Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:29, 28 August 2008

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Eastern Mediterranean University

Initiated by --2knowledgeable (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

2knowledgeable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Adoniscik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GulizSahdur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gulizcik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by {Party 1}

The Case of Eastern Mediterranean University has been the topic of heated debate for several months. The allegations made in the press against the university of administrative misconduct, racism and anti-Semitism (particularly the latter) offended the sensitivities of North Cypriot nationals who claim that "anti-Semitism" simply "does not exist" in their small nation. The debate has been emotional but civilized and was carried out successfully through mediation, where the parties compromised, and scrutinized carefully their sources.

Recently, a new discussion was ensued through the article talk page which is entirely of a different nature. Suck puppetry, edit wars, personal insults, attacking people by given name, and inappropriate messages in Turkish. It does not help that the discussion was joined by a vandal who uses expletives, threats, insults, and clear despise towards Wikipedia rules.

I have done my best to ask participants to behave appropriately, to defend some sources for the article (which have already been through fierce mediation), and to offer compromise. All I received in return was a barge of personal insults and further vandalism.

I am happy to engage in an appropriate discussion about the issue, but I do not want to tolerate vandalism, national extremists and anti-Semites.

--2knowledgeable (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

I don't see the need for arbitration yet. Per the article's talk page, we are currently waiting for:

2K to provide solid sources. The best he has offered is a Web forum with anonymous editors.
Some news articles to appear in Cyprus Today this week that will hopefully shed some light on this issue. (Was the teacher fired because of anti-semitism or due to incompetence, etc.?)

The issue appears to be blown out of proportion to me, as a casual observer. In the US, for example, you often hear about this or that professor getting fired by virtue of gender/race/religion and it makes the news for a while until it gets resolved. But these are temporary things; not some pervasive feature of the institution that merits mention in a WP article.

2K said, above:

I have done my best to ask participants to behave appropriately, to defend some sources for the article (which have already been through fierce mediation), and to offer compromise. All I received in return was a barge of personal insults and further vandalism.

This is false on several levels. First, it is 2K who must defend the sources (others impugned them, leading to the removal of the allegations). Second, he received no personal insults (from me, at least) though he did mete some out. Third, he was the one to vandalize the article by repeatedly restoring the allegations despite a consensus that the sources were not strong enough. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2knowledgeable's very short response

As you will see, I did not revert the changes, but argued against them on the talk page. I did make a humble request that the article will be reverted to its stage after mediation pending arbitration. --2knowledgeable (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight

This is a content dispute that can probably be resolved by a discussion on the reliable source noticeboard, or by dispute resolution. In my humble opinion, arbitration isn't required at this stage.

Perhaps this is a good idea (I wasn't aware of this possibility). I searched the help page for "source noticeboard" and posted a query. Thanks. --2knowledgeable (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

Reject. Premature at least, if not simply a content dispute. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and mostly involves user conduct issues. Likely that this will be resolved with the input of more editors. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. A poisonous content dispute is still a content dispute. Those in dispute on the article should concentrate on the reliable sources and what they say about the subject. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per above. Kirill ^(prof) 12:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reject per FloNight. --bainer (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per others above. Please note that this does not mean we don't care about the dispute or don't wish to see it resolved. Rather, we think that earlier steps in the dispute resolution problem should be sufficient to address the issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus 2

Initiated by Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) at 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

[1]
[2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Introduction

Piotrus is not a new topic for ArbCom by any means, and neither is he for me. I hate doing this kind of thing, but there are issues here that cannot be solved by anything except ArbCom intervention. Let me first introduce my involvement. About two years ago I had a few minor run-ins with Piotrus related to Jogaila, but it never really got bad, and since I've pretty much stayed away from eastern European stuff save editing a few uncontroversial medieval history articles. Piotrus and I have had a normal working relationship, agreeing on a lot of principles, and haven't been in much conflict at all. I'm not from eastern Europe and don't have any ethnic-issues that involve me in most of the disputes. Still, I've seen the arbcom cases, all the AN/I threads, ArbCom enforcement threads ... like watching a soap opera. So, although in the periphery of my wikivision, he has nonetheless been in (and out) of it.

Chronic WP:Battle problems

Summary:

Continued edit-warring and battling, in particular edit-warring with and provoking Lithuanian editors
Spamming cut-and-paste provocative new articles
Disingenuous blockshopping and ArbEnforcement, Piotrus' secret diff-stack on pl.wiki
Block for 3rr violation, misrepresentation of "opponents" on IRC, and attempted bullying of blocking admin

Recent meatpuppetry as further illustration

Summary:

Tendentious edit-warring on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018
Probable use of recruited meatpuppets

Sumary of concerns

We can't use WP:AGF as an excuse to ignore wikipedia's problems. There's been thread after thread about this user's behaviour. Behavioral patterns that should be behind us are being sustained and replicated because senior users like Piotrus are ~~guiding newer~~using users such as Alden Jones down this path, ~~teaching them it's acceptable~~ and actually encouraging them for their own ends. His behaviour has proved as thoroughly as any wikipedian's behaviour could ever prove that he is committed to conflict, provocation and partizanship. So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored. People are entitled to new chances, to have time to adapt to changing peer expectation. But guidelines like WP:BATTLE are not new, and chances have come enough. Though the wikipedian discourse community is fond of stating without believing that adminship is NBD and involves only access to a few bland "mop privileges", that is in reality far from the truth. His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community, while at the same time it gives him the gravitas edit-war and battle subject to higher community tolerance. (I say with deep regret, but) It hence needs, in my opinion, to be removed. ArbCom can't control off-wiki activities, but it is not powerless. Of course, if Arbcom sees a better solution that gets somewhere, that would be even better.

Additional notes

A "new" user Koretek has this afternoon began to spread accusations of "Polonophobia" against me, using diffs taken from summer 2006 (when the aforementioned the run-in with Piotrus took place). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about User:Alden Jones began taking place yesteday on AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_sock_farm_through_multiple_wiki-projects. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Per clerk's request, refactored for readability. Full version here: User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2, headings linked.

1. Creating battlegrounds?

I don't believe my actions create a battleground (I am civil, willing to discuss and reach a consensus, withdraw and even apologize when I am proven wrong). I do however think that there are editors out there who edit in bad faith and strive to create a battleground on purpose (see point 3).

2. Alden, the meatpuppet

Alden is not my meatpuppet (I have asked him not to revert, but to create useful encyclopedic content), but 1) it appears somebody did ask him to do reverts to "help" me and 2) I resent the slanderous accusations of meatpuppetry.

I do talk to many editors online and offline about Wikipedia. I resent the slanderous accusations that our talks are damaging to Wikipedia. Such slanderous accusations, based on 1% evidence and 99% bad faith, are what's really creating the battleground and damaging our project.

3. The truth behind all of this

I am a very active user (in Top 50 most active Wikipedians on en-wiki) and I edit in some controversial areas. I believe my contributions (here's an endorsment by Raul654) prove I understand our policies and goals. I have however made enemies, who resent that I write about certain issues and enforce NPOV and similar policies. This has led to a rise of an identifiable group of users which form one or more tag teams, harassing editors, with successful record (examples given) of wearing them out and making them stop creating/policing certain content and even leaving the project altogether. Due to my high activity (and thus, visibility) I am a common target for those tag teams, and I believe slandering my name by dragging me through yet another ArbCom - none of which have found me guilty of anything - has as one of its goals to see if I'll finally give up and leave the project.

4. A note on evidence

Simply put, to suggest that one has no right to collect evidence for dispute resolution is ridiculous, and a good example of bad faith and battleground creation.

5. Closing words

A simple solution would be to close this ArbCom by reinforcing power of WP:AE, so admins can deal with troublemakers more easily - currently many of them are in fear of tag teams (see statement by Moreschi below). If this ArbCom goes through, I hope ArbCom members will not hesitate to issue bans/content and parole restrictions, as well as to declare other users not guilty (so their name will stop being slandered by past accusations, dropped in past ArbComs but brought up again and again by the tag team members).

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lysy

While I've been around at en.wikipedia since I think 2004, I've decided to quit or at least give it a break and I'm now on my self-imposed wikiholiday. Today I've recevied an email from Piotrus, asking to look at this rfa. Sincerely, I don't know Deacon of Pndapetzim and I don't know what prompted him to file this request, but after reading it, it seems to me to be full of compiled and/or fabricated accusations, and probably a part of a harassment campaign by tag teams against Piotrus, whom I had known as an editor who certainly respected the policies. The campaign to make him give up editing and leave the project just as I did. That kind of pestering by another editor was exactly the reason why I had decided to leave. --Lysy^talk 19:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since I'm not active here any more please use email if there's further need to contact me. Thanks.

Statement by Moreschi

This is probably a waste of time, but while we're here, could the arbcom please ban Matthead (talk · contribs)? I've come to the conclusion that this German nationalist flamer does more than most combined to foment a battleground mentality in EE articles (see current AE thread). I would do this myself, except all the people who don't like Piotrus for one reason or another would jump on me. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead was Rex Germanus's old sparring partner. When Rex left he moved on to other edit wars. His participation is invariably marked by tendentious revert-warring and the personal hostility, massively divorced from objectivity, that does so much to harm the chances of collegial editing. I am contemplating a year-long block. Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom does not need yet another round of Irpen-Piotrus, the issues there are more personality clashes than anything else. For what it's worth, Piotrus is certainly a patriot, and obviously his edits usually have a certain slant to them, but he is open and honest about his biases, which is, you know, what we should encourage. He writes well and is a fine Wikipedian. Irpen is also a fine writer, but I dislike the way he is nowhere near honest enough about his own biases and WP:NATIONALISTICBATTLE tendencies. He also is a real blocking factor in trying to deal with the worst excesses of his Russian compatriots (compare the way Piotrus was constructive in trying to reach a decent solution with myself over Molobo). There's certainly space enough in Wikipedia for both of them, but Irpen needs to think seriously. Escalating the conflict here will not, I think, ultimately prove to be to his benefit. At any rate, I see no serious enough issues with either of them to warrant AC attention, unlike the much more pressing issues of people like Matthead. Moreschi (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AGK

From what evidence I have, issuing sanctions on Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be a net-positive for the project, and a good move. I don't think we need the committee's involvement to do that, however: the community has not, from what I gather, exhausted all means of banning him available to it (bar the ArbCom). Anthøny ✉ 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irpen

In my opinion the WP:BATTLE issue is central here and the concept of WP:BATTLE alone allows to understand fully the core problem with Piotrus. Most but all of his Wikipedia activity is a battle and he is vicious at that.

For the sake of brevity, I want to concentrate my statement on the most revealing manifestation of his approach: Piotrus' central concept of dispute resolution lies in setting the field of his opponents' blocks and being an experienced editor he achieved certain expertise at that. He mastered the methods of baiting content opponents into a reaction that would later allow him to turn the discussion's subject to WP:CIV (which he uses as a tool in content disputes not a guideline for harmonious editing) and paint his opponents as violators of the civility rules, usually baselessly.

Piotrus thrives not in honest discussions but in off-line secretive communications, recruiting users for reverts and votes, building connections with "important people" (off-line whenever possible) who he thinks would be useful for him, logging every step of his perceived enemies for anything he could use against them at the opportune time.

During his last arbcom a secret page in his pl-wiki userspace where he maintained his log on every single content opponent was accidentally revealed (see Piotrus compiled a pile of "incriminating_diffs" against his opponents). Upon the page's discovery and discussion, he claimed to have been happy to turn the page and end his logging. But this is what he really did:

He blanked the page that became a public knowledge with "not needed" edit summary on 2007-10-10 20:28:02 (note the exact time stamp)
He immediately logged out and from an IP he within three minutes (!) at 2007-10-10 20:31:13 he pasted entire content of this "not needed" stuff into a different page for further development.

He continuously and meticulously maintains that black book to this day but edits it only being logged out to avoid detection of the activity, he himself realizes as shameful. And look at what kind of diffs he finds "useful" to keep for the opportune time!

Here are some comments on the malaise, as he claims, by his opponents supposedly supported by the links. Comments come from many respected and high profile Wikipedians:

Piotrus' unloading of the log he compiled on myself into an unrelated case:

Another example:

Piotrus' unloading of the log he compiled on Lokyz to WP:AE, which became his favorite block shopping venue once WP:RFI and WP:PAIN and WP:CSNB were shut down by the community largely for their being abused that way despite of his protestations during the deletion discussions:

There were other discussions of Piotrus' ridiculous "diffs" but it is not easy to find every thread from so long ago. I can do so if the case gets accepted and Piotrus unloads another pile from his stack at everyone he sees as an obstacle. These are nothing but fraudulent gaming the system and misuse of various policies but WP:BATTLE approach to Wikipedia editing is the core of the problem.

Oh, and before he or anyone claims "stalking", I did not discover his secret page by following him (and I could not even if I went to pl-wiki since he edits the page always logged out from many different IP's.) I found the page by mere accident as it showed up in google when, during some wikipolitics discussion, I was looking for some old thread that I knew should have been in Wikipedia archives. His page showed up in my ["search string" site:wikipedia.org] google results and made me disgusted beyond belief, especially the fact that it was recreated in such a sneaky way after claimed ceasure of such activity. I had no desire to follow what he was doing there as simply seeing it made me feel like I need to take a shower. This is not a kind of feeling one usually relish, so I did not look forward for the new immersion into that laundry list of grievances. But the very feeling that I was being meticulously stalked and logged (not that I have anything to hide but still) is something any of you can only understand if you get such a dedicated attention yourself. Especially, if while he does that, he attempts to make an impression of reaching out in a friendly-sounding innuendo, while logging the reaction.

I would like to reiterate that I am not seeking punishment of Piotrus for maintaining a black book on a page outside of en-wiki. I am merely saying that this page is the strongest possible evidence that Piotrus' approach to editing Wikipedia falls exactly under WP:BATTLE and WP:BATTLING is a sanctionable offense.

As for the usual stuff posted by Piotrus above, I'm confident anyone who is looking will see through it. Alden's own assertion here was that Piotrus asked him to do revert for him [3], so it doesn't look like poor old harassed Piotrus's love-fest with his adoring "fans" is quite the way he'd like his readers to believe, though admittedly Alden appears to love him enough to co-operate with the public distancing that's been arranged since Alden's "slip". As for Piotrus' boasting about his "excellent" content, I link to my assessment here to save space.

I told him long time ago that there is one thing he should stop, trying to win content disputes through achieving the opponents' blocks. He always denied his doing that. I leave it to others to decide. His diffs are mostly tendentious nonsense he uses to misrepresent the conflicts and overwhelm with "evidence". Examples are in the threads above. If this is not WP:BATLE at its prime, I do not know what is.

Statement by User:Novickas

Three points. 1) This entry does not mention a block or ban, so his content creation is not relevant; it would not be hindered. 2) The following action strikes me as an abuse of admin powers - his threat to block User:Boodlesthecat after B removed a clear BLP violation: he stated that "Next time you change other's users talk I will simply block you for vandalism" [4], confirmation of BLP violation here [5] From May 2008. 3). User:FloNight firmly opposed his self-nom as an administrator on Wikimedia [6]. Why, if he was deemed unfit to be an admin there, should he remain as an admin here? Novickas (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that "examination of others involved", brought up by several statements and Kirill, will be reconsidered. Yes, many editors have lost their tempers while interacting with him. But could we not limit this action to a more manageable scope by addressing Deacon's original questions: whether Piotrus' behavior has been admin-like, whether he has been a member of edit-warring teams, and whether/how such behavior by an admin sets a bad example for other editors?

Much of the following goes to the question of whether or not admins should be held to a higher standard than editors.

Use of sources

Many of these conflicts involved a lot of time and energy on the part of various editors - could have been spared if P had just backed off; no acknowlegment of error on his part was ever made in these cases AFAIK:

Use of questionable websites as sources: Patryk Dole [7]. Future battles: this FA relies mostly on the Polish Militaria Collectors Association ([8]); this FA likewise is mostly referenced by whatfor.com, "Your lifestyle resource" [9], and someone's blog. Six of his FAs have been delisted so far [10] - I would think more will be, as standards rise, but probably each delisting will be a battle.

Use of clearly awful sources: Dariusz Ratajczak removed by me on 15:20, March 20, 2008 [11] after waiting for P to do so himself. Piotrus had earlier asserted his credibility here: [12]

Questionable use of good sources: [13], [14], [15]

Extended battle over the use of a hoax book as a reference: [16]

Much of his content creation is unsourced - see the new articles created within the past week or two: Lesko uprising, Battle of Pęcice, Battle of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ferdinand II Hohenstein, Hotseat (multiplayer mode).

Additional conduct-unbecoming-an-admin issues

Goading: "Yes, as the history has shown, Germany and Russia proven to be true great friends of the Lithuanian nation, indeed." [17].

Inserting a copyvio that stood until it was pointed out by Irpen: [18]

Unsuccessfully putting an article up for AFD followed by the comment "glad to see the AfD had a positive effect" [19] (I don't know exactly where WP currently stands on the issue of filing AFDs for that purpose, but it seems disruptive.)

Removing referenced material until JPGordon intervened: [20] But we shouldn't need intervention at that level - JP was just stating WP policy. Novickas (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark by Mackensen

No fair poking the clerks Brad--just doing what you told them to do. Course, it's your page, so you can break it however you like. More seriously, I don't see much point in accepting unless Arbcom really wants another go-round in Eastern Europe and has a better idea for addressing the topical conflicts there. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tell them to do it. But then again, in my real-world life, I am constantly struggling to stay within page limits. (And I know this comment doesn't belong here either. So sue me, except please don't.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Biophys

I would like to comment on the "tag teams" noted by Piotrus. Such "teams" are beyond the capabilities of ArbComm. Let's consider Russian "team" for example.

Yes, some of the Russian users behave as a military brigade, with "generals" and expendable "foot soldiers". Yes, they award each other with the military medals of the Soviet Union for winning various "battles". But that is all allowed by WP policies.
Yes, they may be prone to bad jokes, such as calling themselves "paid members of the KGB Internet troll squad" (see this red userbox or this red userbox, for example), but this is only a joke!
Yes, they occasionally make death threats using Russian criminal slang, but my translation to English was not regarded as convincing.
Yes, the Piotrus and Digwuren cases were "team work". Yes, some editors were driven away as a result of numerous "content disputes" with the team. But again, the content disputes are allowed, and the team work is allowed.
Some of these users struggle to "protect" their government and leaders rather than to "protect" their people, which is unusual for "nationalistic" users. But perhaps they sincerely love Putin? This is not forbidden.
An explosive growth of the Russian government-minded users has also been observed since the beginning of 2008 South Ossetian war, but this is not surprising.

So, I do not see anything here for Arbcomm, except the embattled Piotrus who became a target of groundless personal accusations, as one can see from the old ArbComm cases.Biophys (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps I misread Piotrus, and he only meant Irpen rather than any other Russian users. This is only my personal understanding of the situation.Biophys (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tymek

I have seen groups (tag teams?) of editors gunning for Piotrus ever since I joined this project. User Matthead, mentioned by AGK and Moreschi, is probably the most active editor in the "Greater Germany POV tag team". Irpen has been gunning for Piotrus for years, I recall last ArbCom found his behavior very uncivil, particularly to Piotrus. This seems unchanged, just like his tactics of repreating the same old accusations that failed to gain support in the past discussions.

PS. Piotrus has the full right to collect evidence - just like anybody else - and we all can see he badly needs evidence, since he is targeted by those "tag teams" all the time. On the other hand, Irpen did a "great" job tracking Piotrus evidence list... I find it amusing that he is (again) offended by the list of his wrongdoings, which he found after probably many, many hours of stalking Piotrus edits. Thank you Tymek (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Martintg

Holy cow, Irpen's first day back after a month long Wikibreak and he doesn't miss an opportunity to engage in WP:BATTLE himself against his long time opponent Piotrus, recycling old diffs and past accusations from previous years. Irpen has been waging war against Piotrus for years across a number of boards. This is tiresome and it has to stop. Irpen has been warned often enough about this in previous cases. Could Arbcom please ban Irpen, there seems to be considerably less drama in Wikipedia whenever he is on extended wikibreak, and his return always seems to coincide with yet another EE arbcom case, this time mounted in conjunction with his cohort Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Martintg (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Durova

Irpen is one of the most dedicated editors Wikipedia has, and he seems sincere. He can also be difficult to communicate with. I first noticed this during a delicate phase of the Piotrus-Ghirlandajo mediation when Irpen interrupted an ongoing discussion with input that was not helpful. When I asked him to withdraw he developed a personal dislike for me (he later stated so). Yet I wouldn't have anticipated that personal feelings, however strong, could have such an effect as the following quote.

I had been attempting to patch up a misunderstanding between Irpen and myself, and had suggested that perhaps the the tone had come across badly because we were communicating only in text. His response misread that neutral statement as an invitation to communicate off-wiki (which it wasn't), and took offense based upon the misreading. I don't take offense easily and wouldn't bring his reply to the attention of the Committee, except for this bon mot:

The post-!! development of Alex Bakharev's being duped into believing of anonymous harassment of female editors fairy tale just enforced my firm belief in an advantage of onwiki conversations.[21]

About two weeks after Irpen scolded me for duping Alex Bakharev into believing a fairy tale that harassment of female editors occurs, the FBI opened an investigation into months of death threats that were being sent to me from a stable location within driving distance of my home. In order to promote public awareness that this sort of thing actually happens, and in hopes of making the situation less difficult for other people who get targeted, I went public about the experience in a story that was published in P2Pnet News in early June. Despite these developments, Irpen has never withdrawn the misplaced accusation.

In light of the recent retirement of two other editors--both much younger than I am--who were targeted for harassment, and encountered open hostility from the community when they disclosed the problem, and who made serious errors in judgement afterward--it is quite concerning that an editor of Irpen's experience conducts himself this way without challenge or correction (obviously I was not in a position to comment further). This is indicative of a senior editor who is setting the wrong example and I wonder how many other problems have been worsened by his participation. I would gladly withdraw this statement if Irpen reconsiders his; it would restore some of my faith in him. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boodlesthecat

Novickas cited one instance of my ongiong conflicts with Piotrus above. That instance is illustrative of a serious problem with Poitrus' behavior and his flagrant misuse of his admin status. I note that in his self-nom, he requested that status to facilitate his uploading of images to Wikipedia. A year later, it appears to have become a tool to be used for the benefit of apparently ethnic based team edit warring. Novickas cite the case in which Piotrus angrily threatened to block me for removing a clear BLP violation (and one with antisemitic overtones). The particular nasty, offensive BLP violation was supplied by greg park avenue who spent much of his time (in full view of Piotrus, among others) peppering the page with abusive, Jew baiting rants. A cursory examination reveals that greg park avenue apparently contributes little or no actual content to Wikipedia, instead opting for running commentaries in a variety of forums, often with a nasty streak. So why would Piotrus aggressively threaten to block me for removing some of the foul words that greg park avenue contributed? A hint can be obtained by perusing the history of the article in question, as well as some others in which Piotrus has had ongoing disputes (e.g., here, and we can see the key role greg park avenue has played in the team edit warring (I'm not going to waste time pulling diffs; anyone can do their own examination and see how Piotrus, greg park avenue, Tymek, Poeticbent, Molobo, Alden Jones et al operate in tandem.) And then, Piotrus files the inevitable 3RR complaint (often exaggerating the number of reverts, eg, counting every edit made as a revert). Piotrus' questionable tactics have been noted more than once (e.g. here and here). Piotrus pulled the team-edit-war-then-file-a-3RR on me maybe half a dozen times (yes, I'm a sucker). On the final one, I pleaded with him to not do it again, but to discuss issues like an adult--90 minutes later came the 3RR--prompting an unkind email from me accusing him of dickkery (although there were at least some editors who felt my pain.) . I've since attempted to extract myself from this nonsense by among other things opening a medcab case for one of the disputed articles. That case quickly degenerated into chaos, as Piotrus' "team" bogged the discussion down with accusations, filibusters, and assorted flims flams (anything to avoid discussing actual content issues). Piotrus repeatedly demanded semi-groveling apologies from me to secure his participation (while he let loose a stream of accusatory abuse), but even while agreeing to the medcab, he continued to stealthily forum shop for ways to block me] (unsuccessfully) from editing his pet articles. So I leave it top the wisdom of this forum as to whether the innocent reasons for Piotrus' original self-nom have devolved in any manner, way, shape or form. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prom3th3an's Repsonse to Comments by Boodlesthecat

Boodlesthecat, I find your remarks misguided and biased to say the least. With your conduct in the past such as sending insulting of wiki emails and of course your rathor colourful blocklog, you have been lucky not to be indef blocked. I hardly think an apologie was out of order, as for demanding it, I was also of the opinion that it was a reasonable request. I find this comment Piotrus, greg park avenue, Tymek, Poeticbent, Molobo, Alden Jones et al operate in tandem. most disturbing, would you provide some reasonable evidence of this occuring on multiple occasions and that there is a conspiracy to do so? I will further extend this reply in the morning as its 1:38 am ;-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk)

Boodlesthecat's Response to Prom3th3an's Response to Comments by Boodlesthecat

I fully stand by my comments. And as the mediator in the current dispute, you yourself have witnessed the very behavior I am describing. Perhaps you should revisit when the hour is not so late. And "conspiracy" is your word, not mine, so I feel no obligation to provide evidence for anything beyond what I actually described. I apologized for my e-mail, as requested, and was rewarded in that mediation for my apology with a torrent of abuse and filibustering. Where is Piotrus' apology for his blatant and flagrant misuse of authority in threatening to block me for removing anti-semitic BLP violating rantings of his ally? Where is your request for his apology? Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Poeticbent

I find these never-ending Arbcom swarmings really pathetic, with all the usual suspects getting all fired up and queasy with numbing repetitiousness, every few months. What a terrible waste of time for everybody. I’ve never seen so much bad blood between Eastern European nations anywhere outside of here. Perhaps the bad blood was already brewing in the hearts of these people without an outlet for a long time, and now it just spills out in all its repulsiveness, bouts of extreme chauvinism, hate mongering and the like. I’m asking myself, can Wikipedia be an outlet for a personal soul-searching? I suppose it can. But please, don’t drag my name around whenever the new wave of character assassinations begin to bubble up. --Poeticbent talk 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Ghirla

Following the disgusting circus show, in which Piotrus was found innocent of all charges, I quit English Wikipedia (my activity has been limited to occasional interwiki fixing) and became one of the foremost editors of Russian Wikipedia. I am thankful to Piotrus and the Arbitration Committee for showing me a battlefree wikipedia community in which no duplicity is allowed. This latest attempt to bring Piotrus to reason is unlikely to succeeed as long as the likes of Kirill Lokshin (who famously found Bishonen to be a "problem user" and has waged multiple anti-Giano campaigns) and James F. (who even more famously called us all "idiots") preside over ArbCom. It's a shame what they've done to English Wikipedia. The only result of this case will be to drive Piotrus' detractors out of English Wikipedia, as I have been. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.K.

I am the one who started the first ArbCase involving Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. And frankly speaking I am not surprised that there is another case involving this contributor. I have to agree for the most part about Piotrus' editing problems.

If you ever had dispute with Piotrus, you would probably know that he converts the whole situation into a messy battlefield, employing revert wars, tendentious editing, rollback abuse, blocks and block threats, page moves immediately followed by salting the resulting redirects, as well as hypocritical dishonest forum shopping (including #admins IRC) etc.

All those techniques were employed against fellow wikipedians recently, including #admins IRC abuse where his opponets, myself included, were called "POV trolls" and sockpuppeteers.

Attempts to reduce his tendentious editing with DR steps pose a challenge, as Piotrus chooses to go against consensus as he finds fit [22][23][24]. When community rejects his original thoughts, then another stage of waging war is employed – forum shopping. When he does not get the support in the first forum he asks in another one going around from board to board[25][26][27].

Last, but not least, the most "lucrative" step is attempting to gain a block/ suspension/restriction, which outcome is usually used for future character assassination of his opponents. It is usually done by firstly provoking opponents [28] [29] (edit summaries implying historical whitewashing is already a blockable offense) later filing a complaint (most favorite is WP:AE). Already such Piotrus "cases" were identified as unclean attempts. But those are coming and coming over and over again. Who knows, maybe some of them will produce some desirable "results" and "victory" in another battle.

Also most of problems about this contributor listed back in 2007 process are valid and just as topical today, I would not over expand my statement, as if arbiters will choose to take this case (I encourage this to do) I will present more evidences and reinforce already mentioned ones. M.K. (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Recuse. I have handled matters related to Matthead in the past, most notably on arbitration enforcement. I would rather another Clerk handled this matter, although my involvement was largely only as a neutral third party and as an uninvolved administrator. Anthøny ✉ 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Irpen (talk · contribs) to refactor their statements as they're way over the 500 word limit. If this isn't done within a reasonable time frame, the clerks will do it for them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/1)

Not voting yet, but just a comment that I found the statements made this far to be useful in framing the issues to be considered in deciding whether to accept this request for arbitration. Of course the clerks are tasked with enforcing word limits, but my personal opinion is that given the complexity of the history here, I did not find these statements by key players in the dispute to be unreasonable in length, nor did any party obtain an unfair advantage because everyone disregarded the nominal word limit by equally wide margins. Or then again, of course I say that because I would feel like a major-league hypocrite standing by as anyone else's comments were shortened, after my own post just now in the Elonka case. FWIW; YMMV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to look at all involved editors and investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The "Alden Jones" issue particularly bothers me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here. Kirill ^(prof) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to consider all involved. I'm wary of this becoming an opportunity to salt old wounds, but leaving it alone is unlikely to be any better. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Many issues need to be addressed here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic	Motions	10 April 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification: Steve Crossin, Chet B Long, PeterSymonds, and inappropriate account sharing discussion link

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

NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by NonvocalScream

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flonight: Thank you for the fast response; May the committee inform the community of the evidence, perhaps the community can participate, given the feeling on the AN discussion thread, I believe this would be most helpful. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flonight: For me to rephrase. May we participate in the decision making process on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I question the provision of your decision that prohibits PeterSymonds and Chet B Long from regaining the tools via normal RFA. The community is in a good position to weigh the seriousness of this situation. On general principle it's better for the Committee to entrust such sysopping to the community's wisdom unless compelling reason exists that the community could not make an informed decision. Durova^Charge! 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana: yes, please. Considering the confusion that arose over Shoemaker's Holiday, in light of the MONGO and Alkivar precedents, it would certainly be good to amend the decision and make it clear. Less drama for everybody. :) Durova^Charge! 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon: Yes, please see my exchange with Deskana. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

Arbcom does not have the authority to place restrictions on Steve at this time. They are attempting to circumvent the community's right to handle this situation. It was this kind of behavior that lead us to question ArbCom's authority at the recent RfC. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to Deskana: ArbCom is here for when we've tried everything we can to handle it ourselves, but can't. I understand going to arbcom right away when it involves admin bits, but Steve is a normal user. Please, let us deal with this. While some people are upset about what has happened, there is no urgency here that would justify cutting the community out of this. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to FloNight: You say "In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"

This is incorrect. Steve was pressured into accepting this because he believed it was his only option, and feared the committee banning him indefinitely. ArbCom shouldn't even be considering a case at this point. This is something for the community to decide. Arbcom is bulling/blackmailing Steve and his wife into this "agreement", and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~To reply to Synergy: When I'm hearing this from Steve's mouth, then no, I'm not misinformed. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to" Nonsense is bolded. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Steve's request, I'm dropping this issue.

I would like to apologies to the committee for some of my comments here. While I still believe this is a situation that the community should handle, Steve's fear of being banned is not the fault of the committee. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ral315

Note that Steve has apparently taken a wikibreak, which renders questions over his ability to attain the tools moot for the time being. That's not to say that the question shouldn't be considered, but that the final decision need not be made hastily now that the issue has been brought publicly. Ral315 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Synergy

Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to. It was interrupted by an additional notice from arbitration. While I'd like to see Steve in a comfortable spot to edit, this might not be possible. This has been over for some time now, and I'd like to suggest that you let this go.

I'd like to also echo Durova. I too, am eager to see a statement with respect to Peter and Chet. Synergy 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, much of this began with hearing things come out of Steve's mouth. My comments are directed toward your assessment of the AN thread, not off wiki conversations. Regards. Synergy 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned: Thank you for re factoring, I do appreciate the tone down. But its not nonsense. Here is the diff where he agreed to the proposal/sanction made by Seddon. Please ask yourself this: Is any of this helping Steve? If the answer is no, then please take my aforementioned suggestion. Regards. Synergy 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To jpgordon: Yes. We are still awaiting further clarification on the reapplication of the two former admins. Synergy 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Giggy

I agree with Durova. Please consider her proposal. We, the community, are not buffoons, and we can make these decisions. —Giggy 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

The circumstances of Peter and Chet's re-confirmation RFA I have no feelings on. To address Ned Scott's point, I propose a test. Someone hardblock's Steve's account for 6 months. Then we get to test how many sysops feel it is worth putting their bit on the line to unblock him and also how long it takes arbcom to find a steward to desysop someone for violating their finding. In any case, Steve let AGK put the wikibreak enforcer in his monobook and Steve could very easily overcome it or post to his user talk:Steve Public page, so these offsite issues of being pressured are rather pointless, heck even if they were on-site, I'm still wondering how many people find Steve to be trustworthy enough to believe anything he says. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

For the record I think the two former administrators have paid the penalty for their chronic lapse of judgement and that to say they resigned under a cloud should be sufficient, such that the community can decide if they decide to reapply at some future point. The Committee are obviously privy to information we aren't, but I was led to believe from the evidence presented that Peter's was initially logged into without his permission or knowledge, although the situation appears to have changed after that time. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Of course the Committee will give the Community reasons if we give sanctions. The Committee's job is to throughly collect all importance evidence, examine it all, and then have each arbitrator vote. We make a preliminary notice because it was important for the Community to be aware of the events. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The Committee went public with the announcement before we were finished with our discussion because of ongoing issues forced a comment. We knew that some people in the community knew and some didn't know about the account sharing, the desysops, and the Committee's investigation. At that point we felt a prompt statement was needed to the whole Community. The full Committee has not finished the discussion and voted. We will keep the Community updated as we make decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arbitration Committee decides when to accept cases and when to reject them. The Committee was approached by a non arbitrator checkuser with results that showed serious evidence of user account abuse, including administrator account sharing. The administrators resigned their tools. The administrators account sharing was coupled with other incidents of problematic behavior by one of the users before and after the check that indicated problems with trust could continue. This needed prompt action as well since real life issues were intermixed with the on site problems. There was public and private comments made by the Community, and these were taken into consideration, including requests to delay a finding or allow the Community to determine the sanctions. In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have forged a decision that we are happy with, but must wait for a few addition Arbitrators to confirm. --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova: That was not actually intentional. I was the one that drafted the message that was placed on the administrators noticeboard, and I didn't exclude their ability to reapply through RFA intentionally... I just happened not to think to include it. If you wish, I could ask if the Committee would be happy with amending the statement to include their ability to reapply through RFA. I've certainly not got a problem with them doing so, but I can't speak for the other Arbitrators. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott: Why not? That was exactly why we were created. I indicated that in my statement that the community could discuss its own sanctions if it wished to, but that the Arbitration Committee was also discussing its own. At the time, it seemed unlikely that we would agree on any additional sanctions. Things have changed since then. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that needs doing here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for appeal: PHG

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

User:PHG (initiator)
User:Elonka (notified [30])
User:Jehochman (notified [31])
User:Abd (notified [32])
User:Eupator (notified [33])
User:Angusmclellan (notified [34])

Statement by PHG

I, User:PHG, would like to respectfully ask the Comity to lift the sanctions I have been submitted to since March 2008, on the basis of (1) Good conduct during time served (entering the 6th month now) (2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers (3) Reassertion of my good faith throughout these proceedings.

1) Good conduct during time served.

I believe I have properly followed the Arbcom’s edit restrictions (no edits in Ancient History and Medieval areas etc...) during the 6 months served (on a total of one year), a fact even recognized recently by Elonka [35].
I used this time to continue my contributions to Wikipedia in an intensive way, as encouraged by the Comity, creating from scratch major articles on cultural interactions, as well as numerous sub-articles, outside of my edit restrictions: France-Thailand relations, France-Japan relations (19th century), Siamese revolution (1688), Japan-Thailand relations, Siege of Bangkok etc…
As requested, I refrained from engaging in lengthy disputes on Talk Pages, even when some behaviour seemed outrageous and illegitimate to me (such as removing important referenced material from articles): [36], [37].
A good consequence of this Arbcom ruling is that I have been able to further improve the quality of my contributions and sourcing. I’ve been working very positively with a mentor User:Angusmclellan for the validation of my foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones.

2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers.

During my Arbcom proceedings I regularly complained about Elonka’s implacable harassment, systematic mis-characterization of my edits etc… At the time, this was simply a matter between Elonka and me, but since then Elonka has been met by a huge amount of similar complaints from numerous independent users and Administrators, to the point that she was requested to honour her pledge to step down as Administrator (a pledge she will apparently not respect anyway, creating further doubts about her ethical conduct): User talk:Elonka#Recall Proposal, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. In any case, her behaviour has proven to be extremely controversial, and I believe it has been central in misrepresenting my editorial contributions and influencing the decision of the Arbcom. Finally, although the Arbcom had requested Elonka to refrain from pursuing me after the Arbcom decision was taken, she has continued to stalk/ harass me nonetheless [38].

In respect to Elonka’s apparent supporters, claims of Wikipedia:Tag teaming have also been made: Wikipedia talk:Tag team#Ironic. Elonka is also known to sollicitate support off-Wiki for her on-Wiki battles: ([39], [40]), a fact which I and other users suspect is quite systematic in her case. By doing so, Elonka unfairly manages to obtain the appearance of Community support in her disputes with others.

User:Jehochman, who initiated this Arbcom case against me, also has displayed quite alarming behaviour, recently being described as “if he was not an Administrator he would be called a vandal” and a “harasser” in his current drama with former ally Elonka Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

I would like to leave behind any animosity towards Elonka or Jehochman for their actions against me, and I wish to reconcile with them, but I am asking the Arbitration Comity to take into account these revelations about the problematic behaviour of my main accusers, redress this unfair situation I have been put in, and free me from the effects of their abuse.

3) Reassertion of my good faith

I solemnly reaffirm that all my edits have always been done in good faith, as already kindly recognized by the Arbcom. I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop#Response_to_Elonka_by_PHG). When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something awefully wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.

Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War , Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional and only a mistake on my part.

In a nutshell, I believe my accusers have unfairly harassed and misrepresented my actions to obtain this Arbcom ruling, and such suspicion of undue behaviour has been hugely reinforced with Elonka's current similar disputes on a large scale with other users. I have however complied the best I could to the Arbcom resolution showing an example of good conduct. All my edits have always been done in good faith, and I believe this dispute has at least helped me improve in editorial and sourcing quality. In consequence, I request the Comity to rehabilitate me and now lift the edit restrictions against me. Regards PHG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer has kindly provided a list of the findings of the Arbcom regarding my alledged use of the sources (Report on use of sources). I am thankfull that this at last provides an opportunity to discuss about facts rather then just accusations. However, besides the kind recognition that I never ever made up any reference, and that all my quotes have all proven to be exact, all the other findings are extremely weak and seem to rely on wrong interpretations or translations. I am quite amazed that such a severe Arbcom ruling can be passed with such little or faulty evidence. I respectfully ask the Arbitrators to read this list and my response to it, and reconsider. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

The conduct of other people is immaterial to User:PHG's sanctions. All the allegations concerned PHG's editing were independently checked and those that were confirmed were incorporated into the arbitration decision. Any rancor exhibited by third parties towards myself or Elonka has no bearing on PHG. The current situation, where PHG has a mentor, seems to be beneficial, and should be continued. I think that if a mentor is in place, PHG could be allowed to edit any article in the encyclopedia, so long as the mentor is checking edits to confirm that past problems are not resuming. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

With respect, I disagree with PHG's assessment, and I think it's best if the Committee declines this request for appeal. Though PHG has been editing within his restrictions, I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he even understands the problems that caused the sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. Also, we still aren't even done with the cleanup of the articles that he already affected. PHG might benefit from participating at the talkpages of the articles still requiring cleanup, to assist with their repair. That would be the best way that he could prove that he had turned over a new leaf, and was able to work in a collegial manner within that topic area. In the meantime, it is my belief that the sanctions are doing their job of protecting the project (as well as protecting PHG from further blocks or bans), and should be kept in place. --El on ka 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJB

Just claiming my place in queue. I affirm PHG in his request for restrictions to be removed on the grounds I stated in the last request for clarification, namely, that no specific allegations against PHG were reported as confirmed by ArbCom; only a general affirmation of the validity of the allegations against him was offered. JJB 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

PHG recently earned the 50DYK medal. He earns my thanks his dedication. Based upon PHG's contributions I was on the verge of supporting this motion, but am troubled by the selection and presentation of his claims regarding individuals who participated in the arbitration case. He mentions that Jehochman reconciled with Elonka about her recall pledge, but not that Jehochman initiated the recall motion itself. Nor does he mention that the recent noticeboard complaint against Jehochman was generally dismissed as meritless. I am grateful to be spared a role in the allegation. Unfortunately PHG's construction of that argument bears resemblance to the chief problem that led to his restriction: a tendency to selectively gather and present data that supports a given thesis, and including dubious evidence in support of that thesis while excluding strong evidence against it. Had PHG weighed my role in the Elonka recall movement, it really would not be possible to allege a unified conspiracy or cabal. For the record, I discovered this motion while reading my watchlist and haven't discussed it with anyone. My completely independent opinion is to let the current remedy stand. With respect, Durova^Charge! 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

I would also like to congratulate PHG for the recent 50DYK medal; I truly believe he is an excellent contributor and we appreciate all his efforts. However, comments as recent as this and this indicate that PHG has not resolved the concerns that brought us here - he has an unfortunate tendency to only give information which supports his position, even if that requires taking information out of context, skewing it to mean something completely different or ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. As shown in the diffs, PHG still asserts that he "refuted" all claims that he misrepresented sources and that there were no problems with his behavior, instead, he again focuses on Elonka and "attackers" as the reason the case went against him. This doesn't mean that anyone assumes bad faith of his contributions, but there is obviously a blind spot here and one severe enough that it needs watching if he's unable to recognize and resolve the issue on his own. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Abd

The Committee continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, however, it found misrepresentation of sources and reactions to questioning. The errors in sourcing could be within what would be normal for a knowledgeable editor with opinions and a massive corpus of articles created, and did not represent willful distortion; hence my conclusion was that the essential problem was with civility, and when civility is the problem, it is rarely one-sided. In following the enforcement of the ban, I saw incivility and personal attack and possible harassment directed against PHG; each incident was a provocation which could have ended his Wikipedia career. While the behavior of others should not excuse poor behavior by him, it is also true that normal human beings will react to incivility with incivility, and identifying a "guilty party" often misses what really happened. I would not have advised PHG to file this Arbitration alone, and I would not have advised him to make the behavior of other editors an issue, but I also understand why he did, and his appeal should not be rejected on that basis. I would have encouraged him to try to work out alternative methods of satisfying the concerns of the community, and gather some support for them, before proceeding with an appeal. As an example, he's been required to use sources in English, a requirement that we do not place on other editors. Nevertheless, the requirement is an attempt to answer a real concern: how can we verify that he has accurately represented the sources? I have found it common in certain areas that sources are cited which are difficult to verify, even when they are in English, because the publications may not be readily accessible. We normally accept such sources, assuming good faith on the part of the editor. In a civil environment, solutions to the problem can be found. If there is mistrust and blame, it can be very difficult. PHG could, for example, scan an obscure source and make it available for review; translators could be found to confirm his translations; we could actively consult with experts as well. His content is well worth the effort. I recommend that the topic ban be lifted, provided that PHG continue to work with a mentor or mentors; he should receive advice not only with his use of sources, but also in how to find a productive consensus with the community. Further, whenever the Committee puts an editor under civility restrictions, it is incumbent on the Committee and the community to specially protect the editor from provocation. I saw the ArbComm sanctions against him misrepresented frequently as if the Committee had found him guilty of massive distortion of sources, which was not the case. Errors can be fixed, provided that civility and cooperation is established and maintained. Let's not inhibit this valuable editor; instead, lets help him and others cooperate more effectively. His critics can be very useful, they will restrain his "enthusiasm," by making sure that his sources are checked and that he does not draw unwarranted conclusions from them, and, if we are careful to maintain a constructive environment, the project can only benefit. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orderinchaos

The original ArbCom was in response to some quite egregious behaviour which seriously undermined the credibility of Wikipedia in some of the areas in which the appellant edited, and they have never actually acknowledged to be wrong - instead trying to blame everyone else involved in the process. I don't think there are any matters for ArbCom to consider here. Orderinchaos 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Angus McLellan

The short version:

I do not agree with Fayssal as to exactly what the mentorship remedy says,
I do not feel that the remedies should be lifted at this time.

I said to Elonka and PHG here, about a month ago, that "I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs" and that the decision to separate the two parts of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. by and/or rather than and was not helpful. Fayssal seems to be reading things in the remedy which I don't see ("you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available" is missing the "or ask your mentor" part). Because of the and/or, that's not the remedy which I think I'm helping to implement, and it's not what PHG thinks I'm doing. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Elonka raised questions about two of PHG's new articles in July: here (regarding Shanhai Yudi Quantu) and here (regarding Cheonhado). Also regarding Cheonhado, see Elonka's opposition to the original DYK nom here. To me, the problem with the hook suggests that PHG still has to work on following WP:V closely. I appreciate the difficulty of writing hooks dealing with obscure topics which meet the relevant content policies and are interesting as well, but DYK hooks do not need to be sensational. My experience is that they don't even need to be especially interesting.

As regards the restriction on editing ancient and medieval articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted, I have only looked at one of the articles PHG mentions, Indo-Greek Kingdom. I do not see that PHG has yet entirely resolved the problems of sourcing which were seen there. For example, Mathsci commented (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Statement by Mathsci) regarding Siamese revolution (1688). This relies heavily on published editions of primary source materials and it is in no way clear whether it is the primary source which is being relied upon or the accompanying editorial apparatus. For example, in the Siamese Revolution piece, we read: "It is generally considered that Desfarges could have eliminated the conspiracy at this point if he had pursued his mission towards Lopburi ...". This is referenced to Smithies' Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam, but it is not apparent whether this comes from one of the military accounts or from Smithies' commentary on the accounts. [And even if it came from Smithies himself, why does the word "generally" appear?] This sort of referencing is only useful to someone who has the cited source in front of them, and that is hardly likely to the case here as Worldcat shows. I am sure PHG could do better, and did do rather better at Siege of Bangkok. Given the problem seen here, I do not think that lifting this remedy would be in the best interest of PHG or the project as whole at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Fayssal and Brad for clearing things up for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tim Vickers

PHG's edits frequently distorted and misrepresented sources, as documented and discussed extensively at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I am not confident that his tendency to bend sources to fit with pre-conceived views has ended, so I'd recommend keeping this remedy as it stands. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

While waiting for the input of the mentor... This remedy was very explicit PHG. It sets a limit which is a year and not six months though this is less important here since ArbCom may respond positively to such a request depending on the circumstances. But your request above got a few flaws. a) you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available -- you say your mentor assists you for the "validation of your foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones." b) one of your statements above includes diffs to admins' issues elsewhere; which are irrelevant to the case at hand. Remember that we are dealing with articles' sourcing. c) spending no more than 5 weeks (since July 17th) with a mentor is not enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angus McLellan, the "or ask your mentor" is not missing. The point is that PHG says that he consults you in validating both foreign language sources (a good thing) and obscure ones(!) -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Want to hear from the mentor before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reading the statements as they come in. I'm still waiting for a few more, from user's that were notified, before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on the above statements, it is best for the remedy to be unchanged for now. The meaning of the remedy was clarified in the past. PGH can either use English sources that are easily available for most editors to review or PHG can consult with his mentor about using sources that are not easily for most editors to view. If the mentor and PHG agree that the reference is appropriate, then it can be used in a particular instance. PHG is not limited to choosing one approach or the other globally, but can decide in each instance which is the best approach. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally like to see a longer track record of working with a mentor before I will support modifying this remedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, would not be comfortable with waiving or altering the remedies at this point. James F. (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to modify. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the scrivener of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. As I stated in that decision, we continued to assume the good faith of User:PHG, and I continue to do so today. However, the extent to which PHG had overstated or mis-cited the contents of sources used in articles raised serious issues concerning whether his article contributions were adding verifiable and reliable content to Wikipedia, particularly in articles on relatively abstruse historical topics that were unlikely to attract much scholarly attention from other editors. Contrary to the suggestion in the current request, the Arbitration Committee did not simply accept the word of petitioning editors such as Elonka and Jehochman that a problem existed, but arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real. I trust that PHG can understand, and would appreciate if he would acknowledge, that a problem existed. To assure myself that the problem has been alleviated, would require a mentor or another user with relevant expertise to spot-check some of PHG's more recent articles on comparable subjects to confirm that sources are now being used appropriately and cited accurately for propositions that the cited works, taken as a whole, fairly support. To date, this showing has not been made and therefore I regretfully join in the decision not to modify the sanction at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the remedies in the case should not continue to take their course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the Report on use of sources in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Footnoted quotes

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

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

This page is presumably meant to stand for all time. As it is effectively new policy, I would request that it be declared a {{howto}}, {{guideline}}, or {{policy}}, and have the arbcom's explicit approval of it being treated like any other policy, e.g. it may be edited, adapted, or, (in extreme cases), voted down by the community?

This is based on two bits of logic: Editing and improving is the Wiki way; having a policy page noone could edit, and having this page "fixed" for all time with whatever the Arbcom came up with in a few days' discussion goes against this. Secondly, it's basic five pillars logic: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles presented here."

I also feel this change would remove most of the controversy surrounding this case.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz: User:RegenerateThis, one of the Arbcom clerks, claims that any changes to WP:BLPSE requires appeal to arbcom: Wikipedia_talk:BLPSE#Policies_must_be_editable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: User:RegenerateThis is not an Arbcom clerk. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

As in the previous request for clarification, I don't see how the response would be different - no, this is a remedy (not a new policy/guideline), and no, it cannot be voted down by the community. Basically, an area of the encyclopedia is now under a type of discretionary-sanctions-remedy - the mere fact that it applies to a wider area, or has more specific requirements (such as, in terms of logging) does not change the effect of the remedy. Persistently insisting it is new policy or against Wikipedia norms does not make it so.

The only real controversy here, I think, is the same sort that was experienced when discretionary sanctions were enacted for the first time by the Committee. But even then, I wonder how/why it is that much of the community have, particularly in recent times, come to favour the discretionary sanctions type remedies for areas constantly encountering problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBisanz

If Shoemaker could specify which page he is referring to, we have WP:BLPLOG and WP:BLPSE. One, WP:BLPLOG was created by an arbcom decision, so presumably, they own that page, the other WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG, so I'm not sure it needs any other tags. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, well I think Tony was de-clerked, so he probably shouldn't be considered a binding expression of arbcom intent. But since I really never worked at WP:BLPSE (I'm a template gnome of sorts), I don't have a view on that page. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some Arbs or other involved parties might care to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement#Let.27s_mark_this_historical. It seems to be conflicting with the below statements. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barberio

Just a note, to state that this is pretty much moot.

The ArbCom RfC No New Policy statement and View by Celarnor statement has given a clear expression from the community that 'general sanctions' of this kind, and policy, pseudo-policy, and new processes by arbcom fiat are not allowed. Policy creation, and ability to apply a 'general sanction' to the entire community, are powers never delegated to the Arbitration Committee. Please note, the Arbitration Committee were given full time to make the case for why they should have this power, but don't appear to have made it to the satisfaction of the community.

While the below Arbitration Committee members may say otherwise, this 'general sanction' is not in effect, and will not be enforced. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to this.

I am quickly approaching formally requesting that the arbitration revoke this 'remedy', and lift the threat of desysopping admins who refuse to accept it. Both of the above RfC statements had strong consensus support and endorsement. You're really not empowered by the community to act in the way you have.

I would suggest that if you are still going to ignore the community consensus on what ArbCom may and may not do, you should consider your positions. --Barberio (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the view of Jimbo as 'God King Emperor' of the project is highly disputed these days. I also note that Jimbo did not create the Arbitration Committee from whole cloth and by fiat. The Arbitration Policy did have to be agreed with by the community as with any other policy.

Frankly, Jimbo's opinion of how the Wikipedia policies should work are worth exactly as much as the next guy's. Wikipedia is not a top-down authoritarian organisation. --Barberio (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation by Mackensen

Constitutionally speaking the Arbitration Committee derives its power from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), who wields absolute power as God-King of the project, understood to be separate from whatever Foundation responsibilities he might have. The community has no powers to "delegate" to the committee; there is the right to vanish and the right to fork. The community is always free to elect arbitrators who take a less expansive view of Arbcom's role but until such time it has authorized this body to act on its behalf.

All this is a way of saying that arguments over this remedy should turn on whether it's a good idea, not whether Arbcom can do it or not. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chime in by Alecmconroy

Jimbo is not a god-king, he's a very influential editor who has historically been granted certain roles by the community and the foundation. His 'powers' are whatever the community and the foundation collectively give him. If the community and the foundation disagree with Jimbo, the community and the foundation win.

I'm amazed to see anyone even espousing the notion of an absolute power over any group of humans in the 21st century (even if it is just an encyclopedia-making project). That's just not the way humans do things anymore-- ESPECIALLY not on a Wiki.

Mind you, I'm not expressing any Anti-Jimbo sentiments at all. I'm not trying to attack Jimbo himself in the slightest, and the statements I say above are, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with how Jimbo views himself-- not as a god-king, but as a UK-esque constitutional monarch whose role diminishes over time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

You are requesting a clarication regarding the "special enforcement on biographies of living persons" wich concerns the footnoted quotes' case. Biographies of living people are subject to a strict policy. Special enforcements are part of Wikipedia's general sanctions. If we had had a "footnoted quotes" case where no problems with biographies of living persons were noted then this special enforcement remedy wouldn't have existed. Similar remedies were applied to other cases but policies are created following a process --not specific arbitration remedies. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logging case sanctions on ArbCom pages is the norm. It makes it easier to locate blocks or bans that are the result of a ruling. Additionally, a page was started to explain the logging requirement. If an actual problems arise from this requirement to log or the page explaining the ruling then we can look to make at change. I'm not seeing a need for any action by the Committee regarding this case at this time. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flo that no action is needed, and with Mackensen in his comments re. the applicability of transitive devolution and delegation. James F. (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]