Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Charles Matthews
 * 2) FloNight
 * FT2
 * 1) Jdforrester
 * 2) Kirill Lokshin
 * 3) Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * 4) Newyorkbrad
 * 5) Sam Blacketer
 * 6) Stephen Bain (bainer)
 * 7) YellowMonkey

Away or inactive:
 * 1) Deskana
 * 2) FayssalF
 * 3) Jpgordon

Clerical comments on the proposed decision
If I may, a few suggestions: I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision.  Sandstein  22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In finding 4, "Regrettable" should not be capitalised.
 * In finding 6.1, "the Russian regime" should read "the Russian government", because the choice of the pejorative (to my ears) term "regime" may create the appearance of prejudice, particularly given the subject matter of the case.
 * In finding 10, I suggest that "fear-mongering" be replaced with a term more in keeping with the measured tone expected from an Arbitration Committee decision.
 * Points 1 and 2 fixed. No opinion on 3. Thanks for the input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Two objections

 * Strongly oppose banning Boodlesthecat. I wish there were some quick and easy tool-based way to quantify this: he has added scores of reliable and easily verifiable EN Google book references to articles.


 * Re Kirill in this case. Sorry, but in light of K's support of an award to Piotrus  I think he should have recused himself here. Novickas (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My only interactions with Piotrus are those which have been carried out in my official capacity as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject; they are neither personal nor extensive, and I do not consider them to be sufficient grounds for recusal.
 * (I should point out, incidentally, that such concerns are best raised when the case first opens, rather than nearly three months later.) Kirill (prof) 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad has also gone over the evidence and has said he would also add his say, so that's something. I've given my thoughts on this already. Findings are too random and skewed, there is little public reason to believe that the evidence has been read and processed, interactions in the proposals with Piotrus bothered me, etc, etc. Unfortunately, in practice the way these things work is that even if Kirill were overly-sympathetic towards Piotrus or had failed otherwise, it is unlikely that this could be reversed now by other arbs as they probably feel they couldn't do so without appearing to discredit Kirill; and so I'm taking it as a fait accompli. I'll just add, I was told by an unmentioned person at the beginning of the arbcom that if Kirill was drafting the proposals it would likely be very good for Piotrus ... so maybe that's biased me [don't think so though]. It would though be nice and reassuring to know that the evidence was actually read and processed by other arbs, because I'd by default assume (nyb aside now) that alot [if any] of the reading will be done backwards à la selection bias, reading the proposals and then the evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think you need not concern yourself about other arbitrators' reticence to vote against my proposals; compare SevenOfDiamonds. Kirill (prof) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, well that wasn't quite what I meant. I was referring rather to the path the whole thing has taken and the lack of potential reversal. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

...one or more volunteer mentors...
Dear arbitrators,

I ask you not vote for section 3.3.13 here.


 * wikt:mentor: a wise and trusted counselor or teacher
 * 1) mentorship: a developmental relationship in which a more experienced person helps a less experienced person

More experienced than someone who has edited since 10 April 2004? More experienced than someone who has been an administrator since 25 January 2005? More experienced than someone who has made 86953 edits, started about 2000 articles and shepherded 25 articles to featured status? While there must be some editors who meet these requirements, they can't be all that common. When you add in the need for wisdom and for being trusted by P., the pool gets even smaller.

Now if you read the RfA, nearly four years ago now, either it is a great steaming pile of bollocks from beginning to end, or there was once a time when none of the behaviours which are said to require mentoring were a problem. That suggests to me that mentoring is not needed. What's necessary is the acceptance by P. (a) that there is a problem now, (b) that there was a time when there was no problem, and (c) that he, and he alone, can alter his behaviour from today's unacceptable habits to 2004–2005's acceptable ones.

Thanks for your time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange thing is that Piotrus' malicious abuse of his access to IRC, already condemned by FT2, has led [well, it's why the IRC arose in this case] to a proposal to scrap it, but the FoFs flake out on stating anything specifically on this matter; instead, we have the FoF "there is no convincing evidence that Piotrus has acted in bad faith, or that he is motivated by anything other than the best interests of the project". Meh. Assigning a mentor to Piotrus is just an indirect way of avoiding doing anything, as Piotrus ain't gonna believe there's anything wrong just because a few uppity arbs tell him there is, and though of course he'd go along with with anything forced on him, why on earth would he be expected to respect a mentor on wiki? If the foundation could hire a Polonophone scholar of modern history with a big library to supervise Piotrus' selection and use of sources, that of course would help (Norman Davies may be available), but obviously that ain't gonna happen and the problems go much deeper than just this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Arbcom :) The above is a very good example of bad faith I have run time and again, including on "Bolesław's intervention" article which started this case. I respect other editors, arbcom and mentors (despite straw men suggestions to the contrary, I never said I am above taking good advice from mentors, and I believe many editors would benefit from mentorship aimed at their deradicalization). Having to deal for years with bad faith assumptions like above, admittedly, does tend to erode good faith in certain editors a little bit, but I try to assume as much good faith as possible (you don't see me going around and complaining "out of blue" about others, do you?) and I still believe everybody has a potential to be a valuable asset to this project - particularly if they stop discussing (assuming bad faith about/harassing) others and concentrate on content creation and civil discussions of thereof (without battleground-making claims that the other party is engaged in some disruptive behavior). I sincerely hope that whatever findings and remedies ArbCom will provide, they will include ones related to bad faith displayed above and aimed at putting an end to it. PS. Isn't using a name of a scholar (Davies) in a context such as above a violation of BLP? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When you stay stuff like that, Piotrus, I'm always curious if part of you actually believes it or if it is entirely disingenuous. I've tended to go towards the latter the more I've gotten to know you. But, perhaps you can set me right. I mean, do you seriously think it's possible that describing Norman Davies on a wikispace talk page as a scholar of modern history who speaks Polish could be a BLP violation? Did you really read that assertion and think "hmm, that sounds like its against BLP policy"? I am actually genuinely curious here. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't suggest I said something (by putting it in quotation marks) when I have not done so. I don't know whether suggesting a person is a Polonophobe good for mentoring a disruptive user (since it is claimed their POVs intersect) is a BLP violation or not, which is why I am asking (not claiming it is). PS. Perhaps "Polonophone" is not a misspelling/synonym of "Polonophobe" or "Polonophile" but means something different? If so, I am perfectly willing to apologize for not being a native English speaker and misreading your statement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * à la Francophone. Genius btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have struck out the part of the conversation based on my misunderstanding. Certainly, suggesting that a person speaks Polish is not a BLP violation, although a claim that we need such a person to monitor my activities may constitute yet another statement of bad faith towards my person.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Angus McLellan, raised a valid points here. I think that possible mentor (if he/she will be appointed), perhaps should have predefine by Arbiters specific duties as such. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback needed
I fear, that due to very intensive works Arbiters may missed one of my queries, which I find very important.I think, that provided remedies for Deacon of Pndapetzim, Lokyz are rather unwarrantable compared to Piotrus involvement:. Can Arbiters deliver a rationale ?Thanks in advance. M.K. (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, I wonder if arbitrators, who found Biophys contributions somewhat substandard, do think that M.K's contributions to this case are any better? Please keep in mind that he was a coauthor of the oh-so-useful Piotrus 1 case (were this and this was considered). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have little time, but above comments resembles to me - character assassination, which I covered in evidence section already. Therefore I would not comment further on this post. M.K. (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not like this comparison with M.K., so let me repeat a few things. I understand and completely agree with Kirill that fueling suspicious may be bad for the project, even though debates of any problems are welcome. One could also argue that paid editors (if any) are free to do their work as long as they follow WP rules. The words cited by Kirill were said at a user talk page in reply to questions asked by that user. I did not even try to back up this with evidence precisely to avoid fueling tensions, and also because the evidence would be mostly indirect and irrelevant to the Piotrus-2 case.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
Kirill, are you wielding some sort of elephant gun? Do try not to swat the bystanders, OK? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Generalised remedies like discretionary sanctions are elephant guns, not these pin point proposals. Martintg (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly pin point, the proposed finding regarding me STILL simply points to Molobos incredible commentary, despite my request that for decency's sake any relevant diffs be extracted and commented on by the arbitrator. See here and here.--Stor stark7 Speak 10:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the arbiters (below) suggested that he needs more time to look at similar issues; therefore I suggest to give some time and sit tight in the meanwhile. M.K. (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My votes
After I make my first sweep through all the evidence and vote, I'm going to look at the alternative proposal suggestions in more detail. My votes are not set in stone, if a closer look at the situation shows that other methods are for the best, I'll change my vote. This case is much larger than most, so I can't respond as quickly as I would like to every one wanting a response. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the case indeed a huge one. Hope we will see and more arbiters here. I have no problems with waiting a bit for the response. M.K. (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Are IRC leaks really a problem??? (Does A follow B?)

 * 31.4) Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion, as noted in finding 31.2(b).

Whilst the first statement is undoubtedly true, does the second follow? Is there really a "limit" because of this, and if there is, is that "limit" significant? And what is the evidence for any of this? Logs of the channel have certainly occasionally leaked to non-admin wikipedians and on a couple of occasions I'm aware of these have got into the public domain. Those leaks have caused drama and disruption, because they've sometimes been taken to show alleged missuses of the channel and inappropriate discussion of established users.

However, given that the private purpose of the channel is/was not discussing established users, but dealing with "sensitive situations", requests from OTRS people, and BLP issues best not discussed in a very public place, is there any evidence that these types of appropriate discussions have ever leaked? And if so, is there any evidence that they have leaked in a significantly damaging way? Does A follow B?

I used the channel often when I was doing OTRS, and still routinely bring BLP problems to admin attention in it. It seems to me still highly useful for that - and never once am I aware of any of that information leaking. And even should it leak to a few, how much does it matter? The utility of the channel is not that it is airtight, but that, in contrast to posting on wiki, it is not "viewable by the world for all eternity". And so even if the disclosures do, in some undefined way, "limit" some aspects of the usefulness - is the limitation significant?

The FoF 31.2(a), indicates that the channel was set up in order that matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention could be discussed, covers a wide range of sins. Matters needing "discretion", or being "unsuited for on-wiki", do not neccessarily need total and airtight privacy. Indeed, if they did, then a channel which is open to anyone of 1400 admins (few of which the Foundation know anything about) would be a wholly inappropriate venue even without leaks.

Frankly, and to be blunt, I've never seen any proper use of the channel for a discussion, that I would not have been entirely happy happening in the presence of say, Giano. But saying that its useful discussions could be open to users like Giano, is not the same as saying "they might as well be conducted on-wiki". ("On wiki" does not just mean that the community could be party - it means anyone in all the world can see) Some disclosures of material unrelated to sensitive uses do not significantly limit the channel's utility for its true purpose. In this case, I think we can be "a little pregnant".

Why does this matter? Because this finding will be taken as evidence that the channel's utility is marginal - and undermined by leaking. And this finding rests on nothing but an assertion, which does not stand examination. Whilst I'm sure it's intentions are pure, it contains an unproven logic jump, and perhaps a little weasel wording.

Indeed the proposed remedy 20.1) The Committee recommends that use of the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel be discontinued seems to rest on this point. The logic seems to be that the ills mentioned in other findings cannot be offset against the benefits envisaged by the original founding, since these are negated (or "limited") by the leaks. But that the leaks are significant in regard to the purpose has not been shown (and indeed I'd say is not the case), let alone any real cost benefit analysis of the limits verses the benefits. You really can't generate policy on a couple of assertions.

--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions to Newyorkbrad, Krill and Sam
These follow from the unanswered post above

I note that Krill and Newyorkbrad (and now Sam) have supported 31.4. So I am wondering if either of them can answer these questions: I hate to push the point, but as the as can be seen from the section bellow, this is often asserted, but never explained or evidenced. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) In what specific ways do the leaks limit the channel's usefulness for "matters requiring privacy or discretion which are unsuited for on-wiki mention"?
 * 2) How significant is the supposed "limitation" caused by the leaks to the legitimate use of the channel for these purposes? Is minor or killer?
 * 3) What is the evidence that leaks have caused any actually problem for those using the channel for these legitimate purposes?


 * The channel has an extensive history of public leaks (by which I mean not merely material falling into the hands of parties outside the channel, but also material becoming generally public, and logs winding up on places like WR and so forth). From a security analysis standpoint, distributing restricted material via a method with a substantial history and significant continuing risk of unauthorized disclosure merely because said method is established and convenient is a rather poor risk/benefit tradeoff.
 * Basically, nothing can be discussed in the channel unless we're willing to substantially risk its general publication; so anything that's actually "private" (i.e. mustn't be generally published) can't (or shouldn't) be discussed there. Kirill (prof) 03:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Krill. That's not an answer. It's just the same logic jump. Please can you re-read my full comments above. The channel is not, and never has been, private. That's nothing to do with "leaks", but with the fact that anyone of 1400 admins, most of whom operate under pseudonyms have access to it. It was, and never could have been, a place for material covered by the privacy policy of the foundation. But that's NOT the point. The are many other instances of discussions relating to BLP (and some other issues), which are unsuitable for full-public discussion on wiki. There are many instances where discreet discussion is appropriate (and yet better not discussion in a totally private channel containing only a like-minded clique). An OTRS person may not disclose the contents of an e-mail, but he may wish to draw a the attention of a number of experienced users to a problematic article it highlights, when to post on wiki would simply cause conter-productive drama, or further publicise what may be libellous or otherwise harmful material. I routinely patrol for really bad BLPs - and often want a discreet place to sanity check before having them stubbed or occasionally deleted.) The fact is that this type of discreet discussion has to my knowledge NEVER been leaked - and certainly not in any damaging way. (And you seem to have no evidence otherwise?) Even if such material did occassionaly leak (and it doesn't) it would still be better discussed in #admins than posted on wiki, or discussed in a totally open channel. What has been leaked has been wiki-political soap opera nonsense, that has nothing to do with the legitimate uses of this channel as a discreet place. (Again, evidence otherwise?) Indeed I suspect the leakers are playing wikipolitics (relatively harmless) rather than setting out to damage innocent third parties (BLP subjects). Sure, I realise that wikipolitics and bruised egos want the channel deprecated, and therefore it is in their interests to deny it has any legitimate utility. However, people, most of whom have no particular experience of routinely dealing with BLP and IRC, incessantly repeating the mantra "it isn't 100% private ego it is not use" mantra won't make it true - evidence and practical argument are required. My long experience of BLP and IRC tell me it isn't true (So what's your evidence?). Deprecating this channel will be detrimental to how we handle information about real people, and how we mitigate harm to living subjects. And to do that, for ignorant wikipolitical reasons, with no clear idea about what alternative will better serve (except some vague hand waving about new noticeboards - what the hell for?) ill becomes this committee.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Late comment, but Kirill's thinking seems to be sound here. (I don't suggest that that thinking is or is not applicaple to #wikipedia-en-admins, but merely note that there is not really a logical fallacy here—as you seem to suggest.) AGK 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal from a non arbitrator
Maybe this needs some tweaking but please consider this proposal for the present case.


 * 31.8 (proposed) Requests for blocks and unblocks should be posted on-wiki through the usual, widely accepted procedures. Seeking assistance from administrators on IRC for blocking and unblocking is an acceptable practice. Administrators are reminded that such off-wiki discussions may reflect only one side of the story. Administrators are further reminded that justification for administrative actions must be reflected on-wiki and may occur only after thorough investigation of all sides of the issue. Off-wiki discussions may not be used to justify administrative actions unless those discussions are explicitly presented on-wiki.

JodyBtalk 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This would go in the remedies section (which I haven't gotten through yet) rather than the findings of fact, but I have been planning to post something much along these lines. Thanks for the proposed wording, which I will think about and may plagiarize in whole or part. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the IRC dramu would be gone if we would just publicly log it. IRC is good because its fast, not because its secretive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As the arbcom findings note, one of the channel's key purposes was discrete discussion of delicate matters best not handled on wiki - a public log would quite defeat that purpose.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And since it's more than obvious that the channel is leaky as an old umbrella, this is no longer the case... so why not make it officially public and salvage it as a rapid-intervention channel, at least? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry see my longer post in the section above. That's a seriously flawed argument that is often made by people who have no real knowledge of what the channel is used for.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Than I'd suggest having a dedicated channel for BLP and similar issues, enumerated somewhere clearly with rationale why it should not be logged. Channel for admins should be logged, I never saw any "clearance required" on my mop and bucked :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A logged channel for admins I have no use for, and would not use. Anything publically logged might as well be on wiki. I'm happy with a BLP channel as an alternative, providing access is restricted to admins and other trusted users....oh wait.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the assumption the channel is supposed to be private, when it is not. Yet currently the logs are only available to selected, secret individuals (and for the record, I am not one of them - but I know that certain users, including ones involved in this arbcom, can get those logs at will). The situation is quite unfair, and public logging would at the very least make everybody equal again. I do agree that it would be good to have a channel for discussion of things that should not be public, but quite obviously, #en-wiki-admins is not it, and will never be it again. A new channel is needed, and selection process to it, as well as penalties for sharing the logs, need to be very strict.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read my post in the section above you will see that your case is wrong. The channel is currently very useful for discussing things that should not be publicly discussed and recorded on the internet. The fact that some non-admins have access to the logs does not significantly impinge on that. 1400 admins have access to it, so even without leaks, it would hardly be private, but "not being completely private" is not the same as "being open to any member of the public with an internet connection". If you can suggest an alternative method of discussing things which should not be broadcast, or viewable, to the world at large (but where there is no need for 100% privacy either), then I'm genuinely open to listen. Until then, the admin's channel must stay. Yes, I understand it annoys some people's sense of egality, but better that than being impeded in important discussions which may affect people in real life, or having to broadcast such to the world.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)These suggestions for some kind of public logging suffer the weakness that suggestions to depreciate the channel suffer: #wikipedia-en-admins is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee's authority. Any decision to log would be purely voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. As this and other cases seem to demonstrate, the issue is the attitude, intents and motives of individual users and not the existance of an IRC channel. Disruptive users will always find a way to communicate with sympathizers whether by IRC, AIM, email or telephone. Attempts to use brute force to somehow change the channel only moves the discussion a bit further away and fails to accomplish one wit. JodyBtalk 12:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad re: No actionable evidence
I noticed your abstination on findings of facts that regarded people for whom there were no actionable evidence. Your rationale is that you feel it does not warrant a finding. While I technically do not disagree with that thought, please consider that this case was particularly complicated. I expect that many editors watching did not have the patience to sift through the evidence as thouroughly as the arbs have. A lot of mud was thrown in a lot of many directions. Some of it was warrented, some of it was misunderstanding, and some of it outright slander. Most of it, however, is difficult to identify.

I understand that you feel if nothing was done wrong by a person, then they should simply not be mentioned. But it should be noted that persons on every side of this conflict has asked for some kind of identification of not only who was at fault... but also who was not. There IS value to arbcom standing up and saying "this person was involved in a complicated issue, and we see no evidence they acted improperly". I know that it is implied by a lack of finding, but in many cases a lack of finding only leaves room for continued speculation. By clearly stating someones innocence, instead of implying a lack of guilt, you would take great strides towards clearing the air around what is obviously a murky issue.

Please reconsider your position.198.161.173.180 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will give this some more thought. My concern is not just for this case, but that for future cases, people will think that "if the person hasn't been specifically exonerated by the ArbCom, then they were probably guilty, even if the decision doesn't say so." I'm also interested in what my fellow arbitrators think of this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the anon that if somebody was accused of much wrongdoing, and such accusations were proven false, it would be just to point it out. However, we should clarify that the case reviewed only behavior since amnesty. Further, there is also the question of editors who were mostly inactive in the past year, and than returned to participate in the arbcom, contributing unproportionate amount of time to slinging mud instead of building an encyclopedia... I do wonder if we can say that they have done nothing wrong and really acted in the spirit of this project? Overall, I'd support findings of "good behavior" (etc.) for editors against whom slander was directed outside this arbcom. For editors who were only accused of wrongdoing inside this arbcom, particularly in light of proposed blanking of the case pages (which I don't fully support, but that's another issue), that doesn't seem necessary. Again, let me stress that there is a huge difference between an editor who was accused of something only within the pages of this case, and an editor who had slanderous accusations directed at him for years on various pages of this project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest no rulings on irrelevant subjects, and no rulings without due process. The existing process usually includes the following: (1) someone presents an official statement to Arbom about a user A or a subject X and provides some evidence; (2) the matter is openly debated if needed; (3) ArbCom issues the ruling. If there is no any actionable evidence about user X, ArbCom simply has no grounds to rule one way or another (hence no ruling - I agree). The same crteria should apply to subjects. For example, why should anyone rule about the involvement of the Russian state security services if no one even tried to seriously assert, prove or debate this issue?Biophys (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The exoneration precident is troubling, and I agree should be avoided. I also should clarify that I don't mean that everybody under the sun in this case needs an exoneration.  If someone had nothing to do with anything, then don't mention them.  If someone was very publicly accused of things, enough that arbcom felt the need to decide if there was merit to the accusation(s)... then I think an exoneration/statement is in order.


 * As a possible measure against the precident, could arbcom make a finding of fact or somesuch that "this was a particularly complicated case and that FOR THIS CASE ONLY people found to be accused of things that the evidence does not play out are being mentioned as innocent. This is being done for the sake of clarity in this case and should not be considered standard procedure"


 * Perhaps if Arbcom had a declared 'rulebook' then things like this could be avoidable. Is there an essay that tells people how to properly interpret arbcom cases/rulings?  Perhaps this could be included in the previously mentioned discussion about changes to the dispute resolution.  It seems to me that the answer to the 'no ruling means no actionable evidence' vs 'no ruling means we overlooked it' question is something that should be prominently displayed.  Perhaps there should be a statement that if arbcom takes a case to review the behaviour of all involved (something I see written often) then it should be clear exactly who's behaviour is being evaluated, and what the results of that evaluation was... good or bad. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom reviews only users with problematic behavior, based on the evidence. Look at a typical statement: "No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by M. has been presented [in evidence]". No one is going to come up with a conclusion that "user M. never did anything wrong", because such conclusion would require studying every single edit by that user. No evidence - no conclusion/ruling, plain and simple. On the other hand, it is great to tell "no evidence" about someone who has been a target of unfair accusations - agree with Piotrus. But if no one even accused certain users of a serious wrongdoing (as in this case), telling "no evidence"/"not guilty" is clearly excessive - agree with Brad.Biophys (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is anything like this, then naturally I'd expect the libel that I'm "Polonophobic" thrown against me for Piotrus' benefit by a proxy throw-away account belonging to an unknown user, as well as accusations than I'm a partisan Russian (or pro-Russian) editor, be explicitly refuted by the committee. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a statement like that: "There is no evidence that D. ever was a Russophile or a Polonophobe"? Sorry, but I only meant that you sided with Irpen.Biophys (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference is not really to your evidence, which I guess is moderate in innuendo by comparison, but to Piotrus' "Russian tag team" section and his proxy Koretek account. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Frustration growing here
I see the voting going on, and still not a single comment is made on the way the diffs used against me have been presented. This I find truly depressing. Am i to take it that what i wrote in my Evidence reply to Molobos evidence section and all that's been written on the workshop pages is so uninteresting? Both my presence here and faith in the entire project is at stake.

To recap, I blew my lid on January 4, for which I'm very sorry, and for which I'm rightly put on the Digwuren list. I feel I was baited by Molobos deliberatly talking about a different topic than the one I asked about, but I really should have been grown up to be able to keep my cool despite the situation and not have let past interactions influence. As to the rest of the diffs please look at them in context, and please do something about the way they were presented. At least provide a FoF linking directly to individual diffs that you find to be of relevance. I've already asked Newyorkbrad for comment and I urge you to please review the responces to the diffs and charges.   

If you have questions about individual diffs, please just ask. --Stor stark7 Speak 02:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be going through the evidence against you and the other users proposed for sanctions once more over the weekend. I've already noted on the proposed decision that much of the evidence presented against you is months or years old, and opposed the proposed ban remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Frustration (again)
Frustrated? Er ... yeah! ;) But it's kinda getting replaced by cynical amusement and resigned indignation. I'm now having to point out that this essay is satire, because it apparently "worries" an arb. Well, sorry guys, I ain't getting defensive about that. Either you know it's satire or you don't. I feel like I'm in some Larry David sit-com; but it ain't a sit-com, it's actually reality, and coming from the place on wiki you'd most expect to respect.I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this has come out in a hearing that marks out 7 reverts in a two week period in an editing area where such a thing is nothing as "edit-warring" and worth a FoF and "remedy", when the editor in question [me] is virtually uninvolved in the general area and was only trying to enforce wiki content policy in a particular article where several others were also participating. It would be hilarious if it weren't so appalling. As every intelligent observer will realise, it's only happening because I launched a case, and basically what you are saying is that outside editors and admins will be punished for filing arbcom hearings not just by the libel of the "defendants" and their allies, but through the callous contempt of the arbs themselves who'll feel a need to preserve social balance over most modern ideas of justice by embracing that libel in a indirect manner. I guess if you are, then, sorry I got involved and tried to help here, and I'll slap myself on the face with a trout as I should have known this per my earlier assertions about medieval courts. I guess you know how things work but kid yourself. Or else, you know that to do anything to "help" more direct than just sit on the sidelines being strong, silent and judgmental on AN/I, AE threads and ArbCom outside observations was always going to be a mistake if a person wanted to avoid that kind of thing; but you never know how it really works until you test it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look at this one too. I could live without the name calling, but I guess it goes with this job. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you see name-calling? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I should mention I took the time to read Deacon's essay. The best satire is based on fact, and it's quite informative. If an arbitrator wishes to take it as an instruction manual on how to wage WP:EDITWAR, there are far more egregious morally turpitudinous vituperations of editorializing on WP to deal with first. I've been inspired by our proceedings here: sesquipedalian proceduralisms counter-balanced by the WP:ACRONYM, forming a perfect balance above a center of opining which is, in fact, totally absent. (In fairness, not on the part of all participating here.) —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

#en-admins deprecation
There are three reasons that this "recommendation" is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, bad idea doesn't cover it. This has to be one of the most absurd things ArbCom's ever proposed.
 * It is completely unenforceable. First off, yes I know it reads "recommendation". It's clear that this would just be a first step towards actual enforcement, however. It would be best to nip it in the bud before it becomes precedent. The Arbitration Committee has zero power over what those who edit within Wikipedia do when they're outside of it. ArbCom has no mechanism to physically shut down the channel. Thus, unlike a case of wheel warring where admins can be desysopped or edit warring where an editor can be blocked, this is an ineffectual gesture.
 * It is completely hollow. The administrators who use #en-admins are not paid by ArbCom. Our livelihoods and our activities are not subject to ArbCom's whims. Thus, with no suitable leverage short of removing the administrator tag for trespassers, this is about as weak a gesture as it gets. Stop acting like the League of Nations, and start acting like the United Nations Security Council.
 * It is distracting. In the same vein as the Security Council metaphor, stop policing editors' external activities. Work on more speedily deciding and debating cases already before you rather than seeking out new ones.
 * It is pointless. In the film Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldblum's character says that "life will find a way" after being told the dinosaurs are all female and thus can't reproduce. Two (soon to be three) movies later, the dinosaurs are out of their cages, reproducing freely and still killing the humans who foolishly trespass upon their island. If ArbCom somehow flushes out the administrators who reside in #en-admins, they will only move on to another location, set up shop there and begin discussing administrator matters privately once more. At least this way, you know where we are.

It is in everyone's best interest for this proposed decision to be shot down, quickly and overwhelmingly. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I disagree. If the logic was that #admins was a Bad Thing, then arbcom would be wise to say that, and to put on record their encouragement that people should not use it (even if it is unenforceable). I think there's nothing wrong with the committee offering moral guidance. However, my problem is that if that guidance is to be respected, and to be persuasive, rather than just used as ammunition by those predisposed to agree, it needs to based on transparent evidence and clear logic that can be followed. But, unfortunately that's not happened here. The logic seems to be 1) the channel leaks 2)Thus it is not private 3)Thus there is no legitimate business in it that cannot alternatively be conducted on-wiki. Sam's remarks that it could be deprecated "as soon as an on-wiki alternative is available" show that. However, as I've demonstrated in two, as yet unanswered, posts above - this logic is flawed and without any evidence in support. There has NEVER been a leak of BLP sensitive material from the channel (just wikipolitical drama), and in any case, even a channel that leaks a little is still a billion times more discreet a place to discuss a problematic articles than using on-wiki where the whole world has immediate access. If the committee wants to assess IRC, and to be be taken seriously, it needs to do a proper balanced assessment of the strengths weaknesses and alternatives. Then, and only then, might their conclusions be persuasive. Otherwise this is just more political posturing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I think we agree although it appears to be in spirit and not in letter. Or I'm misreading you. Either way, replacing IRC with another noticeboard on WP is like replacing a girlfriend with a blowup doll. It's cold, it's impersonal and it's useless in the real world. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've stated, far too much "evidence" in this affair is based on the threading of assumption-of-bad-faith pearls on a string and then pointing to the necklace as "proof" of something. The whole on-wiki/off-wiki "issue" is a red herring. There will always be ways to communicate completely privately or completely publicly. Let's not waste our resources on that debate. -PētersV (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite several times there were noted that #wikipedia-en-admins lies outside wikipedia encyclopedia and, as I understand, outside Wikipedia Foundation; if so - is it allowed by law to have IRC under name wikipedia? This makes an illusion that channel is owned by WF. Therefore wikipedia name usage on IRC channel should be withdrawn. Also Arbiters did not presented FoF of was there actual abuse of admin IRC involving this case's individuals or not; my experience and, presented evidences by others, allows to say that there was abuse, but we need proper Arbitration FoF on this matter, otherwise we will see quite many speculation surrounding this issue.M.K. (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is perfectly legal.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg banned... do we have to go so far?
Greg has never been blocked in the past and I am not sure if he got any warnings about his behavior (from neutral parties). In light of his pledge, which does seem to indicate to me he is willing to admit he made errors and try to improve his behavior, I wonder if a less drastic measure couldn't be considered? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg hasn't been blocked on English WP anyway. Got about a dozen though on Polish WP. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Greg's pledge is more than reasonable. His expressions of frustration, for example, were not without due cause, although his main antagonist would beg to differ. I was sorely tempted to respond with sarcasm and gross incivility when anti-Semitic contentions were put into my mouth by a certain editor but knew what would happen, based on Greg's experiences with same editor. -PētersV (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pledge??? LOL. Despite his precarious position, he's offering (rather obnoxiously) a DEAL. "In exchange for that I would like an uninvolved editor with undisputed integrity such as HG to be allowed to review all contaminated, by Boodles/Shabazz' reverts, articles...if he doesn't the ArbCom may appoint someone else whose findings I would accept too. Fair enough?" LOL very loudly. PLEDGE?? And he amazingly offers a "deal" while still regurgiating his lie about the Boodlesthecat/Malcolm Shabazz sockpuppetry. You guys crack me up no end. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't take long for you to weigh in with your usual derision. He's agreed to stay away from articles for a year which (personally) I would not blame him for doing anyway just to take a vacation from your reprehensible witch hunting. -PētersV (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: Uninvolved editors review the evidence regarding our interactions and based on the result, either you stay away from any Polish+Jewish topic or I stay away from any Polish+Jewish topic for, say, six months. Whether or not Greg is "around," you can expect Żydokomuna et al. to be NPOV'ed away from the coat-racks they've been fashioned into. -PētersV (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg pleads to stay away from all topics/editors that caused him to lose his cool, and in exchange asks for what amounts to as PR/3O/RfC for those few articles. The latter part is a bit unusual, but overall perfectly reasonable (he is not asking for anything that's not covered by normal editing practicies (peer review... WP:PR).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys crack me up no end. Oh, I already noted that. But it bears repeating. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles can you try and done it down, at least a little bit? Remarks like the one above are just plain old uncivil.radek (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Piotrus and PetersV for the vote of confidence. I never pledged I stay away from the Polish-Jewish topics, just this: Concerning BLP charge I will voluntarily refrain from editing on Talk or in the mainspace any issues regarding controversial writers such as Jan T. Gross, Thane Rosenbaum, Polonsky, Michnic, and the others who write about Jewish affairs in Poland, during a period of one year starting now. Also I sent a letter to Kirill. Here is its copy: Hi Kirill! I must admit I was wrong on that BLP/CIV issue. Sorry for causing so much trouble. I will be more careful in the future. I will accept unconditionally restriction/mentoring regarding this policy, say, "one strike you're out" during the next year. No need to ban me. Actually it's no punishment, just safeguard to Wikipedia. Will do? Thanks Greg. greg park avenue (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why banning a person who pledged to accept all restrictions? The administrators should just check once and again if he keeps up the pledge and that should be enough. He is not the one that attacks other users. Tymek (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Greg, I do realize that I should have made clear where your offer was concerned it was to remove yourself from the contentious articles within the space regarding those who write on Polish-Jewish relations (and their products). My own offer to Boodlesthecat was to go to the evidence of my interactions with them and for either them or myself to voluntarily agree to be banned from any Polish-Jewish relations topic for six months. I would think Boodlesthecat would relish the opportunity of not having me working on cleaning up Żydokomuna. I haven't been accused of anything (so far) in these proceedings so I can't be derided as trying to broker some deal to save my ass. It's a simple offer to Boodlesthecat, but all I see is Boodlesthecat cracking up (more derision). -PētersV (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I it would be very reasonable to give Greg a chance. A topic ban would be sufficient, as was suggested at the workshop.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Greg's pledge to be voluntarily banned from Polish-Jewish related topics is honest. Everyone makes mistakes here but not everyone is capable to be honest about it. Perhaps Greg should be given a chance. What about to have the pledge (clearly written) as a opening statement of his user page during that time??--Jacurek (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Read what Greg wrote above-"I never pledged I stay away from the Polish-Jewish topics." Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And? There is no evidence he has been disruptive in the Polish-Jewish topics in general; the evidence is that he has violated BLP when discussing certain scholars of Polish-Jewish topics and he has pledged to stay away from their articles and from discussing them in the future. Let's avoid building straw mens and accusing greg of kicking them over :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg has been disruptive of every Polish Jewish topic he has been involved in. So you ,might want to refer to the list of logical fallacies to see which problematic argument you are constructing by saying "there is no evidence he has been disruptive in the Polish-Jewish topics in general." Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greg has offered to stay away from articles dealing with Gross et al., which are the area of prime contention. If one editor shows contrition and another editor continues to attack and deride, then exactly who is the bearer of ill will and bad faith? BTW, my offer still stands if someone wants to put their money where their mouth is. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My errors were related to comments about Polish-Jewish scholars and I am taking a topic ban from it, not from Polish-Jewish subjects in general, but I am willing to discuss this with ArbCom if they think further restrictions are necessary. A mentor would be appreciated. For example no administrator warned me this BLP violation is serious and subject to a ban. Actually, I believed it disagrees with US Constitution and freedom of speech. greg park avenue (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This plus mentorship as discussed below, would be reasonable, imho. The topic ban alone might not be a practical solution in the long term. --Lysytalk 11:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FoF 25.2
Far from it for me to defend Piotrus, but when did expressing views about living individuals on article talk pages become a violation of BLP policy? Biographies of living people policy is wikipedia policy on biographies of living people, not a policy on editorial commentary on talk pages, which are signed by individuals entitled and in many instances obliged to express opinions and point out certain known opinions and information [and shouldn't be any issue unless an individual is innovatively harming someone's safety/privacy or claiming to be a source of information, libelous if false, against a living individual]. The diff in question is certainly not a nice thing to say, but it is a signed comment carrying no authority beyond the user and the non-wiki link cited. I'm not sure if this diff represents misunderstanding of the policy (which will confuse normal admins and editors no end) or is an attempt to extend BLP policy. If the former, then this can be forgiven, as the confusing assertion in italics ''These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. '', might be responsible, though the clearer non-article space section would definitely not, interpreted reasonably, lead to this belief. WP:TALK suitably confines itself to condemning "libel and personal details". I suppose just as likely is that is it genuinely seen as a violation. This in practice is the same as extending BLP policy. Such an innovative interpretation of BLP is already being used (by Piotrus himself no less) to attempt to silence discussions on the reliability of sources. Among the swathes of ignored evidence, this evidence may have relevant article-space diffs to replace the one given in the proposed ruling. I think however the possible misunderstanding here, and future potential misunderstandings, should be addressed by making a clearer distinction between BLP and talk page policies regarding real world libel and privacy intrusion (we have WP:LIBEL and WP:TALK already). But certainly many editors and admins cannot be expected to distinguish accurately between libel and professional criticism, any more than they many fail to distinguish editorial criticism from mere incivility, if ArbCom proceed like they do in FoF 25.2. So can we do something to tighten this up? Everything else aside, we don't need another rule than helps gamers over good-faithed academic editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Treshold for finding/proposal directed at Molobo
While evidence of Molobo recently manipulating sourced content in mainspace and evidence of Molobo manipulating evidence in this arbcom has been presented (both I consider capital offenses against the project), this was not yet formulated into a finding / proposed remedy. For other editors, the treshold was much lower. How can Molobo, given his disruptive history and the recent manipulations pointed out above be trusted to edit properly, especially concerning quotes of sources, taken in concern also his use of Polish sources that are impossible to verify for non-Polish speakers? I regard this matter somewhat more serious than "edit wars" over disputed-tags, and year-old statements at talk pages - those however were merited with a finding and proposed remedy. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of speech
It would help to have a clear policy on the limits of "free speech" in WP. After reading policies here, I got an impression that any relevant discussions (e.g. wikipedia-related problems) would be clearly a legitimate subject, as long as such discussions do not include unsubstantiated accusations of individual users or BLP violations. Obviously, some of such discussions may be unhelpful (in fact, all discussions that do not result in a positive outcome might be defined as unhelpful). Obviously, one should not make senseless inflammatory comments and remember about WP:DICK. This is understood. But the limits should be defined more clearly. For example, this is a common practice to talk about nationalism problems in WP. But how about debating chauvinism, racism, influence of private corporations, or agents of influence in WP? Where is the boundary? I am not talking about personal accusations, but about debates of such problems in general. What is allowed and what is not? Some formal rules would help.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that this is right spot to do so. M.K. (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but I really do not want to debate this anywhere. If no additional explanation is given, it will be enough to use common sense and this ruling as a guideline. But I still believe this is an important question in general. Free debates of any problems, including potential problems are crucial for any collaborative project.Biophys (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The proper venue, for such type questions to be asked, would be Village pump. M.K. (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When editors have stated to me that the majority of Latvians were happy for Nazi rifles to kill Jews and receive no reprimand from any admin at the time, that is a problem. I can go back and provide the diffs if need be. That is NOT freedom of speech. WP is not a blog for people to spew their personal prejudices, not in articles, not in talk, not in proceedings. -PētersV (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good argument. You are talking about WP:SOAP. But how can one clearly distinguish a "propaganda" position and a legitimate minority position (assuming this is sourced), or an "unhelpful discussion" and a legitimate debate about this project? I do not see anything better than the "common sense". This is very subjective...Biophys (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't M.K's violations of policy mentioned in proposed decision?
We all know that wp:trolling is a vengeful little habit frown upon by the community. – Why is it, than, that trolling is not being acknowledged by our arbitrators as a good enough reason for some sort of nominal sanctions especially against the users repeatedly engaging in trolling and relentless stalking of their content opponents... and initiating procedures. One user that comes to mind is whose only memorable contribution to Wikipedia is that of collecting evidence of any brain activity whatsoever on the part of his adversaries and than constructing far-fetched claims based on them, and dragging it from one board to the next every now and then.

Is M.K free to do it again, a few months down the road? Is his attitude beyond scrutiny? I’m asking – would this ArbCom be willing to look into his behaviour based on a pattern of distractions over prolonged periods of time going beyond the scope of these proceedings? I’m just one of a number of Polish editors constantly stalked by this user, including Piotrus. 

Here’s what Piotrus had to say about his schemes: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FPoeticbent&diff=217817134&oldid=217781263 M.K, you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one?]...all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators.

M.K’s pro-Lithuanian revisionist editing is usually aimed at darkening the content created by his Polish adversaries, such as Piotrus. Even when his claims are proven false, they usually meet their objective in creating a sense of threat to content stability. Here, for example, M.K makes an unsupported claim that a Polish national hero Józef Piłsudski “could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation…” which was “highly significant...” according to M.K. – Please keep in mind that M.K is not impartial to these proceedings while – at the same time – getting a free ticket in Proposed decission in spite of his EE battlefield editing pattern.

Meanwhile, all failed ArbCom cases are a tremendous drain on the resources of Wikipedia administrators and content creators who are already in a critical minority (one-tenth of 1 percent). Can you see M.K as a possible problem user gaming the system? Because if you could, you would certainly not be alone. I cannot imagine another case like this being initiated again in a forseeable future by User:M.K who is known to be spreading false accusations (Halibutt) and for the second time around, attempting to slander an inconvenient content disputes opponent (Lysy).* *) Above two citations originate in the first ArbCom case against Piotrus initiated by M.K. -- Poeticbent   talk  22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I find such above comments made by Poetcibent regarding me as very offensive; sadly this contributor did not learn to moderate his behavior even here. M.K. (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)P.S. to Arbiters I would like to point that above presented Poeticbent material is simply untrue. Like:


 * Regarding Here’s what Piotrus had to say about his schemes:: M.K, you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one?...all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators. No, I did not fill two ArbCom cases against Polish editors and no, my arguments were not discarded by the arbitrators as Poeticbent claims using Piotrs words. I responded to such material on character assassination section already.
 * Regarding, Here, for example, M.K makes an unsupported claim that a Polish national hero Józef Piłsudski “could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation…” which was “highly significant...” according to M.K., I would briefly reply to it, despite this is content related issue. Actually this “unsupported claim", as Poeticbent writes, is formulated by Norman Davies Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. ISBN 0-19-285152-7. p.139 original citation: It was highly significant that Pilsudski could boast of not being a member of the Polish nation - which he once derided as "a nation of morons" - but a Lithuanian of Polish culture. I could present Austen Chamberlain memoirs as well, there he recorded that Pilsudski boasted to him of being Lithuanian. But why bother bringing those established facts, I still be accused of being "pro-Lithuanian revisionist". I hope Arbiters will evaluate Poeticbent's another accusation of revisionist editing in the light of  existing Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions, as recent Poeticbent's offenses keep growing. M.K. (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I ask myself, what is the point in continuing about M.K's manipulations and his repeat gaming of the system exemplified in his Evidence section, while in fact, he is getting a free ticket anyway in Proposed decision. The avalanche of links provided by the parties makes it all too easy to miss a white lie told by a vengeful content opponent. Even I don't pay attention to every little lie told about me in seemingly dispassionate commentaries, so why would the arbitrators care to devote any time and energy into revealing hidden violations of policy committed by M.K and than act upon it here.

Virtually the entire Evidence section provided by M.K is a mindless copy-paste job from other cases which were long closed and long resolved. I can only hope that the arbitrators will be able to devise a system which will prohibit this kind of manipulation repeated in the future. Take as an example the following statement made by M.K: "Poeticbent's IPs made shameful personal attacks etc." – Upon close examination however here's what his two links reveal? On 23 April 2008 an anonymous IP 217.184.150.67 renamed four Polish cities and one Polish river (which in the article about the Polish town Ustka were spelled in the English and Polish languages) into the German language. The places were known by their German names under the German occupation of Poland so the implications were pretty clear. Using a proxy (just like the other party) I reverted these changes with the following edit summary: "(Undid revision 207599063 by 217.184.150.67 (talk) rv geopolitical revisionism)" Did I make a "personal attack" by saying what I said? And against whom, against another nameless IP? How was is "shameful" that I called a spade a shovel?

Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity... and this is what M.K does, by giving it a proper spin. He makes his opponents' efforts of fighting cases of geopolitical irredentism and bad faith sound like "personal attacks" for the arbitration. He takes advantage of loopholes to smear the reputation of his adversaries from one ArbCom case to the next. -- Poeticbent  talk  06:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of this, but really this is simply too much to ignore. "Supplying this kind of bogus evidence creates almost a perfect illusion of validity..." See hear, this entire sub-section of yours, Poeticbent, attacking M.K., both falsely, and in the ad hominem style constantly employed by the editors that are being investigated by this ArbCom is quite humorous. But it's as arrogant and egotistical as your writing an article, Richard Tylman, about yourself and placing it in Wikipedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the greatest mysteries of Wikipedia, to me, is why Dr. Dan has not been permbanned yet. His primary contribution to talk pages was and still is creating flames on talks of articles (hence I suggest before a ban from non-mainspace edits, as his occasional copyediting is useful). He has been mostly inactive recently, hence there is little current evidence against him, but please see Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And one of the "mysteries" on W.P. is how you can with a straight face tell us that we're here to "build an encyclopedia". Yes we are, but objectively and truthfully. I hope this ArbCom and the proposed mentor can help you do this in the future. In my evidence against you for this ArbCom I suggested that you follow MY example and make some significant changes in your editing, as I have done. And BTW, I have largely been "mostly inactive recently" because of you and the way you manipulate and twist English Wikipedia to suit your purposes. And as I mentioned in the evidence section how you have attempted to censor me, have me blocked, and banned during the same time when you were unblocking and and working to have user: Molobo re-instated to the project. Now you are trying this again? Here? Now? As for the link you have provided concerning my "past sins", anyone reading them would see that they are mostly responses to provocations by others including yourself. But this is neither the time nor place to go over them one by one. But I'll be happy to do so with you on your talk page one by one any time. And thank you for so meticulously keeping a list on my behavior that I'm sure you wanted to present during these proceedings so badly. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there’s nothing as addictive as backstabbing from under the cover of darkness. I thought User:Dr. Dan “went the way of the Dodo” already a long time ago, but no, I was wrong, he’s still here: jamming the wheel, meddling in other people’s affairs with no clue what’s going on, letting down those who extend their hand to him. – Wasn’t that enough, Dan, that you destroyed my nomination of a beloved city of Kraków, my hometown, for the Featured Article? Please be assured, you’re in no obligation to defend other avengers like yourself just because they happened to be Lithuanian. Your disruptive contributions to articles about Poland have never been welcomed, and for a good reason. I’d like our arbitrators to reveal whether User:I can't believe it's not a joke ... NOT and User:Dr. Dan are (and have been) one and the same person? In a rare outburst of cynicism disguised as black humor, he claimed that the Polish people see Lithuanian independence as an act of her annexation by the Lithuanians. That’s an assault that needs to be cleared, here and now. In the same thread user Dr. Dan goes on to compare Poland’s leaders of 1938 to Hitler. That’s rich my friend. I’d rather not go any further. -- Poeticbent   talk  02:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Poetic and Piotrus it is highly ironic to accuse an editor of incivility by making personal attacks on him especially on the very Arbcom that consider your own behavior. Please change your tone down a notch or two. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alex, for your observation. Now that this whole unpleasant matter is nearing a close, it seems even that Poeticbent and Piotrus still "just don't get it". This entire section "Why aren't M.K.'s violations of policy, etc.", shows a significant part of the problem that needed to be addressed and corrected as best as possible by this ArbCom. This is a big part of it in microcosm or at least in a nutshell. First, after attacking M.K. and demanding some form of censure of him, he accused him of maligning a "National Hero of Poland," Pilsudski by "unsupported" sources. Both false claims, and done in an uncivil manner. As in so many of the links and diffs provided here by him, I often marvel at his belief that everyone is so gullible as to not see this quite clearly. When I took him to task for this, Piotrus immediately chimed in regretting the "mystery" of why I haven't been banned. Naturally I, his old nemesis Dr. Dan, "the best of the flamers" who his friend Poecticbent thought had "went the way of the Dodos" needed to be admonished by him or censured without any regard to the factuality or civility of Poecticbents rant. And this type of behavior has gone round and round for a long time and doesn't seem to be truly understood by the ArbCom. I personally have taken a different path. I hope they will too.
 * I think the breaking point regarding PL-LT relations came with the dispute over the naming of Jogaila. Sure he was king of Poland, but he was Lithuanian. The attempt to clarify this fact was met with great resistance. I remember one editor pathetically lamenting "Poor Jagiello, now they're trying to steal our king." Then came the Vilnius issue. After it became obvious that the Polish name, Wilno, for the city was not going to win out on English WP, you all insisted that the "historically" correct name in English, "Vilna" should be used instead of Vilnius (all the while denying that Cracow is the historically correct name of that city (your hometown) in English. Finally the Pilsudski matter. I realize that he was dictator of Poland, but that doesn't change his heritage. I realize that he is, as you call him, a "National Hero" of Poland but that doesn't change his heritage and ethnicity any more than claiming Lord Byron was Greek or that Fujimori is an Inca. The animosity of the past (which I hope will begin to now dissipate somewhat), must change. All sides will have to try to improve this encyclopedia by entertaining a more balanced and objective approach to articles that concern them, but in reality concern everyone who reads this encyclopedia. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How dare you accuse me of lying? And stop with your constant ranting & raving, flying in the face of WP:TPG guidelines. Long, rambling messages cannot and will not improve your record. -- Poeticbent  talk  00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Poeticbent, regarding WP:TPG guidelines. Perhaps if you had read them yourself we wouldn't be having this current interaction. As for accusing me of calling you a liar, which lie are you referring to? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "...which lie," you asked? Are you still beating your wife? -- Poeticbent  talk  18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't beat around the bush. Please be specific and show me, and everyone else, where I accused you of lying. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad
I don't see how 6.1 is overboard. Not only was there a FoF in the Digwuren case against Irpen as to the long history of personal disputes with Piotrus, but there was an additional specific FoF against Irpen for assumptions of bad faith. This current case has demonstrated that Irpen has continued this behaviour in spades, while there is no evidence presented that Piotrus has behaved similarly towards Irpen. So I don't see how reciprocity, as embodied in 6.1A is justified, given the FoF in previous cases and the evidence in this case. Martintg (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of inappropriate references by Irpen to Piotrus in recent months, other than in connection with this case itself? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping into this case one day after returning from a six week wikibreak seems rather inappropriate. The reciprocity embodied in remedy 6.1A isn't consistent with the specific FoF 15.2 against Irpen "has continued to be confrontational, despite having been found wanting in the Digwuren case". Since that case we have Irpen claiming on WP:AE that "Piotrus, doing so is worse than Dr Dan's sins." Then he lodges what some may see as a vexatious report against Piotrus on admin board about a series of stale events, which after much wikidramu, User:FT2 concludes: "Its a week now since the incident, and the matter is stale, the edit war over...I don't propose to take any action. I don't see the need right now, and we don't do "punitive" here". Perhaps a blanket prohibition over everything may be overboard, but a prohibition over commenting about Piotrus in non-mainspace pages is certainly reasonable. Otherwise 6.1A with its exception for "any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution" will just result in business as usual, since any subsequent report will be obviously seen as "bona fide" by the complainant. Martintg (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the findings/remedies should be more clear that it was Irpen who jumped into my case, not the other way around, and that it was a pattern that lasted for years... (him commenting on me, not me commenting on him). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Had Irpen not chosen to make this RfA their choice of how to return after a sizable Wikibreak and essentially usurped it as their case against Piotrus, (Deacon, the originator, has been a wallflower by comparison), these proceedings would be a miniscule fraction of their size. Despite Irpen's protestations of patience and good faith, it is bellicosity and pre-judgements of bad faith that are perceived from across the aisle. And why have these proceedings metastasized as they have? IMHO, because a large number of editors have had it with Irpen's preference for confrontation over consensus, as demonstrated by this choice here of how to return from Wikibreak. Irpen's choice and evidence against any and all involved here is ultimately evidence against no one except themselves. -PētersV (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very good point, even though Deacon originated this case, Irpen has dwarfed Deacon's contribution and made it into yet another round of Irpen versus Piotrus, which has only served to complicate and prolong the proceedings and drown out any potential bone fide issue. Presumably the FoF Conduct on Arbitration pages acknowledges this. Piotrus must be one of the most heavily scrutinized editors in Wikipedia, yet the only thing proven is that he is human who errs on occasion. Lets put an end to this rolling circus with an effective prohibition on Irpen commenting on Piotrus in non-article space. Martintg (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Instructing one editor not to comment on another, who violating basic WP rules and principles, would not solve any EE related problems, I think. Besides, we already having editors who are voicing concerns over freedom of speech. M.K. (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sciurinæ and battleground
To those who see no evidence that "Sciurinæ has treated Wikipedia as a battleground", I present some fresh new evidence: Sciurinæ appears on ANI in a thread not involving an article he has edited, simply to criticize me for "canvassing", "Wikilawyering", and "IM" cabalism, later assumes bad faith about my use of Polish language. It is exactly this kind of behavior - defending one another combined with personal attacks and bad faith towards others - that is a reason I presented evidence against certain editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the board on my watchlist and noticed the case when I was just about to go to bed. I didn't want to see another drama about an unjust block. That you still somehow created a drama - not there but here against me - doesn't surprise me anymore. But I really want to go to bed rather than spend any more time arguing with you just because I get targeted for providing information against you, which smacks of carrot and stick behaviour. I think I produced very well-founded details in little time in the thread to help the administrators reach a well-informed decision. Complaining that I chose the word "Wikilawyering" only shows further double standards, since it is actually you from whom I probably adopted it (you love it:        ).


 * I also don't understand why you're calling it an assumption of bad faith that I assume you're warning those in your buddy list because you already admitted to off-wiki warnings in 2006 and it's not wise if you call that acting in bad faith. That a user who you couldn't warn this way suddenly received it conveniently in Polish further supports the already good evidence of foul teamplay on your part. Canvassing is also an established term that doesn't need an assumption of bad faith and it has already been established that this was the way Radek was recruited.


 * However, I'll let others judge whether my comments were of value on this issue at AN/I and if yours were in any way other than incorrect, misleading, unnecessary and unfair and who should be lectured for that. I wouldn't have needed to say anything if it had not been for your faulty thread. Sciurinæ (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FoF against Stor stark7
Look, I don't care if you ban me for one year for nothing but the finding of fact is grossly incorrect, misleading and tailored to misrepresent me as a Nazi and please, please, please reconsider it, taking my new comments on it into account.--Stor stark7 Speak 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote elsewhere, based on my evidence (I have not read all presented by others) I don't think Stor stark7 should be banned. Some reminders and restrictions would be enough. But stor stark7 - the proposed FoF doesn't mention the word Nazi at all...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed FoF links directly to Molobos commentary as its sole justification, Piotrus. Regarding Molobo, see also for example. And based on your evidence Piotrus I weeks ago made these workshop proposals--Stor stark7 Speak 10:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears pretty clear from the arbitrators' votes that the proposal to ban Stor stark7 will not be adopted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Final review
I finished voting based on the original evidence and comments. Now I'm going back and looking at the new evidence and statements. I'll make changes as needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been doing the same thing. I'll have limited wiki-time this weekend (it's Thanksgiving weekend in the US) but should finish by early next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus request to the arbitrators
No, this is not about greg, and certainly not about anyone else, simply about myself. Overall, I think the arbitrators are doing a fine job in this complicated case, and overall, as far as findings and remedies involving my person are concerned, that applies as well. I do however have a comment to make, regarding finding 25.6. I have been contributing to this project for over four years, and I like to think I was a little useful along the way. However, for years I have been a target of various uncivil remarks and in extreme cases, harassment campaigns. Could by any chance a finding along the way "Piotrus has been a target of wiki-harassment/uncivil remarks/bad faith assumptions/unjustified accusations" be considered? I think it it important for the background. I am, simply put, tired and wikistressed, and it is not because I am imagining attacks on my person (or am I? current findings don't say...). That's one thing.

Second (and last). In the end, most us contribute to this project not because they want to be vilified, and I increasingly question why I am still dedicating time to this project, if my "reward" is an ongoing string of ArbCom proceedings. In all the torrent of hate whirling around here for several months, it would be nice if a few kind words were said. It's not like the ArbCom has never done so before:, , ,. There are some relevant proposals in the workshop that may be useful, in particular:  and. Please note I am not asking for some stellar endorsement. I am not perfect, and thus we have some findings/remedies that showcase my shortcomings, that's only reasonable. But if I am not guilty of most of the things I have been accused of for years, and if in fact I am helpful to this project and the project would benefit from my future contributions as it had in the past, it would be a nice thing to say so, every few years or so...

Of course, I am rather biased here, and the Committee may have reasons for summarizing 4+ years of my activities with some (deserved) admonishments and reminders only. Perhaps indeed I don't deserve anything more, and once the case ends the Signpost summary should indeed say only: "In Piotrus 2 case, editor Piotrus has been admonished to avoid edit warring and not to abuse his admin status". In any case, I'd appreciate if the arbitrators would take a minute or two to consider this. I will await the arbitrator's thoughts. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, man, you have escaped meaningful sanction and your only POV allies punished are throw-away accounts that will be able to avoid their blocks by restarting with new names in a few months. At the same time your biggest POV-opponents Lokyz and (esp.) Irpen have been hammered, while even ole ["Russian" "Polonophobe"] me has gotten a "remedy" for having had the temerity to start this hearing! And you're seriously complaining? Piotrus, you should be quietly celebrating, rather than pushing your luck. ;) Anyways, don't you intend to treat everything without a FoF as having been proven untrue [that's how it seemed from some of the things you said before]? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After having read this, I cannot believe that Deacon of Pndapetzim is still an admin here. Tymek (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the sentiment, admin or not. Nihil novi (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Matthead
The previous activity has been restarted in the past few days. Example:  Starting with "The polish astronomer claim"-another series of incivil rants, nationalistic claims and opinions inflaming the discussion is started completely disconnected to the article discussed--Molobo (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard Matthead had improved since I left English wikipedia because of his behaviour and is more focused on constructive editing, rather than fighting now. --Lysytalk 10:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Recent edits by Matthead show the same old tendentiousness, as when he proposes to limit Copernicus, in his "scientist infobox," to one of his four alma maters (not the Polish Kraków University, which Copernicus attended for four years)—while Albert Einstein is permitted two alma maters, and J. Robert Oppenheimer—three! No logic here, nor civility. Nihil novi (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship for Boodlesthecat
Given the high quality of Boodlesthecat's actual edits, I'd like to propose mentorship, rather than banning. I have proposed that two experienced editors, User:Avraham and User:Durova, act as mentors, and discussed it with them. Boodlesthecat has himself agreed to such mentorship, and shown himself to be highly responsive to mentoring. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is an excellent idea Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose-I have yet to see a high quality edit by Boodles.--Molobo (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to do this if he and the Committee are willing. I'll want a free hand, though.  Durova  Charge! 06:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment . In my interaction over actual content I've mainly seen endless quoting of sources and opposition to creating any balanced narrative not in keeping with Boodlesthecat's extremely narrow POV. Since I have not made an extensive review of Boodlesthecat's contributions, I've entered this as a comment. —PētersV (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. On consideration of other comments here, I cannot support mentoring for someone who only knows how to deride snd witch-hunt their opposition. It's not just about creation of content, it's about attitude toward how to do it. Boodlesthecat is the only editor who has ever put hate speech into my mouth "in other words...". And continue to insist they are justified in all their comments. -PētersV (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Boodlesthecat is the most opinionated POV warrior I ever met. His unbelievable block history should make any willing mentor wary. Only a time-off can make him slow down. And please, Jayjg, don't make me laugh about his actual edits, because that's a whole new bag of worms. -- Poeticbent  talk  07:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

High quality indeed... I don't think he has started any articles yet, and content edits were definitely partisan. In any case, a mentorship may be considered for users who recognize their errors and admit they could use a mentor, like greg did. Has Boodlesthecat gave any public indication of recognition of his errors? Btw, Jayjg, I know I've asked you before to mentor Boodleshetcat and moderate him, and up till now you have ignored my requests... what made you change your mind? In particular, do you think Boodlesthecat made errors? What were they and how can he improve? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like it might be a good idea, certainly worth a try. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support providing some restrictions will apply. 1RR per week is good, 0RR would be better. As I have mentioned yesterday in a letter to Charles Matthews: I didn't bring Boodlesthecat to attention of this ArbCom to punish Boodles, but to improve the quality standards of Wikipedia. Now it seems I am being punished for doing that too or something like that (not neccessarily verbatim). greg park avenue (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree I'm fully agreeable to Jayjg's proposal, and indeed would welcome and appreciate the opportunity. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreeable to what? Could you be so kind and to explain to us what do you recognize as errors from your past and how you'll behave differently in the future? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * please note that he does welcome and appreciates the opportunity of the mentorship, perhaps clear and honest pledge will follow .. --Jacurek (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I have not had any real interactions with Durova so I can't speak for him/her, but in my interactions with Avraham I have been pleasantly surprised by his level-headedness, intelligence, and fair outlook. Boodles might be a bit rough around the edges but his overall contributions are too valuable to be lost. Having Avraham as a mentor is a great compromise. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose In the course of 2008, Boodles has been blocked 11 times in 11 months -- what's wrong with this picture? My own interactions with him have been relatively limited, but in that short period I have found him to be astonishingly insulting and painfully uncooperative. I enjoy collaborating with people on projects, but I find it impossible to work with someone who is more interested in a good fight than a good article. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. His impressive list of bans tells all. This person does not seem likely to change. I previously wrote that Wikipedia is one large battleground, and it is because of people like him. high quality of Boodlesthecat's actual edits - that must be a joke. Anyone can type Polish antisemitism on Google books and then try to insert quotations taken out of context wherever and whenever it is convenient. Tymek (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding?, Boodles has already had three blocks since this case has opened. If he is incapable of behaving while a case involving him is open, what chance is there that he would be amenable to mentoring? Oppose. Martintg (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I tried to debate some problems with him during this case, but that was nearly impossible.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Boodles has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep with a NPOV in many of his edits. Redman5578 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Initially in my encounters with Boodles I thought he was someone who could be worked with and reasoned with (and I was sympathetic to some of his edits). He very quickly managed to disprove that notion. His block log is a testament to that. He has a battle-ground mentality and any attempts at compromise are rejected or exploited. As noted above his edits oftentimes (not always) consist of taking quotes from, admittedly reliable sources, and presenting them out of context, then resorting to wiki-lawyering to preserve the mis-impression that kind of approach generates. The final straw here though is that through-out this process he has not shown any kind of willingness to cooperate, to change, or even rethink his negative approach to this project. In fact he has taunted and insulted (indirectly of course) others involved in this arbitration. It is very unlikely that a mentorship is going to be able to change that if this whole process hasn't already.radek (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Based on my past experiences with Boodlesthecat, this is not practical. --Lysytalk 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this user is quite problematic and by all accounts difficult to work with. His continued, unrepentant disruption and lengthy block log have earned him a year off, which hopefully will drum some sense into him. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Boodlesthecat's edits are generally constructive and supported by high-quality academic sources. I think mentoring would be a good idea. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Based on his habitual behavior, it seems a waste of time. He doesn't listen to people who disagree with him; why would he pay the slightest attention to a mentor?  Nihil novi (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My my A sock puppet socked it to me. Boodlesthecat Meow?
 * I have to concur with Boodles on this one. I've blocked Redman5578 as well as the anon address s/he used previously for repeated insertion of unsourced/poorly-sourced material into an article on a living person while refusing to engage in any discussions about his/her edits. Note that Redman5578's first-ever edits are to this page. Mr. Darcy talk 14:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redundant Support, per observation that B contributes to articles using high-quality sources; also spots and removes unacceptable sources . If B's content opponents feel the additions are unbalanced, they are free to balance them with sources of equal quality. Novickas (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A few words
This is one of Wikipedia's toughest disputes and has a lot of history; it was not an easy decision to agree to this offer. Foremost, the purpose of mentorship is not to shield an editor from the consequences of poor decisions. The purpose of mentorship is to generate a feedback loop that improves the quality of decisions.

For the past year I've mentored Jaakobou, one of the editors in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. He's broadened his editing horizons, contributed DYKs and featured content, and hasn't needed a block since spring. Another editor I've mentored is Cirt--who had collected 7 edit warring blocks on a previous account before he came to me. Cirt turned around to become a prolific featured content creator, an administrator on three WMF projects, an OTRS volunteer, and a member of the arbitration committee on Wikinews. Both of them looked like they were on their way to topic bans before mentorship started.

Not every mentorship turns out so well; I recently walked away from one and certified a user conduct RFC. What Boodlesthecat will get if the Committee accepts this offer is a set of challenges, a sounding board, and a place to blow off steam. Respectfully submitted. Durova Charge! 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider shifting your support to User: Greg park avenue whose area of interest include Polish-Jewish relations as well. Apart from the way Greg used to express his personal opinions on various American writers and their literary output—which can be improved with your kind mentorship—he is also quite knowledgeable and even-handed with regard to the actual subject. Boodlesthecat, on the other hand, brings nothing but grief to the negotiating table. Not once did he construct a coherent narrative based on his internet research. All he does is stuff articles with fished out expressions of racial hatred. This has been going on for months with a number of articles defaced by him permanently. Nobody touches any of these attack pages anymore in fear of his relentless bullying tightly shielded by his political tag team members such as Jayjg. Please remember, Boodlesthecat is not, and has never been defenceless in his antics, so your present offer can only worry a lot of open-minded and socially responsible contributors. -- Poeticbent  talk  19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try them both, if that's all right? Durova  Charge! 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair is fair. Nobody can hold Boodlesthecat responsible for the amount of insults thrown at the Polish people by the older generation of Jewish scholars. All he does, is find and repeat them without much of a thought. The lack of perspective in how these quotes are being used in Wikipedia is the hardest to take, but Boodlesthecat's diligence in bringing them in helps to see also the extend of anti-Polish sentiment inside the Jewish community. Links to specific pages in books (which might have escaped prior attention) reveal passages by the accomplished Jewish writers claiming for example that the Poles "were generally unhappy at seeing even a fraction of the Jews still alive " after the war (emphasis mine). Or, that "Polish priests did not save even one Jewish life." I wonder, how could anybody say such a thing with a straight face. And yet, these sort of monstrosities are featured in books by the animators of Jewish life throughout over half a century. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not pre-designed to uphold the balance of truth or weed out extremism supported by reliable sources while giving a green light to quote-farms of biased and normative opinions, added here under the pretext of expanding the articles’ content. I don’t know if anybody can coach any Wikipedian to understand that sort of thing. -- Poeticbent  talk  17:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An eloquent statement, Poeticbent. Is that how you get your username?  If you have specific concerns that you'd like to make me aware of you're welcome to go into depth at my user talk.  A dry just-the-facts-ma'am approach is generally the most productive.  It doesn't help a person rise to their best self to be reminded of their worst self so forcefully, especially if they believe the opinion isn't quite wholly deserved.  You're welcome to show me sources in German if they're available online, but would need a translator's assistance with Polish sources.  I happen to live on the U.S.-Mexican border, so sources in European languages other than English and Spanish are rarely available locally.  Best wishes,  Durova  Charge! 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship for greg
What about discussing mentorship for a user who has expressed remorse for his past actions and admitted willingness to work with a mentor? See this thread for more details. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you opened yet another thread concerning this contributor? Just above we already have one, and almost all active arbiters' talk pages are filled with your request concerning this editor. Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually. M.K. (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NB I tried to move this up to the other Greg section, but Piotrus reverted me and I figure it's best not to edit-war on an arbcom page. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. To the best of my memory, Greg has not been banned so far (correct me if I am wrong). It is a good idea, and a little comment to user MK - please, no personal attacks. This is not helpful. Tymek (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tymek, please do not make false accusations of personal attacks. It is tendentious. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, it is a false accusation, in my opinion it is a personal attack. EOT. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't know how unprecedented it is that the ArbCom would ban a guy with a clean block log, but Greg has clearly recognised he goofed up, expressed remorse repeatedly and vowed never to repeat the mistake he made. He is certainly amenable to mentorship in my view. Martintg (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. He has a clean record (no blocks at all). Mentorship and topic ban (as discussed at workshop) would be sufficient.Biophys (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anybody (preferably not a participant of this case) has agreed to mentor him? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a suitable mentor can be found and greg sticks by his promises above then Support.radek (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea but - would we be able to find an ininvolved mentor ? --Lysytalk 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I would love to see User:Durova offer her mentorship in this instance since she already expressed her interest in doing so, because this is where her initiative would not get wasted. -- Poeticbent  talk  17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Greg is generally a solid contributor who made a mistake and apologised for it. A milder form of corrective action (than the proposed ban) certainly seems in order. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair's fair. I'll climb on board.  Will there be a copilot or will this be a solo flight?  Durova  Charge! 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should realise that all the people posting supports here (and opposes to Boodles) are traditional friends/allies of Piotrus. That's something that has to be pointed out and realised, as one would get a distorted impression of community opinion otherwise. I do think there is a difference between the two users, per the arguments used by DGG [a rare outsider] previously. Note also the input of two other outsiders, Jayjg and brewcrewer. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding or what? Neither Jayjg (a committed revert warrior in support of Boodlesthecat's political assaults) nor User:Brewcrewer are "outsiders" by any means. They are in fact Boodlesthecat stern supporters. Just listen to what brewcrewer has to say about Polish wikipedians: "Boodles has not been perfect regarding civility or reverting, but considering the characters he has to put up with, I don't know if anyone would do any better." And please, don't forget that we ALL are a community working toward a common goal here and contrary to your slanted personal opinion, we are NOT anybody's "supporters" but the project's. -- Poeticbent  talk  21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In disputes of this sort it often happens that people with similar views agree with each other often. Perhaps, a neutral and uninvolved party mentoring one individual from each side of the dispute can help.  No guarantees here; it's a difficult situation.  Durova  Charge! 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - this user recognized his mistakes, apologized and expressed remorse several times already laying out a solid foundation for the mentorship.--Jacurek (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good idea. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Durova agree to mentor Greg, I would Support, she is a good mentor Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I doubt if greg park avenue has made a positive contribution to the project, but perhaps mentoring would help. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Greg seems to have the capacity to learn and mature—unlike many of his antagonists. Nihil novi (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring FOFs for Deacon and Irpen
These look to be stretching the definition of edit warring, and I don't think they warrant the same wording as that of findings stemming from 3RR blocks. The bright line is there for good reasons. In Deacon's case, the reversions were spread out over a two-week period at a single article, involved discussion, and revolved around Piotrus' inclusion of matter from a newspaper that contradicted an academic source. In Irpen's case, which involves Denial of the Holodomor and the Holodomor template, I would like to draw an analogy. If someone were to create a US war crimes template, and then include Highway of Death in that template, would it be inappropriate to contest that article's inclusion until the article and template reached some semblance of consensus? Full disclosure: I have edited Highway of Death; I inserted some references which speak of it as a war crime; but it is not by any means ready for inclusion in such a template. Irpen's alleged edit wars at those articles were likewise spread out over several weeks and were discussed. More seriously, the articles concern what is, by the word's definition, a crime against humanity. It was not unreasonable to seek more discussion and more consensus there, and not unreasonable to ask that the Denial article be extremely high quality before being included in the template. Novickas (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In both cases, I find edit warring of those editors much less common and much less disruptive then their attitude towards others, leading to battleground creation (usually on talk of affected articles). What is needed much more than edit warring warnings/restrictions are those regarding civility. One just needs to look at Deacon's tone in his recent post here, and considered he edit warred on this very talk, to see why such findings/remedies are in order.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, no person of consequence buys this kind of thing. Novickas, I believe I said my piece on this above. Of course, reverting of that kind (it can be "Edit-warring" if you really want it to be) is an offense one can get any content editor for if one wants to. Given this, you suspect that if people start condemning single two week 7-revert back-and-forth then there's probably another reason. I was baffled by it initially, but I brought the case and, you know the saying ... "play too close to a fire, then you get burned". Or maybe it's a case of the court being "the most dangerous place in the kingdom". If you had launched the case you yourself would probably have had some random finding against you. C'est la vie. I'm a totie bit annoyed by the thought that Piotrus et al successfully convinced them I was a Polonophic Russian nationalist, another edit-warring eastern European nationalist like them, but that really should be such obvious nonsense. You'd think! Maybe if I had cared more I'd have put work into the case beyond filing it, or sent out loads of emails, or spammed the arb's personal talk pages every two seconds to make sure my point was known. I didn't think I would need to do it, and that is my real crime, as well as I suppose, my punishment. Who really cares though?! For me at least, the decision speaks more of the decision than it does of the actions allegedly being ruled against. Crazy. Just like the vote citing a piece of satire I wrote as an excuse. I do feel for Irpen on 6.2 though. Irpen's editing interests gave him a hard time and he didn't have as many allies in these areas as Piotrus had (and "his Molobo" is being perma-banned in another case). This is really harsh on him. I think they're just going through a period where, without knowing how to be effective or having time to look into matters properly, they want to be harsh on things like this, and, well ... it's the luck of the draw after that. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deacon, the fact that you continue to protest your innocence and question the ArbCom's judgment speaks volumes of why the FoF and remedy against you is entirely justified. Ever tried to clap with one hand? It takes two to conflict, and you have certainly given as good as you got. Irpen is just more extreme, totally failing to acknowledge that his behavior may be a part of the problem and even going as far as accusing the ArbCom generally of a "glaring lack of personal and judicial ethics". Martintg (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Novickas, PS, aren't you more concerned with the fact no-one even proposed a restriction to Piotrus on Lithuanian articles? This was surely the bottom line after the nonsense surrounding his block and that Holocaust in Lithuanian article he created upon his return. And also given the fact that, let's face it, you could count the number of Lithuanian or US Lithuanian users who trust or respect him on the back of fish's hand. No no. Just make it easier to punish certain Lithuanian users Piotrus' doesn't like, so it will be easier to forum-shop them into blocks. Yeah, ArbCom, that'll really solve the problems! Sigh. I should take this page off my watchlist. This case drives me utterly bonkers. :P Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Novickas could have proposed such a Lithuanian topic ban herself, but she didn't. Even to the end you appear to be attempting to forment distrust between the Lithuanian and Polish editing communities. Martintg (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * N. does not like the idea of topic bans; is happy with any sort of recognition that Piotrus has been a problematic editor and admin; notes that PL-LT conflicts predate Deacon; expresses appreciation to Deacon for filing this, brought more eyes is always good. Novickas (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Novickas. What is next? Admonishing people for edit warring if they revert tripling of elephants meme? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Remedy 20.3
OK, with all due respect to the author of this remedy (and I absolutely do have utmost respect for his work on the committee): what is this remedy supposed to accomplish? The users of the channel have been reminded time after time not to do all the negative things mentioned in the remedy (it's pretty much there when you join the channel each time). I don't see why this should work if none of the other previous reminders have. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Motion to close
Please note that some findings would pass with even 1 more abstention - I therefore disagree with the assessment that the Committee has made as much progress as it reasonably can in this case. I've again pinged Charles Matthews on certain sub-findings/findings that lack his votes entirely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that Charles Matthews has reviewed his votes if he is making a vote to close. There is no reason for an oppose vote, truly. A non-support is the same as an oppose. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was of the understanding that an abstention reduces the number of supports required for a majority; that is certainly the classical understanding of such votes. If that is the case, a very significant number of these proposals will pass simply because of a lack of opposition rather than a majority affirmative vote. It would be helpful if the Committee would tell the readers if it has changed the way it allocates abstentions. Risker (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not voting on a particular proposal is not an abstention, it is essentially the same as an oppose vote. That is the way that we have always figured votes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment, I try my best to review all proposals and vote for them as I think it is best practice. But it is not necessary for a case to have the votes of all active arbs for us to have a completed case. Waiting for each arb to vote on each proposal would stall the close of cases for no good reason if there are enough votes to make a coherent case. The vote to close section is important as it allows an arb to stall a close if they want to finish voting. As a courtesy, we usually give an arb some time to vote if they express an desire to finish their vote even if their votes will not change the case ruling. If they continue to be tardy in finishing, then we will close with out their final votes. I hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully applaud Charles move to close on the basis that this needs to be closed - in fact, as more than one arbitrator is aware, I was hoping this case would be ready to close some 10 days ago, and this is the closest we've gotten to that goal. However, I am also perplexed by the point here.


 * Indeed, we do presume that a no support vote is an oppose vote, but I have to respectfully disagree with the comment that "there is no reason for an oppose vote". An explicit oppose vote/signature specifically conveys that the arbitrator did look at the relevant material - a lack-of-vote creates unnecessary ambiguity on whether the arbitrator did look at the relevant material. Given that it takes more time to look at the relevant material than it does to produce signatures in an oppose section, I'm wondering is there a reason for not explicitly signing/voting when you've looked? I could try to appreciate a scenario where one didn't have the time to explain their oppose rationale at that moment, but in this case, the basic rationale for abstaining/opposing was already given. I also note that it didn't seem like the initial vote to close here was with a desire to stall to finish voting (which is why I created this thread). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On a general but separate note, I agree that "it is not necessary for a case to have the votes of all active arbs for us to have a completed case." I think this could be the case here. However, in other cases, where there is only 1 or 2 votes preventing a proposal from passing or not, it's sometimes necessary to have more arbitrators voting. This is particularly when it is in the interests of the best possible outcome being achieved for all those involved, or the project as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are a number of findings of fact that are only one vote from passing: 17, in fact, by my count, most with 5 support/0 oppose/2 abstain. I've struck my comment above; I was mixing up the "net 4" voting to accept cases with the straight majority voting on this page. Risker (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. :) I came to 8 or 9 proposals myself, based on the assumption that FayssalF is inactive on this case. My own implementation notes are as follows.


 * ''All proposals pass except:
 * ''Fofs 10, 11.3*, 12*, 15.3*, 15.4*, 16, 17, 22, 25.2, 25.6, 28, 29, 31.2*, 31.3, 31.5, and;
 * ''Remedies 1.1, 2, 3.1, 4*, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2*, 6.2A*, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 22, 22.1, and 24.
 * Proposals marked with * do not pass by 1 vote. Note also that remedies 3.1 and 5.1 only have 2 votes - both to support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) - Interesting point: are there 11 or 12 active arbitrators on this case? This makes an enormous difference in what does or does not pass. Risker (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct; it makes a big difference. What a mess - if it's 12, it looks like this is going to take longer to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are currently 13 arbitrators in total. FT2 has listed himself as currently inactive, meaning he does not count toward the number of active arbitrators unless he chooses to vote in a particular matter, which he has not in this case. FayssalF was away for a couple of weeks (it wound up being significantly longer than the one week he originally indicated), and has not requested that he be moved back to active in the case nor has he commented on it in any venue. I would think he should remain listed as inactive as well, but if there is any doubt the best course might be for someone to ask him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will now also point out that my initial concern, which I struck after FloNight had said " non-support is the same as an oppose" (i.e., an abstention did not have any effect on the quorum), turns out to have been entirely correct, based on Penwhale's and AGK's calculations: Abstention votes change the number of votes to achieve majority according to the clerks' calculations, affecting the results for FoFs 7 (vote 5/0/3), 9 (vote 6/0/2), 15.1 (vote 6/1/0 - this should not be passing) and 27 (vote 6/1/0 - this should not be passing); as well as remedies 11.1, 14, 18 and 19 (vote 6/0/1 for all). So, which is it? It does not help when arbitrators count one way and clerks count another, and this has to be straightened out for the sake of the people named in these remedies.  Risker (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator abstaining (or recusing on a particular item) is not counted as active on that item (equivalently, is subtracted from counting toward a quorum on that item). E.g., if there are 11 arbitrators active on the case and 2 abstain on finding X, then there are 9 remaining on that item and a majority on it is 5.
 * An arbitrator who is listed as active on the case but does not vote at all (on the case or a particular item) still counts toward the quorum. E.g., if there are 11 arbitrators active on the case and 5 support finding Y and the rest say nothing, Y has not (yet) passed.
 * One could debate whether these rules make complete sense, but they are the system we have at present. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The clerks are not counting incorrectly, Risker, I don't think. Every abstention on a proposal reduces the respective default majority downwards by one. An oppose vote, however, has no effect on the proposal insofar as vote weighting is concerned; support is, unlike motions to close and opinions on accepting a request, measured in raw terms rather than by net. AGK 20:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To address the confusion over the number of active arbitrators:
 * There are 12 active Committee members. I made this quite clear in my implementation notes (which unfortunately were in the process of being written, and were therefore absurdly untidy and in "note form" when Penwhale added his own): Charles Matthews was listed as inactive—and the majority reflected that inaccuracy—until I began authoring my own notes, at which point I adjusted the arbitrator list to include him as an active arbitrator. The majority currently displayed on the /Proposed decision page is correct—12 active arbitrators (only Fayssal inactive); 7 votes a majority.
 * A number of proposals are affected by this late adjustment: some arbitrators have not voted on all the proposals, meaning some have unanimous support but fall one support vote short of the required majority. A ping to ArbCom-l requesting that all active members re-evaluate this page (and vote if possible) may be in order.…
 * Lastly, I would note that Newyorkbrad posted a number of proposals that were alternatives to those proposed by Kirill in the initial decision. A number of arbitrators have not, it seems, noticed these alternatives (or they voted before they were proposed), and the proposals have therefore received little attention. This was a trend seen often when Fred Bauder was a Committee member (he frequently proposed alternatives after the initial proposed decision was posted which received few votes); to avoid this lack of evaluation, again, a ping to ArbCom-l might be in order.
 * AGK 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To NYB: I was pretty sure that abstentions affected quorum when I noted it above, and I am going to now remove my strike-outs. It seems to me, however, that most of those "abstains" are actually comments rather than conscious efforts to change the quorum. In fact, this does not accord with Robert's Rules as far as I can see, where abstentions are counted as "spoiled ballots" and have no effect on the quorum. Using this current process, we could have 8 of 11 arbitrators abstaining, bringing the quorum to 2, which is not only counterintuitive but absurd. The difference for the people involved is enormous, and I would ask every arbitrator who has abstained on these motions to revisit their votes and consider whether their intention was simply to comment, or to cause the proposals to pass because of their abstention.
 * To AGK: FoF 15.1 and 27 both have 6 support, 1 oppose and NO abstentions; therefore the required majority of 7 is not met. The other ones I noted above are the FoFs and Remedies that are all affected by counting abstentions to reduce the quorum. If it is decided that the majority is actually 6, then there will be many more FoFs and Remedies that will be similarly affected. Risker (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad and I, both prior ArbCom Clerks, knew that it was important to look at this before the case was officially closed because of the potential miscommunication about abstains and the amount of case proposals. By looking at it now, we can answer questions and make any fixes (if needed) before the cases closes. :-) In the few past days, Newyorkbrad and Charles both sent emails to the Committee about the case closing. There was a reminder to look at the alternative proposals by Newyorkbrad. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we at least see corrections to the clerk notes about FoF 15.1 and 27, both of which are at 6 support, 1 oppose and NO abstentions, as they do not meet the required majority of 7? And is everyone agreed now that we are talking about 12 active arbitrators on this case?  Risker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here to say I still thought we only had 11 arbitrators on this case (FT2 and FayssalF inactive), but I see now that FT2 voted on some principles, so he has to count as active&mdash;although it makes little sense to count him as active on the findings and remedies, since he is on the inactive list and hasn't voted on them, that's the way the rule works at least at present.
 * As for abstentions, I went back through the decision a few days ago and changed my votes to oppose where I thought it was important to do so, so I am satisfied as to how the rules affect my own votes; other arbs might wish to do the same. It's becoming pretty clear we need to allow a couple more days before closing for a few more arbs to sweep through the decision again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It says that Deskana is inactive at the top of this page, making it 11. Is that wrong? --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, if you hadn't noticed, User:YellowMonkey has started to vote, working his way down voting on the proposals in the last couple of days, so I don't think he is finished yet. This motion to close seems a bit premature. Martintg (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note (as has FloNight) that Deskana is marked as inactive on this case; he returned to active duty on November 14th, but was inactive at the time this case was accepted. He also has not voted as far as I can see. Without a vote or a clear statement that he is active in this case, does that not mean he remains inactive? Risker (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in again, but voting is one of the things that really needs to be reformed. It is currently is is too complex and confusing as demonstrated by the discussion above. IMHO, there should only be two options, support or oppose, while a non-vote is considered an abstention (i.e lowers the quorum necessary for that particular proposal). Then there is no confusion about who is active or not. Martintg (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not confusing to me but I understand why you think it is. We need abstains, I think, but will consider your thoughts.
 * Flo, if you cannot figure out which members of your own ranks are active for the purposes of this vote, what hope is there for us mere mortals? Martintg (talk)


 * I think Deskana is inactive. I looked at the PD talk page before I voted to close and read the entire case to see if we had a coherent case. With him inactive there is 11 active, a majority of 6, and a ruling that addresses my concerns. If the majority is 7 (which I don't think it is), then I withdraw my close vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure that is a good idea to require only support or oppose votes, and count non-votes as abstentions altering the quorum. I can see having a "recuse" for individual proposals that would lower the quorum for that particular item, but I also think it's important that there be an opportunity for arbitrators to include some discussion without having to have it count as a vote. Charles Matthews' abstentions in several FoFs, for example, read more like "I don't think this should be in the final decision, but I neither support nor oppose the point being made." Granted that after 3 years he should know that will lower the quorum, even still his stated intention was to reduce the number of FoFs being made ("I am abstaining on some negative findings, not because testing the evidence was pointless, but to simplify the final decision." - From FoF 14); instead, in several cases, they can potentially be the decisive reason that some FoFs will be included in the final decision, particularly if we settle on 11 active arbitrators for this case. Risker (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Counting a non-vote as a "recuse" would solve the problem of whether there are 10, 11 or 12 active members, would it not? Martintg (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are problems with that approach as well. We would need to change the closing vote procedure to stop arbs from being disenfranchised if they take off for a few days while a case they are active on is open. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, perhaps some kind of voting window of sufficient length. All I'm saying is that the ArbCom needs to at some later date look at some practical reforms to make this easier for all concerned. Currently the whole process is drawn out and laborious. Martintg (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are currently some proposals for redevelopment of the Arbitration policy that discuss this in more detail (Arbitration policy proposed updating by Newyorkbrad and Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2, an alternate proposal by FT2). I am sure your comments would be appreciated. Risker (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I've emailed Newyorkbrad a chart-form analysis of which measures will pass with either 12 or 11 active arbitrators, which can be shared with the Committee; I didn't send it to the committee's mailing list for fear of the moderation queue eating it. If anyone else would like a copy, shoot me an email and I will send it back by return post. Please note that the chart is in Microsoft Word format simply because that is what I had available to me right now.  Risker (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Extended implementation notes
OK, that screwed with my head. If anyone wants to do the remedies for me (just do the left-hand side, then go into notepad and convert all "acnrow" to "acnrow-alt" using find and replace), it'd be much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, that's what we were looking for. Good show Daniel. AGK 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job. Just a small nit pick. User:Morven actually voted twice on the FoF about me, both "support" and "abstain", so unless double counting of votes is permitted, my FoF fails to pass on either 11 or 12 active ArbCom members. Martintg (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed he did, thanks for spotting that. I left him a note, so when he corrects his vote(s) on this proposal, I'll update the above. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's struck the abstention so the double-vote is resolved. Daniel (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that I've updated these notes as of the timestamp of this comment - please also note that I excluded remedies that aren't passing or very unlikely to pass; if they're needed, someone else may wish to fill in the gaps. I'll also note that a select few users may think I'm "evading" an "issue" by making this update - I trust if either the arb emeritus or the current Committee have a problem with it, they'll let me know now. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it difficult to see how the numbers arrived at on several of the rows above can be correct. Just to take a single example: FoF Piotrus (25.2) in the "10 active arbs" column, it shows 3 abstentions - which to me means 7 voting, hence a majority is 4 (not 5 as shown). Look at FoF Irpen (15.4) in the same column - 1 abstention, but majority reads 6 (for 9 voters) and so on. The giveaway is when the "needs x supports" plus the number votes already cast exceeds the number of arbs. I'm not sure if I've missed anything in the discussion above or in the discussions on previous RfAr cases where voting was explained, but something doesn't seem right. --RexxS (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct - that was a minor error in the table code; I think I've fixed it now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And updated again per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)