. Firstly, the account I had registered in May 2008 was no longer accessible because I had forgotten the password long time ago. Secondly, I definitely did not intend to share my account with User:Molobo, with whom I had nothing else in common other than belonging to the same list (yes, the list did include people with very different background and POVs). Rather, my comment [20090602-1428] was an overtly ironic reflection, given that some of the list members had been struggling hard to prove Molobo had not resorted to sock puppetry, whereas it came out that he had indeed. So I just made an ironic comment passing by, perhaps not really polite, as we both belonged to the same list at the moment, yet I disapproved of sock puppetry and the pointless campaign of whitewashing Molobo. I cannot see, how anyone with basic knowledge of the EE section of Wikipedia editing could take this comment for a serious offer. I do feel like the section needs to be striked through as inaccurate and one-sided depiction of events. You just cannot build up a case based solely on stolen chat items. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In [20090602-1428] you mention a number of accounts that you found the details to. The message is in reply to a conversation in which various list members discuss the disadvantages of Molobo creating sockpuppets of his own, at least while there was fresh CheckUser data available on his account. There is no obvious joke. I don't see how it could not be interpreted as a serious offer. --bainer (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, it was not a serious offer. Neither I or anyone else requires sockpuppets. Those are the domain of people pushing content without having reputable sources to back it up. I am appalled at how vile an image you have of the EEML members. You don't rule on content but you rule on what we were  thinking ? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 03:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well what is your view of, for example, [20090601-1730], [20090622-1620], [20090701-0204] & [20090703-1737]? --bainer (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen, I don't have access to the archive at the moment so I can't check, but anyone who knows an Estonian will tell you their humour is of their own style of sarcasm that others may or may not readily understand . The fact that no one on the maillist actually took up Miacek's "offer" shows that the maillist members understand that it was not a serious offer to begin with. --Martin (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To Bainer, per the ":(" on permaban (reading the first), per Marting's above. On that and the rest, quite frankly, when one has been assaulted for years&mdash;Offliner, PasswordUsername and Russavia are only the latest in a long line, many of whom came out of the woodwork at the proceedings to grind their POV pushing axes&mdash;one "seriously" (that is, not) discusses resorting to the same tactics or worse (e.g., the "plan" to harrass Russavia in real life). This is why any conclusion you draw from your self-believed objective view of a mail archive containing personal Emails is tainted. You take sarcasm and cynicism over the state of WP as being expressions of true intent. If you wish to gauge how "serious" a discussion was, then measure it by the results . For example, show me a sockpuppet that any EEML member created during the existence of the list, and I'll be the first in line to support sanctions. Instead, I have a one year ban proposed regarding my "continuous" disruption based on what? On no on-Wiki evidence of anything other than what I have been expressing as editorial (or personal) opinion for years, totally unchanged.
 * I've dealt with, for example, Offliner's evidence. Rule on whether I was edit-warring (as he says) or whether I was undoing his attack content (as I say). No, you can't do that, you're agnostic and it's a content dispute? You recognize you cannot rule on content in an article, but you can rule on what you concoct to be content in my head . Please stop speculating over what was most likely inside my head or anyone else's head based on reading our personal correspondence. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 04:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to focus on the fact that this offer was never pursued and never used (reminds me of Tymek's offer, but I guess I missed Miacek's). Was Miacek ironic? Serious? Are assuming bad faith? Good? If I declare here (on elsewhere) that I intend to vandalize Wikipedia but never do that, and you find out about my declaration few month later, will you consider it enough to ban me or otherwise restrict me (I wonder how many people on WPReview and similar foras should be worried...)? Or if I send you an email in which I say that I intend to commit a crime, and I never carry it out, would - if the email comes to light a few months later - this email be seen as an intend to commit crime? Perhaps somebody with legal training can explain intention (criminal law) (and how is it different from thoughtcrime); personally, I will just shake my had at the dead spirit of AGF (not to mention, secrecy of correspondence and privacy in general). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prokonsul, we've really come 180 degrees (or 360), with that analysis. I mean ..."this email [can] be seen as an intend (sic) to commit [a] crime?" Originally we were informed that the emails were possibly, somehow, adulterated and altered. Now they have become mere expressions that were never acted upon. Seems strange. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When the original claim was that over half of the 3000+ emails were about "getting" Russavia, then yes, the claims the emails were doctored was entirely valid. --Martin (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin, I'm not talking about claims concerning what or who the emails were about. Just about whether they were "doctored" or not. Which ones were doctored? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the answer. The response regarding "doctored" was regarding Alex Bakharev's grossly prejudicial announcement of the archive; that description could not possibly be applicable unless the archive was severely tampered with. There are multiple copies flying about with different time stamps, to date none has been checked for authenticity. Where I still have messages and have responded to cited messages as found in what appears to be a copy of the archive (that I did not get through ArbCom, so I don't know what they have), I have checked those specific messages only. Regardless, ArbCom has already ruled "authentic" and the lynching mentality has already set in, based on the one year ban proposed for myself based on suppositions on what's inside my head&mdash;suppositions which require, a priori, that I am participating in Wikipedia in bad faith and to be disruptive. That is a conviction looking for anything which can be construed as evidence, plain and simple. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are misunderstanding the question. Are any of the members of the mailing list still claiming that the emails are not authentic or have been doctored by someone at this late stage of the proceeding? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is relevant to Miacek's FoF how? Perhaps you didn't understand the clerk's warning issued just a couple of days ago? --Martin (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to draw analogies to concepts in real-world legal systems, I would recommend viewing inchoate offence. --bainer (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting article, which states that every inchoate offense must have the mens rea of intent. For all the assumptions of intent that one may or may not attribute to others due to their involvement in past ArbCom cases, it is not really fair that these same assumptions be transferred to Miacek by virtue of his short lived association with the EEML, having joined in March, left briefly in June/July, and finally leaving in August for a variety of reasons, according to his evidence statement: (1) different editing pattern from that of the other participants (2) he tended to disagree with the participants and wished to be completely independent. This statement, which he made months before this FoF was crafted, is consistent with his statement above. On that basis, combined with the fact of his non-involvement in past EE disputes, the committee should accept that there was no mens rea of intent here. --Martin (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, it looks like he is following-up on your comment above about the claims the emails were doctored being valid. I think this line of discussion is a little off topic, so I suggest everyone focus back on Miacek's FoF. Also, it is not your job to regulate user conduct occurring on arbitration case pages or remind other users of my warnings. Please stop. KnightLago (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kightlago is correct that my question was merely to understand why this claim that the emails were doctored is being brought up again. But as usual even a simple question (that probably if answered honestly would not benefit the email list members) is met with hostility and obfuscations. Martin you ask me, "This is relevant to Miacek's FoF how?" yet post, , to explain why the account sharing offer could not be interpreted as a serious offer. I suppose you think that was relevant and helpful and OT? Besides I didn't think that Miacek or his crime fighting dog were Estonian (at least not Miacek). Seriously, if you want to make this more OT, fine. Miacek answers Bainer with "You just cannot build up a case based solely on stolen chat items." Is that a defense or what? If in fact the "items" were just chat, if the "items" were stolen, that would have settled this a long time ago. But the truth of the matter is the items were not stolen and the items were not just chat. And the person who had the courage and honesty to put an end to this "group" needs to be thanked and commended at some point. I don't know how this is going to end but it is my fervent hope that the committee will make an effort to prevent something like this arising again in the future with their final decision. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You say "my question was merely to understand why this claim that the emails were doctored is being brought up again." Where is this claim being brought up again in this thread? And who brought it up? Re-reading this thread it appears it is you. So your question was merely to understand why you yourself brought it up? You are not making any sense Dr. Dan. Perhaps you should read this article that appeared in The Independent regarding interpretation of emails being a subjective matter --Martin (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * " Where is this claim being brought up again in this thread? And who brought it up? " Uh, Hello! . Wasn't that you? As for your suggestion to read the article from "The Independent", I read it and found it to be irrelevant to all of this, and a bit boring too. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, now we are way off topic. Please drop this line of discussion and return to discussion of the FoF or I am going to close this thread. KnightLago (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FoF - Martintg
I have to commend bainer in his efforts to examine actual on-wiki disruption in his latest FoF draft. There are a couple of issues I will address later today due to time constraints, however I must strongly express my sheer astonishment that bainer would actually recycle Coren's ill-crafted FoF with these emails [20090404-0554] and [20090615-0607], which contradicts the principles Off-wiki communication and Off-wiki conduct. I've said before and I say it again, idle musings of what-if scenarios done for entertainment is just that, to attempt to frame private off-wiki musings as evidence of "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" is appalling. This thought police stuff has no place within a FoF. There are plenty of editors who openly express views contrary to the "Wikipedian creed", in venues such as Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica. One admin even explicitly states she regularly contributes to both Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica. So this element really needs to be struck from my FoF, as I don't believe the role of the ArbCom is to pass moral judgement based upon the questionable interpretation of private banter. --Martin (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've had time to review some more of bainer's FoF regarding me (more to follow).

"Coordinated tag team edit warring":
 * [20090328-1329] in regard to Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee: It is true that I got into an edit war in this article, in fact I ended up getting my very first block for violating 3RR (coming almost 24 hours after I had in fact undone my forth revert after I was made aware of it), so I am to be punished twice for this? I point out however that I was already aware of the existence of this article due to other emails previous to [20090328-1329], in fact I had suggested the creation of this article. So my first edits were not in response to [20090328-1329], but coincidental.
 * [20090818-0407] in regard to Anti-Russian sentiment, note that this email in fact post-dates these edits. This article is watch listed by many for obvious reasons. There was no co-ordination here, edit warring arose spontaneously, the email came after. Is there a mistake with these diffs? the 1st is PasswordUsername(Anti-nationalist), 2nd Radeksz, 3rd PasswordUsername, 4th me, 5th PasswordUsername again, 6th me on something different, 7th PasswordUsername again. This appears that PasswordUsername(Anti-nationalist) actually violated 3RR, hence the email [20090818-0407] cited here (which leads to another issue I will address below)
 * [20090915-1810] in regard to Battle of Konotop. That single revert was my own initiative, nobody asked me to make that revert. My impression was that this IP was being disruptive. In hindsight that was a mistake and I shouldn't have done that. --Martin (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Abuse of dispute resolution processes":
 * [20090813-0025][20090818-0407] Apparently asking someone else to post a 3RR report on my behalf is now considered "abuse of dispute resolution". I just reviewed WP:DR and I couldn't find any guidance there. I didn't think WP:PROXYING applied as I'm currently not banned. But of course the policies and guidelines are marvelously arcane, providing broad latitude for interpretation allowing for elasticity in application, to be applied as tightly or loosely as the situation and personalities involved warrants. Even former committee member John VB was caught out, having resigned over Mike Godwin's intervention to quash what were allegedly libelous claims John made on behalf of the Committee in regard to a certain user abusing his CU privileges. So if it was wrong to ask someone else to post a 3RR report then please update policy accordingly so others will not make the same mistake. While I do take issue with the characterization that I "abused" the dispute resolution process given the lack of clear guidance to begin with, I stand corrected. --Martin (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With regards to Anti-Russian sentiment, I reached the characterisation of [20090818-0407] that I did in the context of [20090811-1747] ff, [20090813-0025] ff, [20090817-2140] ff and [20090818-0043] ff.
 * With regards to Battle of Konotop, I would note that your revert there was your first and only edit to the article, that the IP address in question had only made one edit in almost the past two months (to an article you have never edited), and that the only other edit that IP has made to an article that you have also edited was to international recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia more than a year earlier (see ).
 * There is nothing wrong with asking someone to help you out with formatting a 3RR report, or some such. Asking someone to post a 3RR report for you because you "just recently escaped a similar report, so... don't want to be seen as combative" ([20090813-0025]) is deceptive and an abuse of the relevant dispute resolution process. Calling on "[Jacurek] or someone else not involve [sic]" ([20090818-0407]) to post a 3RR report for you is similarly deceptive. --bainer (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As you said here: "Yes, we're not going to un-see it." Once I saw the emails regarding Battle of Konotop, I thought I would check out what the commotion was about, out of my own curiosity and on my own initiative. The diff you provided shows this IP was vandalising International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, changing a section header from Organizations and states that condemn the Russian recognition to Organizations and states that show hypocritical behaviour, so my impression that this IP was being disruptive to Battle of Konotop was correct after all.
 * PasswordUsername was serially being disruptive across quite a number of articles at that time, such as Anti-Russian sentiment, Neo-Nazism and The Soviet Story, wheeling around making 3 even 4 reverts several times across these articles. Yet getting any kind of dispute resolution assistance on anything, let alone something as basic as edit warring is extraordinarily difficult given the apparent resistance exhibited by certain members of the admin community. Even when I do submit a report of a clear cut 3RR violation, referencing current and previous disruption, it gets archived with an hour with no more than a slap on the wrist. I've documented this ongoing chronic disruption here, and even while this case is ongoing PasswordUsername/AntiNationalist has lodged combatively vexatious ANI report and AE report while edit warring on Lia Looveer. If you think I was being deceptive, I am sorry, it was my feeble attempt to overcome this apparent resistance to getting any kind of resolution to this ongoing chronic disruption to Estonia related articles. Admin User:Henrik suggested a six month topic ban from Estonia or Baltic related topics for Anti-Nationalist in that AE report, but as usual it eventually got archived without any resolution. I just want to edit Estonia related articles in peace without this kind of endemic disruption by these editors that appear to be motivated by something that seems somewhat untoward, but the community is failing us. --Martin (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP's edit to the international recognition page was almost thirteen months earlier and you were not editing the page at the same time. The edit was reverted by another editor. I don't consider it plausible that you made the edit because you remembered the IP address from that time, and happened to decide at that moment to check out its contributions. --bainer (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not say that at all. Please re-read my comment. I said "As you said here: "Yes, we're not going to un-see it." ", meaning that I saw these particular emails from the Polish editors, and thus was unable to unsee those emails (which I generally delete unread as one does with topics of no interest on maillists). While I don't normally involve myself in Polish topics, my own curiosity got the better of me and so I checked out that page out of my own initiative. At the time I judged that IP was being disruptive and reverted him. Since then I had expressed my doubt about that revert above. But then you posted that diff that shows this IP vandalising that section header, thus confirming my initial judgment back then that this IP was in fact a disruptive IP. --Martin (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FoF - Vecrumba
I believe that that ArbCom has not considered my statements regarding both restrictions on access of personal Email and habits regarding access of Wikipedia. There's also Anti-Nationalist's recent disparaging comment. Therefore, I shall once again document my Wikihabits:
 * 1) For my web design business, I run Apache on my laptop. I have a multi-tabbed home page for myself which includes one dedicated to Wikipedia, supported by PHP code which generates, given a title:
 * 2) For articles of interest: "A" "Ah" "T" "Th" article-name, click on
 * 3) * "A" for article
 * 4) * "Ah" for article history
 * 5) * "T" for article talk
 * 6) * "Th" for article talk history
 * 7) For editors of interest: "U" "C" "T" "Th" user-name, click on
 * 8) * "U" for user page
 * 9) * "C" for user contributions
 * 10) * "T" for user talk
 * 11) * "Th" for user talk history
 * 12) I also have "single click" menu items for my own
 * 13) * user page
 * 14) * contributions
 * 15) * user talk and
 * 16) * user talk history.
 * 17) Point: Keeping tabs on editors and articles a one click away.
 * 18) Having no access to personal email at work (IP blocked for security), I only bulk-read my personal Email. Everyone I correspond with regularly has my work Email address and sends mail to both. I usually catch up on personal Emails on the weekend, but not always.
 * 19) As my AOL account has been with me for many years and is the Email address listed for my DNS names, I receive every piece of spam mail on the planet (hence my not reading mail unless I'm prepared to sift through at least a hundred).
 * 20) As I do periodically throughout the day, when I get home late, I once again check Wikipedia for anything of note (if I even bother to boot up). Even on the weekend, as I'm working on customer projects, I'll check WP periodically for a mental health (these days, anguish) break but not deal with Email, for the reason already mentioned.
 * 21) Only whenever I have time and energy do I read my Email. If the archive is indeed accurate and complete, you will find mention in it more than once of my bulk-reading Email habits.
 * 22) Given checking Email once or twice a week versus checking Wikipedia 10+ times a day, what do you consider is the most likeliest answer to my showing up somewhere? ArbCom is quick to dismiss hacking charges as an act of conscience being the most likely answer regarding the appearance of the archive. Where is there any recognition of the likeliest answer here? Indeed, not only for myself, but every other EEML member, I am 99.999% confident we would have shown up in all the same places and said all the same things. How do I know this? No perceived difference in behaviors prior to or subsequent to existence of the list.

To editor Stephen Bains' proposed findings:

21) Vecrumba participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing: (accusation: "campaign" of bad faith)
 * Vecrumba has canvassed the list in regards to the following discussions:
 * Articles for deletion/Internet operations by Russian secret police [20090322-1502]
 * "See you there" is not canvassing, as the nomination was created by Russavia and the article is on most editors' watch list, this was my commentary on the situation, not a call to action, you will note a smiley which acknowledges I didn't really need to let anyone know, they would have found Russavia's and my contributions anyway via keeping tabs on activities. Assumption of bad faith and accusation ("campaign") of bad faith.
 * Vecrumba has participated in the following discussions after having been canvassed:
 * Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090202-1725]
 * I had already participated in more than one of these after these started popping up (categories and articles). You will note that the UTC time is 2:00 PM EASTERN on a WORK DAY, so I edited from work and I would not have even read the Email in question. Additionally, Biruitorul is on my list of editors who I check to see if they are doing anything interesting. Assumption of cause and effect.
 * Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090203-0500]
 * It's a weekend, but the afternoon, so definitely before reading Emails. I most likely arrived checking on what Russavia was doing. Assumption of cause and effect.
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 7 after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090407-2342]
 * A whole pile of activity I would have noted. And as regards to "continuing disruption", where is the collegial atmosphere Russavia professes to aspire to (note his use of "f**k"). Exactly who is engaged in continuous disruption here? Assumption of cause and effect.
 * Files for deletion/2009 July 11 after having been canvassed by Jacurek [20090711-1554]
 * Had been on my watch list after the first AfF attempt where I commented extensively at the first nomination for deletion as well. Assumption of cause and effect.
 * Talk:History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991) after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090717-1803]
 * Would have come across active editors. Assumption of cause and effect. Note also that PasswordUsername (Anti-Nationalist) subsequent to mine agrees.
 * Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) after having been canvassed by Martintg [20090804-0059]
 * Second time around (I commented the first time, too), already watchlisted. Assumption of cause and effect.
 * Files for deletion/2009 August 12 after having been canvassed by Piotrus [20090818-0328]
 * My custom Wikipage includes a Piotrus link. (There are currently 44 editor links total.) I always keep an eye out for deletion nominations as I find them more often than not in the EE space to be attempts at censorship.
 * Talk:Communist Romania after having been canvassed by Biruitorul [20090912-1939]
 * Sorry, would have noticed Anonimu's nomination. Assumption of cause and effect.

While appearances are everything in these sorts of proceedings, these "appearances" are all based on the sensational way the archive was first released and the piling on by every editorial opponent of anyone on the EEML list, even returned from years of inactivity. To admins supporting the findings regarding my conduct, please add the note: "This administrator finds the alleged timing more persuasive than Vecrumba's statements regarding their Wikipedia activities, which this administrator dismisses as not relevant to these instances." I request same of Stephen Bains as the originator of said findings. I am not being difficult, I am requesting a clear and unequivocal statement on the part of any ArbCom member finding in the positive that what I have stated repeatedly, and again here, is being ignored. Lastly, if finding in the positive, please also confirm my on-Wiki participation regarding these specific items was  disruptive  and indicate how. While not considering myself having engaged in disruptive behavior, I would wish to avoid edits/conduct which may be construed as disruptive in the future. Thank you. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [refactored as advised by KnightLago] Dear Vecrumba: a benevolent thank you for this kind of act of self-disclosure!! I would be further grateful, still, if you could make a statement in this regard as to whether I was one of the editors whom you "kept tabs" on. You see, I am concerned that stalking editors – which, as I am personally very certain, you have done – and then writing to your list about attempts to get them blocked if they overreact or consequently accuse you of stalking – which is confirmed by archive evidence – might be perceived as a disruptive sort of conduct. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [refactored per request, thank you, grouchy on only my first cup of coffee] "Stalking" is following and harassing editors at articles, in particular, then disagreeing with them just for the sake of being disruptive. There is nothing sinister about window-shopping to see what's in fashion, to do so is not shop-lifting. For example, all I have to do is click on my "Latvia + Nazi" search button to see that of late you're creating stub biographies for anyone mentioned in the news as a Latvian Nazi collaborator. It's what I do, or don't do, and how, after that which constitutes (or not) "disruption," that is, if and when I state my editorial position, is it based on representing reputable sources fairly and accurately, or is it just to be contrarian. If ArbCom is interested, I would be glad to Email them a link to my Wiki-watch page. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti-Nationalist and Vecrumba, please refactor the above text to remove the accusatory and provocative comments. They are unnecessary and unwelcome on these pages. Please stop. I am fine with lively debate, but not bickering that detracts from that debate. KnightLago (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the loudness of someone crying "harassment", when their contributions are viewed, is proportional to the amount of edits they don't want others to see. I've never had issues with people viewing my contributions, as I don't do edits I should be ashamed of. In fact, once when an abusive (and now permabanned) user accused me of all seven deadly sins, I asked my contributions to be reviewed by the community - unsurprisingly, no issues were found. -- Sander Säde 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. Anybody is welcome to review and scrutinize my edits. Complaining about editors using the public contributions function makes as much sense as complaining that one has people watchlisting their talk page (at last count, I had 12.66 centijimbos :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to spell it out - collaborating with a banned user on an article
According to Wikipedia policy it is fine to post on behalf of banned user as long as one takes full responsibility for the edits which I of course do. See here. Specifically: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying", unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.. I verified the changes and I've been thinking about writing this article myself for a long time. Molobo wrote portions of it and suggested sources.

In fact here is an example of an administrator, Alex Bakharve doing exactly that for a banned user: on Embassy of Russia in Copenhagen and even giving that user DYK credit. I've said at the time that this was perfectly legit action by Alex and Russavia and others agreed. In one of the email headers I state that I would have done it for Russavia myself with another of his Simple Wiki articles.

Please tell me this isn't a "all editors are equal but some are more equal than others" kind of thing - where it's ok for an administrator (or somebody on one side of the present conflict) to do it, but it's a bad thing (despite what the policy says) for us lesser mortals.radek (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, Alex did that October 12, 2009, Russiavia's block log is

:# 00:31, September 18, 2009 Jéské Couriano (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Russavia (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list)


 * And Russavia isn't banned, he is merely blocked.  MBisanz  talk 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh - what? Russavia was topic banned. He obviously could not have posted that article himself or he would have done so. Which is why Alex had to do it for him. Are you Wikilawyering here? The policy is what it is.radek (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Russavia's article was already on-wiki in Simple English Wikipedia and Alex Bakharev included Russavia name into his edit summary, taking responsibility.
 * 2. Molobo's edits were done offwiki, and you did not include Molobo's name into your edit summary. To take responsibility you had to disclose fact of editing on behalf of Molobo first.DonaldDuck (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple Wiki isn't "on-wiki". And I was going to put the DYK credit box on Molobo's page (once it got accepted) just like Alex did for Russavia, before this silliness took off. Please keep in mind that I was still working on the article when this happened - whereas Alex simply copy/pasted Russavia's completed article (whereas this was more of a shared effort).radek (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't say he was topic banned at the time, but regardless, the simple-wiki publication negates that. I believe such practice is actually encouraged by the Committee.  You might look at the precedents of Rootology's work at Commons during a site ban, Jack Merridew's work at Wikisource during a site ban and ScienceApologist's work at Wikisource I believe during a site ban all of which I believe contributed to Wikipedia and were known to Arbcom at the time of their unbanning.  I believe the fatal flaw of what you and Molobo did may have been that it was not a public collaboration so it could not be considered above board.   MBisanz  talk 07:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought that anyone commenting here would be familiar enough with the background. Anyway - please re-read the policy which I quoted above. It doesn't say anything about it having to be on Simple Wiki or anything like that - it just says that I need to verify it and have an independent reason for writing the article.
 * The fact that one can do work at Wikisource or Commons while banned on Wikipedia I think goes without saying and I don't see how it is relevant to this situation.radek (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Radek sais, it is completely unclear that email collaboration is less preferable to collaboration on some other wiki. This should be clarified in a policy, because 99.99% of wiki editors are hardly aware of any wikipolitics precedents. Relevant policy cited by Radek doesn't address that at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is nothing in the policy about the form of contact; for the record I am not banned but blocked. There is no explanation in the policy what form of contact is advisable, off-wiki, email, personal contact, through other wiki pages, forums, IRC and so on. Perhaps it should be clarified so that no further misunderstandings arise. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actions by Alex and Radek are just fine per WP:IAR. It is assumed that they are fully responsible for content they placed, including verification of references, NPOV and other criteria. If anyone disagree, please discuss and correct the content.Biophys (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No collective punishment for writing emails
Could you please follow two basic principles accepted in previous cases? #1 No collective punishment. That was used even in CAMERA case. #2 Punishment should be supported by findings of fact. Everyone sanctioned in 11A must be guilty of harassing Russavia (but some email participants never even talked with him). Everyone sanctioned in 11B must be found guilty of solicitating edit warring in emails. Everyone sanctioned in 11C must be found guilty of canvassing in Fofs. As a practical matter, no one cares about 11A. But 11B and 11C are serious restrictions that you are going to impose indefinitely on seventeen editors. Biophys (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom can be nice - but when?
I am curious why there are no findings clarifying that the parties have done something constructive (like, you know, becoming one of the Top 50 most active contributors, writing numerous things that can be abbreviated here in two-three letters, etc. :D). This was done in past arbcoms, examples: here, more recent: here, here. How is it that we don't merit a kind word? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Open ended permanent sanctions?
"11C) All list members and sanctioned editors named in this decisions are indefinitely placed under a discussion restriction. The restricted editors are prohibited from engaging in any voting or vote-like process addressing or within the Eastern European topic area, broadly construed. Replies to enforcement and other threads directly about or involving them are exempted from this restriction." Indefinite needs a term. Unless defined, indefinite means forever. Please word as "permanent" or provide a time interval. Thank you. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also request that the potential future resulting stacking of voting by unsanctioned editors involved in creating attack content (as has already been demonstrated in evidence at these proceedings) regarding the Baltics et al. still be reportable for administrative review by "all list members and sanctioned editors". Otherwise this is an invitatation for open season on all Baltic/EE articles. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is just an invitation for people who wish to edit those articles without sanction to play by the rules. It has nothing to do with content, and the continuing comments to that effect are really a red herring.  The content of these articles will continue to evolve with participating editors the way the content of all other articles evolves. csloat (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for my cynicism, but the only people left in the Baltic/EE space are those defending the Baltics and EE against biased attacks and historical lies, and those seeking to promulgate attacks and lies, e.g., Russvia's melt-down at The Soviet Story over Dyukov. You suggest anyone except someone fully committed to defending their heritage and the facts (not personal truths as Russavia has specifically accused me of) of history is going to stick around for that sort of abuse? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Content disputes exist on all topics on Wikipedia; there is nothing unique about the Baltic states making those content disputes categorically different from any other content disputes. Are you seriously suggesting we should allow flagrant and continuing abuse of the rules simply to counter some perceived bias on individual articles' content?  If Russavia is editing according to rules, his biases will be challenged as normal using the WP:DR process.  We should be patient with that process even if we disagree with him on specific edits.  If he is not editing according to rules, there are proper forums for dealing with that, including RfC, AN/I, and Arbcom.  But in either case that does not give other rule breakers a free pass. csloat (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that one. Baltic states are faced with a very opposite historical view from a essentially a non-democratic state which has been known to employ both historians and information warfare against its perceived adversaries.At the same time Russia dwarfs them in population size(and thus potential Wiki contributors). I believe the fears of Baltic editors that articles on Wikipedia could be biased against them, are somewhat justifiable(although of course certain views in historiography in Baltic states has its own problems). However at the same time, this goes a little beyond Arbcom case here, and rather shows inability of Wikipedia to deal with some issues reflecting real world use of internet by government(Wikiscanner is just amusing if used as counter-argument), and the fact of population differences and available Wiki-users. To be honest though I can't think of any solution at the moment to that. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 1-year bans
Please provide specific diffs where I have created any content which does not fairly and accurately represent sources (versus a host of editors who have posted "evidence" against myself and others who have not upheld such standards). A one-year ban is proposed, yet I don't believe that I have ever misrepresented a source or "pushed" a POV by inserting unsourced content or content not fairly and accurately representing reputable sources. I request specific diffs of on-Wiki conduct (not allegations of timings) which is so egregious as to warrant a one year ban for "continuing" disruption. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read this comment by one of the arbitrators, you'll note that the content we created is not seen as problematic, it is the several instances of canvassing that occurred that are. I am fine with the anti-canvassing remedies, which were discussed and supported by community earlier and are now proposed by Vassayna. I have however asked, repeatedly, why is there any need for topic bans; and I would like to repeat this question, given that now we we have remedies 11B and 11C, and they are likely to pass. Is there anything problematic with my EE edits in the past few months? Have any of the almost 20 DYKs I created (#283-300 here) or a similar amount that Radek wrote (listed here) been problematic? Is my work maintaining WikiProject Poland disruptive? Any analysis of my past edits will show that 99.9% of them were irrelevant to any canvassing, voting, reverting, etc.; like many other active members of the email list, I create uncontroversial content (DYKs, GAs, FAs, templates like this one, etc.). What is the justification for preventing me from doing so? PS. I am completely aware that there are some editors out there who specifically want to prevent us from creating content, and who want to see the topic bans in place, decimating most active Polish and Baltic editors, so they will have a free reign rewriting content that has been kept neutral for the past years (neutral, as in Featured, reviewed for Good Article status, etc.; as far as I know not a single editor supporting topic bans have ever written a Featured Article). It is my hope that this will be taken into consideration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, by "the substance of the content is of no concern to the Arbitration Committee" I meant that the Committee is concerned with behaviour, and it is not our role to make judgments on questions of content. It's not our place to say whether specific pieces of content are or are not problematic; we are agnostic on the subject. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that Flonight justifies broad topic bans by her desire "to see these editors work on other topics to show that they can function in our community following the rules", are not the processes involved in gaining multiple GAs and FAs evidence enough that Piotrus does effectively function in our community following the rules? If there are lingering doubts, is it really that difficult to at least suspend the topic bans with a one-strike-and-you're-out provision? --Martin (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One does not have to rule on "content" to determine who is, and who is not, representing reputable sources fairly and accurately, and who is out to create content which clearly does not does not, who is out to create informative content, and who is out to create informative content as long as it says only negative things about the Baltics and Eastern Europe. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 02:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I understand what you say, although I do wonder how compatible it is with WP:IAR? Now, if IAR is a toothless policy, shouldn't it be finally retired? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it ought to be if people are going to use it as an excuse to break any rule on a constant basis. But if you read the supplemental essays and background rather than just the title of the page you would note that this really isn't the spirit of IAR. csloat (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read them, and I am pretty much sure than in most cases, IAR was respected in spirit. And if there were a few questionable instances, well, to err is human. Sadly, there are apparently no divine beings on Wikipedia :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Question to Carcharoth, Flonight and other Arbcom members
This has gone off topic and is now closed. KnightLago (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of difficulty distinguishing between the various participants in this case and different conflict areas within EE space that you cannot offer anything beyond one-size-fits-all remedies applicable to all in the same measure, without apparent regard for past record, character or area of conflict? You know, I recall growing up in white protestant anglo-saxon Australia of the 1970's where many people had trouble distinguishing between the different southern European immigrant communities, all of them being collectively called "wogs". I hope this is not the case here, even though one community member seriously claimed that the EEML was a "part of an overall effort to make English wikipedia more Polish". To re-iterate, the areas of dispute are (correct me if I get this wrong Piotr) Lithuanian/Polish shared history, German/Polish shared history, alleged Estonian collaboration in WW2 and contemporary Russian politics.

I don't understand Flonight's support for broad topic bans or Carcharoth support for a blanket indefinite revert and discussion restrictions for all 17 mail list participants (including the so called "whistleblower" the ArbCom likes to believe was so appalled by behaviour of the EEML) with the comment "Based also on previous cases. Cumulative effect". Many of the participants were not even involved in previous cases. I was not an involved party to the WP:DIGWUREN case and while I was dragged into the Eastern European disputes case, I was subsequently exonerated. I can live with these revert and discussion restrictions for the good of the project (why these restrictions are not also applied to Offliner, Anti-Nationalist, Russavia, et al, is a mystery to me), but why am I being scapegoated with a broad topic ban as well? I have never edited Lithuanian/Polish or German/Polish space to any significant degree, let alone Hungarian, Czech or Belarusan topic spaces. Contemporary Russian politics? Sure topic ban me from that, but a broad topic ban is simply gratuitously punitive in my view. --Martin (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I regret to have to observe that "based on previous cases" would appear to be proof that mud does indeed, stick. Is that really the intent here? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 02:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that on wiki, one's reputation is bound to resemble a bell curve (mini essay). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It reminds me of attempts to portray us as anti-Russian, even through at least one of the members was Russian himself... :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In [20090609-1542] EEML member asks if all people in the "fresh enemies list", compiled by another EEML member are Russian.DonaldDuck (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Since when did the unsolicited viewpoint one person represent the views of all 17? --Martin (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting take, to be sure. I'm sorry, I've been watching this from afar, and I just can't get past this last bit. U  A  23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous? How? If your contribute to a forum, say Wikipedia review, and someone posts something inappropriate on some thread that you may not have even read, does that make you automatically personally culpable for their viewpoint? I think not. --Martin (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe in collective guilt, then yes. In either case, I am pretty sure I criticized the choice of words of that email. Framing is important; not the least because framing things in a battleground language makes one act in a battleground manner, even if subconsciously. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Membership on forums like Wikipedia review is indiscriminate, membership on your list was very selective was it not? Now a question for you Martin. Why didn't you apply your logic when you participated in debates on the Communist genocide? There crimes of a few people calling themselves communists were blamed on the communist ideology. (Igny (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia review does require an application to join. As I said earlier here, now archived, there was no charter on the aims of the list, it just evolved from regular email communications that we all do and the foundation encourages via the provision of the email feature. Subsequent invitations were extended to those who we felt were reasonable people (I suppose the definition of "reasonable" would be debatable depending upon where you stand). There certainly were no ethnic criteria, one member is Russian, and there are a few others who would have been invited, you for example, Alex Bakharev and others. Of course in hindsight the whole concept of the maillist was somewhat flawed for the reasons I outlined previously. Well Communist genocide is off topic here, but as I said before the original article had some problems, that is why I voted to rename it to Mass killings under Communist regimes, the veracity of which mainstream sources and my partner's Russian late great grand parents will attest to. --Martin (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My only goal is to end the disruption that is associated with articles related to the EE topic. I'm choosing to leave all members of the group as editors, with no votes for site bans. The behind the scene plotting and scheming makes me think that broad topic bans are the only solution. Worst case scenario is that I have refocused some users to spend more time working on other topics when they have already reformed. But if I ignore the conduct problems seen in the emails and on site, then I could be putting the Community in the position of endless edit warring from the same group of users. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair answer, but I am confused: as the findings focus on the inappropriate canvassing and some instances of reverting, and we have surgical remedies to address those concerns, why the need for broad topic bans? What kind of disruption will they prevent, other than to prevent editors from writing their regular, uncontroversial DYKs, GAs, FAs, and so on (which, despite all the dramu and bad press this arbcom is generating, is representative of 99.9% of their edits, not the other way around)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My only goal is to end the disruption that is associated with articles related to the EE topic.

A question. If this is so, why are you thinking the best way is to ban a select group of editors, rather then think about wide ranging solutions(for example an uniform 1RR rule on all EE articles) ? Do you believe the problems with EE articles are solely the blame on those editors ? As pointed on Arbcom page itself, the group tried to uphold the prevelent view of Western historical/political science. Does banning editors who opposed radical Russian sources or were against radical German sources help to solve problems in EE area ? I would be more happy if Arbcom would see to to solutions that would help generally the area to develop more productive. We already had Digwuren restrictions which helped to calm down tensions once they were imposed. Why not think of something similar in regards to whole EE area ? It would leave productive editors to develop articles, while punish destructive behaviour such as edit warring.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My favorite part of this ArbCom is the lies we were told at the beginning. Such as:
 * "This is not going to result in a decimation of just one side" - ok, I think this might have been said by CoolHandLuke so you can't really hold the present members accountable for that statement. But that's exactly what's going on. CHL was a little too optimistic before he recused himself. Decimation of one side Symbol delete vote.svg big f*ing check.
 * "Only evidence of on-wiki disruption would be considered" - <sound effects removed. Probably belong in a different section anyway>
 * "Arb Com takes privacy issues seriously" - before I choke on this again ... the ArbCom through out this whole episode has publicized, sensationalized and provided a forum for drama mongering which directly or indirectly has led to off-Wiki harassment of Wiki editors. You know, I don't actually blame the ED people and others that much - they're up front about what they do and hell, I should get crap for my stupid mistake (cheers ED guys! I deserve all of that and more). But the ArbCom pretends to take issues of privacy seriously - it's the hypocrisy that bothers me at this point.
 * This one is as much of a message to the ArbCom as to my fellow EEML members - you still think that this has something to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? It doesn't. Piotrus is still going around all sorts of Wiki pages and asking humbly to have his contributions to Wikipedia respected, still has faith in "the project" and still fails to understand that he's being railroaded on this, and keeps pointing out that he hasn't violated any Wiki policies (as if that mattered at this point) and still wants to play by the rules failing to realize that the rules are for suckers (you just need to know how to game them right). He's prostrating himself and begging for understanding because he, unlike myself, really really devoted himself to this project and believes in it. As much as I like the guy it's like he's a Jimmy Stewart lost in an alternative reality where - as it *really happens, not like the movies* - the nice guy gets screwed.
 * "Sanctions are preventative not punitive" - not actually something that ArbCom has said but definetly one of the lies that the Wikpedia admin corps likes to tell itself. <<Reinsert sound effects here>>.
 * You're banning the wrong people and yes, even if that doesn't come back to you, it will come back eventually and bite the Wikipedia on the ass.
 * Radek Szulga. If you want more personal info, it's on Encylopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was to be expected (less theoretical). Certain users are experts in being disruptive (harassing others to make them leave, tedious DRing, etc.), and the system cannot deal with them, even through in many instances a simple review of contributions would show it is the flamewar lovers harassing content creators. The result is that good editors are leaving the project, as they cannot edit in the atmosphere of harassment and disruption (as I mentioned earlier, it is no surprise that over 5 years I've been observing WP:POLAND, the recruitment ration was just enough to cover burn outs, and all of the burn outs occurred due to editors getting fed up with harassment). When after years of that a few editors got radicalized with the system continuing inefficiency and did break a few rules, the system response is, well, described by Radek above. No,I am not saying we were without the fault; we radicalized and that needed to be reversed. But what happened to us is just a system of a much larger disease that has been consuming this project (tolerance for editors who harass content creators and do it smartly enough to avoid getting sanctioned). I proposed some solutions (mass mediation, forced collaboration, community service), all aimed at rebuilding trust and building the encyclopedia; they were ignored, in lieu of a narrow minded view of "let's focus on the few exceptional out of context but clear violations and smack them down, and let's completely ignore why they occurred or what smacking them down may do". Hammers and narrow visions can be useful sometimes - but they are not enough here, not by a long shot. As long as the system is inefficient enough to not realize it is damaging it very reason for being (protecting editors who create encyclopedia), and cannot distinguish victims from the victimizers, I am afraid this project (which I still love), is going to unravel (and all the signs are already out there). PS. Here's an example of how the current system completely ignores the spirit of the project and prioritizes the letter of the policy. Creating a FA requires many days of intensive research, creating a good DYK, several. Canvassing for a vote or revert (ignoring whether such canvassing was done to improve the article or not...) at worst wastes a few minutes of some editors; the evidence does show that 90% of the few canvassing attempts that took place where either ineffective or in-line with wider community consensus anyway. A restriction on canvassing/voting would be understandable, preventative and reeducational; topic ban (or bans) are punitive, radicalizing (due to their unfairness), and actively damaging to this project, as they prevent creation of high quality content that many editors sanctioned have shown to be quite capable off (as Martin points out below, it if illogical to assume those editors will shift to areas they are not interested in; and we are of course completely ignoring the fact that hiqh quality content creators are usually much closer to understanding NPOV that their detractors, who are likely to start damaging (POV pushing) on a major scale after one-sided decimation that is occurring here). Of course, if we look at the current situation in a letter of policy, narrow minded vision, this is understandable: policies were violated, guilty parties must be punished, context be damned. And if this damages the project in the long or short run - well, ArbCom mission is not to build encyclopedia, after all... and I am finally realizing that my disappointment with all my ArbCom experience was simply due to that misunderstanding of ArbCom mission (enforce the policies to the letter, ignore the wider context). As such, I do think that the ArbCom members are doing a good job enforcing particular policies, and are doing it no worse then their predecessors from last year, or two years ago, and so on; I just wonder when did the ArbCom lose the sight of the greater goal (supporting encyclopedic content creation) - or was it never intended to have it? PPS. While I do think that ArbCom as an institution is failing Wikipedia, I do think that there are individual arbitrators (past and present) who were (are) trying to do the right thing, and are aware of the "big picture". It is my hope that one day they will form a majority in the Committee and will be able to reform it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "When after years of that a few editors got radicalized with the system continuing inefficiency (sic) and did break a few rules... No,I am not saying we were without the fault; we radicalized and that needed to be reversed..." Prokonsul, there are thousands of examples where people were "dissatisfied" with the "system" such as John Wilkes Booth who became "radicalized", and Osama Bin Ladin who became "radicalized". I could go on with a plethora of many such examples. But even after the fact, these individuals could not understand why their "radicalization" was not acceptable to most people.  And no, I don't equate you with these individuals, but I wanted to use strong examples here of what this kind of mentality historically leads to. " While I do think that ArbCom as an institution is failing Wikipedia..." is another erroneous belief on your part. I'm sorry to say that I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and way off the mark. There are many, many, contributors to the project, you are only one of them. Arbcom has plenty to deal with besides you. I'm sure you would be of another persuasion if you get off the hook, again. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you really don't get it. If you honestly believe that your behavior and editing has not driven anyone off of this project, or that all of your contributions and FAs and DYKs mitigate your actions concerning this case, I will absolutely lobby in your behalf to let things continue as they have before this case was opened. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Such a display of venom. I never realised how deep this ill-will was within those editing from the Lithuanian nationalist viewpoint. No magnanimity, no acknowledgement of any good work by his opponents, nothing but bile. And I thought people confused the Balkans with the Baltics out of ignorance. No wonder things are so intractable with this kind of poisonous attitude. Yet the view apparently is that disruption is a case of one hand clapping. I suppose one novel way to resolve this conflict is to gut one side so that these noisy editors holding Lithuanian and German nationalist viewpoints finally prevail. --Martin (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. We're Osama Bin Ladin (sic) and John Wilkes Booth.radek (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dan, thanks for your comments. I know how busy you are working on content on wikipedia so the fact that you continuously manage to find time to write your insights here is really appreciated. Btw what strong hyperbole can we expect next? Dr. Loosmark 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Flonight
Piotr makes a good point: as the findings focus on the inappropriate canvassing and some instances of reverting, and we have surgical remedies to address those concerns, why the need for broad topic bans? As Vassyana notes above, these remedies are indefinite, until it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Committee that the parties can abide by the communities rules. What better way to demonstrate this than via work on achieving GA and FA status on articles? But that kind of investment is really only possible if there is sufficient interest, since I edit Wikipedia in my spare time for free. Frankly anything outside Baltic space is boring, and a broad topic ban will likely end my involvement with the encyclopedia. If that is really the ultimate aim, so be it. --Martin (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)