Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:11, 2 June 2007

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request for academic evidence

1) As user:Piotrus in his remedies section once again talking about my unreliable source and “its supporters”, namely book “Armija Krajova Lietuvoje ISBN 9986-577-02-0”. I once again asking (I asked this several times before) that Piotrus should present an academic and specific publications and academic evidences which specifically denounced the facts presented in this book. And let Piotrus possible presentation have formal structure, namely – present specific book’s Armija Krajova Lietuvoje claim and present specific academic sources (page numbers, authors etc.), which denounced the books claim; after one claim go to other another claim and present academic sources to it, etc. And after it we will see if Piotrus has academic support for his claims. It should be done because contributor not only using this book "unreliable" label as my ill behavior evidence but also continues to label other scholars as “unreliable” [1] too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a new question for the ArbCom, let me repeat my old arguments: 1) no English reviews of this book could have been found, you failed to present any Lithuanian ones, I have found three reviews in Polish press, all calling it extremist/unreliable ([2], [3], [4]) 2) many of book claims, particulary about alleged AK attrocities, are not verifiable by any other source 3) the book publisher, lt:Lietuvos politinių kalinių ir tremtinių sąjunga, is a political party - not known for its reliability and are specifically warned as likely unreliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples 4) the book co-author for t.1 and principal author is the controversial Kazimieras Garšva ([5]). Therefore the book fails WP:RS, particulary the Exceptional claims require exceptional sources section and is simply not a reliable source, your arguments otherwise are simply supporting my statements below.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing online sources; I especially intrigued by your review sources. As I initially asked, post there these sources (or any) specific claims, which concrete facts of the book they dispute (as you noted your sources call it unreliable) ? Which contra arguments they present instead of them? You see I could not locate much, as your one of the review sources’ [6] title reads (if I not mistaken) as the last official visit of the president A. Kwaśniewski to Lithuania, somehow not very academic review source. So it would be great if you post here the specific failings of these sources linked to the book. M.K. 08:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In general, I repeatedly asked M.K. to provide sources, on this and other matters, and he never responded. DGG 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diffs in which you specifically asked me, as you note, “repeatedly” to provide sources of this matter? Let me remind you that in this section we are talking about publication “Armija Krajova Lietuvoje ISBN 9986-577-02-0”, because the only time you suggested to me something personally - was this [7]. M.K. 08:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the summary of the book written by its editor, Kazimieras Garšva. The summary used hate language, typical for extremal nationalists. Garšva himself is not a historian. I would never use such source as a citation for any other subject than "Nationalism". --Lysy^talk 18:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very good that you made a comment, more people familiar with this issue will state their view, more chances that we will do everything right here. So, besides your own impressions maybe you have some specific scholars opinion too? Could I ask a favor? Could you translate some findings of Piotrus presented review sources,as with my Polish skills will take much time? If it is too big you can translate it in my user talk. M.K. 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view and consensus

1) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Consensus, all editors should realize they are biased, and work with others to reach a middle ground - the consensus. Editors who refuse to admit they are biased and refuse to negotiate with other side(s) to reach a consensus should change their behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the spirit but not sure how practical this is. --Lysy^talk 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

2) Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, editors should act on the principle that other editors, even if they represent different POV, are trying to be neutral and are ammenable in reaching a consensus. Assuming other editors are acting with bad faith, particularly on the basis of their nationality and arguments about cabals, is disruptive.

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Harassment

3) Per Wikipedia:Harassment, harassing other editors is prohibited. Harassment is an ongoing pattern of participation with no legitimate editorial purpose that intimidates another user or seeks to drive another user away from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civility

4) Per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Discuss content, not other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

5) Per Wikipedia:Banning policy, users who engage in disruptive editing may be banned from the site or put on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Biographies of living persons violations

1) Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) violated the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

Full picture of evidences here, specifically – mocking from living person, by accusing him faking documentations; misusing sources and presenting poorly sourced material - presenting as embassy information while in reality it was a some sort of tourist portal [8] etc, misleadingly suggested that WP:LIVING is not applied in different articles dealing with living persons biographies [9], preventing cite check and misleadingly suggested that attribution of Polish sources and citations are verified [10] (violation of WP:VERIFY as well as dubious sources there in Polish) (after some time personally started to found flaws [11]), Piotrus did not comply policy, which instructs for immediate removal without discussion dubious and low quality sources [12] , continually supports usage of dubious sources [13] .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs or link to evidence section, please. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done M.K. 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I see nothing to support BLP in the diffs: one actually reads ":The proper solution is to quote relevant text on talk, and/or also try to link to the stable page verion in the Internet Archive" -- To my mind, that's the correct way to document. DGG 21:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars

2) Piotrus fueled systematical revert wars.

Full picture of evidences here and here. During this arbitration time frame Piotrus in one alone article managed to revert up to ten times, newest revert campaigns on single article - [14] [15] [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs or link to evidence section, please. Picaroon (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. M.K. 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading suggestion. It usually takes two or more to revert-war. Blaming one party only is simply not fair. I've checked the diffs provided, and usually it was not Piotrus who started warring. --Lysy^talk 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Since I reverted Irpen's version there too and added some material Piotrus contributed to talk page, let me just point out that 1) first diff is Irpen reverting Piotrus, not the other way around 2) Piotrus reverts ([17], [18]) are well explained on talk, particulary noteworthy is that the other party is relying on unreliable source that Western academic journal has described as "close to Stalinist and neoimperial concepts" 3) several other editors have supported Piotrus version and questioned Irpen's, ex. myself, Lysy [19], Balcer [20] and [21]. 4) Alex who reverted Piotrus twice ([22], [23]) has not explained any of his views on talk even after Piotrus asked him on his talk page and in edit summaries. 5) Finally, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, nobody is really guilty of revert warring, as the article is being steadily improved. Nobody has broken 3RR, most parties (w/out Alex...) are discussing issues at talk, and although there are some uncivil comments at talk, they don't come from Piotrus. Similar situation can be seen in all 'revert wars' alleged by MK - Piotrus (and Lysy, Balcer, and others) are always keeping their cool, being civil, adding reliable sources and willing to discuss issues at talk. This, unfortunately, cannot be always said about the other side... - Darwinek 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Dr. Dan

3) Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruptive editing that includes block for incivility, attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines by insulting Polish editors and challenging their good faith ([24], [25], [26]) and engaging in personal attacks ([27], [28], [29]). See evidence subsection for more evidence, including many previous warnings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sadly, in my experience the vast majority of contributions by Dr. Dan are spiteful commentaries designed to generate hostility and rancor, sometimes loaded with irony to the point of incomprehensibility, and often containing thinly veiled (or blatant) personal attacks. Out of all problematic editors I have come across, he is probably the worst, as outside of his harmful comments on talk pages he almost never creates any new content. Here is the most recent example , in which he accuses Piotrus of supporting mass murder.Balcer 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more example which Dr. Dan sarcastically suggested be added to the Arbcom proceedings. I will oblige him. In it he makes another completely unjustified, ugly allegation against Piotrus. Balcer 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more --Beaumont (@) 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by M.K

4) M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) displayed bad faith, engaged in personal attacks and harrassing of other editors involved with Poland-related articles in various discussion spaces ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). As for content edits, he showed questionable judgement in relation to neutrality and reliability on Poland-related articles (ex. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight issues with edits like additions of minor facts distorting general articles [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], removal of important facts ([42], [43], [44], [45], ~~[46]~~) and for reliability, using unreliable sources related to Vilnija extremist organization and its supporters (like Kazimieras Garšva) - ex. [47], [48], [49], [50]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor presenting evidences of my alleged “harassment” presented article and contributors talk pages and calls them as “Poland related”, how such articles can be called Poland related but not Lithuania – related And how such [51] even can be called “Poland related” harassing at all? I presented findings of inaccurate Piotrus’ info , which discussed in detail here , while other misused info covered and here. Presented “evidence” of incivility and harassment is not evident is such scale as his own [52] [53][54] Repaying for Undue weight it was challenged here with clear signs of misinformation and OR. Claims of “removal of important facts” falls apart then remembering that these articles there adjusted with accordance with WP:LIVING policy which stresses that “Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.” It is worth to note that Piotrus himself is scrutinized here and due to disobeying the same LIVING policy. I found even more confused that this edit is called “removal of important facts”. Regarding “unreliable sources” usage, till present day nobody provided academic evidences which supported Piotrus “unreliable” theory. M.K. 11:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern

5) Piotrus displayed intimidation and threatening pattern over different contributors.

false accusation of vandalism, threatening of block, accusing of harassment , another threat of block urge to stop intimidation by different contributor etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In a series of somewhat impolite discussions, Piotrus was usually the calmest, and the diffs cited by MK will show it plainly upon impartial reading. DGG 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mocking by Piotrus

6) Piotrus mocked contributors.

accuses contributors who do not support his view being naïve souls mocking from state tragedy and me accusation of Holocaust revisionism, more here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Baiting by Piotrus

7) Piotrus baited different contributors

baiting new comers labeling them as fans or organization others others etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Stalking by Piotrus

8) Piotrus stalked different contributors.

[55] [56] [57] [58] etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing by Piotrus

9) Piotrus displayed continues disruptive editing. Suing to ArbCom precedent, which ruled out that “It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably”, Piotrus made continued removal statements supported by academic sources, see more evidence of removal of information; strengthen with tendentious editing and intimidation of his opponents (see above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Misleading information in evidence section presented by Piotrus

10) Piotrus presented misleading information in Evidence section. See here and here and here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Rude Evidence presentation by Piotrus

11) Piotrus displayed rude conduct over Evidence presentation. Evidences here

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems irrelevant and misguided. If you didn't want Piotrus to suggest you and the other people who sided with you in the initial statements have a common point of view, which is different from the common point of view of him and his defenders, then you shouldn't have filed the case. I think you might want to read through some previous arbitration cases to get a feel of how the process works and what it tries to accomplish; other cases which deal with multiple editors of different nationalities conflicting over subjects related to their nationalities include Armenia-Azerbaijan, India-Pakistan, Hkelkar, etc.. Picaroon (Talk) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed right about that I have little skills in ArbCom, my last participation was in Darwinek's case. But I somehow think that you a little bit wrongly understood my words, as I do not say that it is due to different view of developments but how these views were presented here. As you are professional in this area, feel free to move or remove this part from this page. And if there is something more wrongly done let me know. M.K. 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Violation of WP:VERIFY by Piotrus

12) Piotrus displayed bad pattern of conduct by refusing to provide necessary information then dealing with sources others then English per WP:VERIFY.

Piotrus is known for his misleadingly attributed sources and information (concern of this also presented in [59] ), and then asked to provide exact citations of sources [60] [61] he not comply [62]. In this particular case I was even accused of denial

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. M.K. 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wheel-warring

1) Piotrus used to indulge in wheel-warring but seems to have been reformed in this respect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. As long as it's not clearly defined which facet and period of Piotr's activity in the project are examined in the current arbitration, this seems to be a pertinent observation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff provided is from November 2005 !!! --Lysy^talk 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to direct clerk's attention to this talk question about timeframe.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Use of foreign language to discuss opponents

2) Despite multiple protests, Piotrus has the habit of discussing his non-Polish opponents on talk pages of English Wikipedia in a language they don't understand.[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] Such communications are known to have been occasionally incivil: "If we speak about Ruskies [an ethnic slur], there are a couple of nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet, so we have the constant Cold War with them".[70]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have urged Piotrus many times not to call me Gyrandol or other offensive terms and not to discuss my actions in English wikipedia in other languages than English. I want to know what is being said about me. With an increasing degree of mutual understanding, much mistrust will disappear. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule forbidding use of non-English on private talk pages; I tend to reply in Polish if users post to me in Polish (please note all of the above diffs are either my replies to notes in Polish (sometimes on other talkpage), posts by others users to me (for which I can hardly be blamed), or Ghirla's comments (even more so...). I have supported use of English on public forums, asking others to post in English (ex. here, here and in many other places). As for the use of nicknames and perceived if unintended ethnic slurs, I have done so only few times in the past and apologized to him in our unfinished mediation (see points 1 and 2). I don't use Polish on en Wiki - maybe once every few weeks - and I don't recall I had used any nicknames or slurs since our mediation (even if it was broken and my concenrns unaddressed by Ghirla's wikiholidays).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that we have settled the issue once and for all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear this issue has been settled long ago, as Ghirlandajo himself admits (admittedly making his whole statement self-contradictory). Dragging out old misunderstandings here is inappropriate. Balcer 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accusations of vandalism

3) Piotrus regularly accuses long-standing contributors of vandalism or calls them vandals ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits from March'06. Again, this has been addressed by our unfinished mediation. I am certainly not overusing the v-word anymore; but please note that some of the comments I made above are still quite valid (some articles needed attention ([76], [77]), some users needed to be warned [78]).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I am glad to hear that you desisted from calling your opponents "vandals". You know that I haven't been around for a while (contrary to your assertion, it was a wikiexile rather than wikivacation, and I'm still active part time in Russian Wikipedia), so I can't really assess your progress in this respect. It'd be great to hear Irpen's opinion, for a change. Unfortunately, I am told privately that most of your traditional opponents decided to give you some slack in this arbitration, since you seem to have been on close terms with the only person capable of paralyzing ArbCom decision-making process.[79]. More's the pity. I believe we should speak out once and for all, so that A/C could focus on more urgent disputes. There is no need to come right back to the same issue again and again. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Canvassing

4) Piotrus resorts to canvassing in order to push pro-Polish POV into the articles about the history of Eastern and Central Europe ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This has become regular in other national segments of Wikipedia, unfortunately. But I think the example was set by the Polish notice-board. Tireless canvassing escalates trivial conflicts into large-scale wars that last for months and years. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This - canvassing - is actually a claim I hear often whenever two or more Polish editors happen to be seen together. Again, the language of my old (March'06 again...) notices might have been a bit to ironical - it has changed since then as I (hope) I've learned to be more neutral - but please note I never suggested editors how they should vote. I believe X-related board is for annoucement of X-related discussions. It is my belief that the more editors are aware of a discussion, the more neutral it will be as the always vocal but tiny minority of different strong POVs will be shown as just that - a tiny minority. I have increasingly post at non-Polish noticeboard to ensure diversity of views (as indeed just posting to X noticeboard on X-Y problem is suboptimal), ex. Russian, Russian, Russian..., German, German, MILHIST and others. See also my evidence section for examples of my common posts to RfC and other completly neutral forums, requesting opinions.Therefore I believe that I never violated Wikipedia:Canvassing, as my posts never suggest how to vote (I can cite several examples where after my posts Polish users were divided in their opinions), and are certainly not "provocative attempts to stack an ongoing poll" or "aggressive propaganda campaigns". As accusations of canvassing are creating bad atmosphere on noticeboards every few weeks (ex. here, here, here, here, here, here...). I would indeed appreciate ArbCom ruling on whether I (and other users of Polish noticeboard) had or hadn't violated WP:CANVASS to put an end to this issue. PS. Once, Ghirla himself has been criticized for canvassing at Polish noticeboard... (although I think his post, for the record, was perfectly acceptable).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider notices on national noticeboards harmful, because they tend to escalate edit conflicts rather than defusing them. In such cases, an editor of your standing does not even need to express his opinion, as it is sufficiently known to everyone regularly checking the noticeboard. Everyone knows in advance how a Polish or Russian wikipedian will most likely behave if the conflict concerns a Russo-Polish war. This is a generalization, as there is a handful of people on both sides who would be unfazed by nationalist considerations, but it is nevertheless true. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completly disagree with your generalization as in my opinion it is majority, not minority, of editors, who will be "unfazed by nationalism". Advertising potential disputes as widely as possible is the best guarantee that a minority of nationalists/extremists/etc. will lose whatever hold they had on a discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been aware that posting an inflammatory call to arms on a noticeboard frequented by citizens of one's own country qualifies as a sort of dispute resolution. If you had "advertised" potential disputes on the notice-boards of some countries other than Poland, I would have agreed with you. However, the least controversial way to ask for a neutral third opinion on a content dispute is to use WP:RFC, which is visited in equal measure by editors of all nationalities. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, I am now commonly posting to other noticeboards (including Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board, unfortunatly that board never got popular enough, but I supported the idea of such forum to facilitate communciations), RfCs and such precisely to avoid any bias from 'one country' stance only. Are you?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I must ask: what's wrong with informing fellow interested editors that a discussion is ongoing? No suggestion which way to vote, no threats, no insults - just information. The fact is, none of us is aware of what is going on in all of Wikipedia all the time. I see no problem with asking people to have a look at a discussion, particularly on a regional notice board, designed for discussing just such issues. I myself did some informing during this discussion, and Irpen promptly accused me of running a "high scale canvassing campaign" ... "his campaigning on-wiki has been hectic and wide-scale". Undeterred, I did the same during what could have been a heated discussion, but Hungarian editors also ran an information campaign and guess what? Everyone came out pretty happy. Of course, indiscriminate messaging turns into spam, and should certainly be avoided, but within decent parameters - parameters that, as far as I can see, Piotrus has respected, I don't see any problem with making people aware of current debates. Biruitorul 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is not acceptable for two simple reasons: 1) because it tends to magnify local conflicts of little consequence into large-scale edit wars; 2) because its prime aim is to avoid 3RR by involving more reverters. If you really need a comment on some issue, we have WP:RFC. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I wonder how would you comment this announcement in Portal:Russia/New article announcements (sic!) or this one ? --Lysy^talk 08:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never denied that, for a limited period of time, I followed Piotr's lead and practised the same sort of announcements as a means of self-defense against this. After Piotrus declared at the top of the Polish Wikipedians' notice board that "probably anything visited by Ghirlandajo" qualifies as vandalism or needs attention, does it seem surprizing to you? Unlike him, I discovered that this practice is not a valid method of dispute resolution. Now I regret it and find this practice objectionable, despite Piotr's continuing support of it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment, I agree on this one with you, and for this reason I'm not a frequent poster to PL noticeboard myself. However, I don't think that Piotrus practices recruiting in the notice boards in the way you're presenting it. All the diffs you've provided are all well over one ear old. --Lysy^talk 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, standards of honest debate demand that if you accuse another editor of canvassing and you have been engaging in exactly the same practice yourself, you should come out right away and admit it, to avoid a justified charge of hypocrisy. That "I have never been hiding" statement, forced out of you when presented with undeniable evidence of your own conduct by another editor, is too little, too late. At any rate, I am amazed that you consider canvassing by Piotrus as wrong, but you justify your doing it as "justified self-defense". What self defense? Were you personally threatened in any way? Truly an amazing example of double standards. And your statement that you were only following Piotrus' lead is an excuse a five year old child would not get away with. Balcer 20:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box in question was was ill-thought, in the end I and other involved editors have removed it and apologized for any ill-feelings about a year ago. We have also settled this in our mediation. Why are you bringing this year-old issue back?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Piotrus, this is water that has long passed under the bridge. Still, as the editor who removed the box, I am glad it is gone, as it certainly was not accomplishing much good. We all learn from experience. Balcer 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Piotrus and Biru. Simply notifying other editors of an ongoing discussion is entirely acceptable and is not canvassing. The only way it turns into canvassing is when somebody posts a notice instructing people HOW to vote. Now, in my experience, the standard reply has been "but when you post notices on national noticeboards, you're deliberately notifying people who you know will agree with you." That, I must say, is slightly ridiculous. Ever seen what happens when you put two Hungarians/Romanians/Russians/Poles/Czechs/[insert nationality here] in a room together and give them something political to talk about? Instant chaos. Nationality alone hardly determines opinions, and is NO guarantor of agreement! ;-) K. Lásztocska 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Further, please note that those noticeboards are not 'for X-nationality only', they are 'for X-issue interested editors', created for and maintained for the very purpose of notifying watching editors of interesting issues; majority of posts to them are not controversial at all. Polish noticeboard (for example) often gets posts from - and is certainly watched by - editors of other nationalities (just as I, myself, post to and watch various noticeboards/project discussions/etc.). As I wrote above, the very fact that once Ghirla himself has been criticized for canvassing at Polish noticeboard should be telling.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you know that a year ago the noticeboard in question was known as the Polish Wikipedians' notice board. I was explicitly asked to refrain from posting on it by User:Molobo, if I recall correctly. Furthermore, the present arbitration was launched no examine your actions rather than mine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I was one of the people who strongly campaigned for the name change to avoid the confusion. Plus the arbitration was launched to examine ations of all involved editors - something you should pause and think about.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more alarming, actually, that Piotrus engages in unethical off-wiki canvassing. Two examples: he seems to have been behind the scandalous off-wiki campaign aimed at derailing another user's RfA. He refused to either admit or deny his involvement, so we have only a circumstantial evidence but the evidence seems pretty strong. The second example, is his campaigning at one notorious IRC channel where he fed a certain David Gerard with I do not know what to bring this user who I never met before to his ArbCom with remarks that were widely criticized by the community. Even more abrogating is that Piotrus does not recognize such steps being unethical even when this was pointed out to him in an explicit form. --Irpen 23:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the evidence that there ever even was a massive off-wiki canvassing campaign? The only evidence presented in that long discussion on the Polish noticeboard seemed to be that a lot of Poles voted. (m:Poles are evil again?) I am really disturbed by these constant assumptions of the existence of some sort of Polish cabal. Often times in this ongoing Eastern European war I notice comments that can really only be described as paranoid Polonophobia, as if all Polish Wikipedians are engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to discredit Russia (or whatever) and fill the Wiki with slanderous propaganda. Sheesh, even the Hungarians never get such outrageous accusations leveled against us. K. Lásztocska 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen here makes outrageous charges with no solid evidence whatsoever. I would not be suprised if Piotrus did not deign to answer them. Absence of a yes or no answer in this case in no way indicates wrongdoing. And Irpen has no authority to conduct any investigations of other Wikipedians anyway. Balcer 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which nationality you represent in the project, but I certainly don't find your accusations of "paranoid Polonophobia" either reasonable or helpful. It is obvious a priori that "off-wiki canvassing campaigns" are not supposed to leave lasting traces. In most cases, we can only guess what's been going on. As for David Gerard, I feel there is some evidence that he has been contacted with the purpose of having him involved into the arbitration. Once an arbitrator, always an arbitrator, as the proverb goes. Honestly, how can we expect a fair resolution of the dispute if the owner of the mailing list declares that one party "has been gunning for Piotrus for some time - his edit pattern needs thorough review"? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Hungarian. (You might remember me from Piotrus's earlier RfC where you accused me--baselessly--of Russophobia, not that that is relevant here.) I don't know David Gerard so I can't comment much further on this, but I call things like I see them. It's obvious to anyone that Irpen has been gunning for Piotrus for a long time and often assuming the worst of faith: a most recent example is here--Piotrus suggested to another editor that he might want to put Babel boxes on his userpage, and Irpen immediately reverted it (twice) with no explanation, and later accused Piotrus of "pressuring" the other editor into revealing "personal information." An overreaction to say the least, in my humble opinion. K. Lásztocska 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side-comment. I indeed consider Irpen's (repeated) removal of my messages to another editor very uncivil, the editor in question also specifically told me he felt they were ok and was not pressured by them ([86]). Whether the above behaviour falls under wikistalking, coupled with a series of unfriendly and even harassing messages to my talk page (here, here, here, here, here to just name 5 cases from the previous two months) is wikistalking and should be commented upon by ArbCom, is something that may deserve a further thought.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are given and the evidence certainly goes beyond the fact that "lot of Poles voted". I assume no Polish cabal. I see unethical behavior of one user. Let arbitrators read the diffs above and decide for themselves. This can be easily ended if Piotrus says (he refused so far) what was his role in all this. --Irpen 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merit, all these links are over a year old now. --Lysy^talk 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Irpen had any authority to conduct all by himself an investigation of Piotrus, complete with questions designed to incriminate him. To me it had all the appearance of harassment. Balcer 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

5) Piotr's favorite method of content dispute resolution is to post a civility or disruption complaint on some public noticeboard (WP:ANI, WP:PAIN) and have his opponent blocked from editing. Just one prominent example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. What makes discussing content with Piotrus so difficult, is that you may expect any minute that you will be blocked on account of a complaint that he posted on some notice-board. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No diffs from 2007 again? Anyway, I will reply to this shortly: I believe anybody has a right to ask for advice on public forums. As an admin involved in a dispute, I cannot excercise my powers in such cases - so I can either shut up and give up, or ask other admins to review the situation. I see nothing wrong with asking for advice or review. Certainly this has nothing in common with "forum shopping", as defined at WP:CANVASS. PS. Ghirla, would you like to post diffs/history logs to examples when due to my 'forum shopping', somebody was blocked and then there was a consensus the block was unfair and resulted due to my 'machinations'?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS defines the term "forum shopping" as "repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like". This is actually what have been done to have me blocked by Friday. I have accepted that block as reasonable, but I can't accept your attempt to have me blocked last December (see the diffs above) when you applied to WP:PAIN, were snubbed by a responsible admin, started to question him on his talk page, then moved the thread to WP:ANI, from whence it was removed by another admin as "forum shopping", yet you instantly restored that thread and started to question the second admin on his talk page, etc, etc. That's what is called "repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like". --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community consensus was that we should take the matter to DR, which is why we ended up in ArbCom and Mediation last winter, and why we are here. I did hope that the issue would be simpler - alas, apparently it is not. That's all there is to it. Asking for advice is not forum shopping.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ghirlandajo repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite many warnings and previous blocks

6) In addition to large body of pre-2007 evidence showing a stable pattern (ArbCom warning from Jan'06, blocks for incivility, evidence presented in my statement in ArbCom Dec'06), his edits from this year confirm this unfortunate pattern holds: [87], [88], [89], [90].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Piotrus.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to deflect the discussion of your behaviour. I don't think many people buy into Ghirlandajo's fabled incivility these days, even despite these formidable diffs. This is an old trick. Couldn't you provide anything better than a stale log with two blocks for one of which I received apologies and another resulted in desysopping? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: