Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Poeticbent

Rename this case to Eastern European disputes

Out of respect for ArbCom invaluable time, I support my assertion only by edits and diffs provided already by the involved parties in their initial statements even though the stream of supporting evidence is growing. Most recently, the majority of them (Piotrus, M.K, Irpen, Dr. Dan, Lysy, Halibutt) engaged in a highly politicized dispute over the content of WWII Operation Wilno. However, their edit summaries remained cordial throughout in spite of numerous edit wars. [2] User:M.K made his first Main Space edit by flagging the article with disputed {{NPOV-title}} tag only after the article was already 6,244 characters long, 3 months after it appeared on the front page of Wikipedia in section "Did You Know?", and after a long period of thoughtful and prudent editing by Piotrus who created the article. Corresponding remarks made by User:M.K on Talk page were casual at best. Both users provided reference for their conflicting points of view. There was no bad faith on either side, only bouts of frustration resulting from two different perspectives on one historical event.

The example proves that the request for arbitration against Piotrus was little more than an attempt at scaring off or tiring out an editor who's used to defending his sources. However, the issues are broader than that and should be addressed by arbitrators as such. The stream of requests for arbitration will continue until ArbCom finds a way of easing the situation before a new generation of editors arises. Please rename this case and use it for future reference to our joint benefit. --Poeticbent  talk  03:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by user:M.K

First of all, I want to thank ArbCom members who accepted and willing to solve this case regarding contributor Piotrus behavior. I will present expanded evidence regarding this contributor’s behavior.

Removal or referenced information

These misconducts are one of the main characteristics of user:Piotrus, who engage removal or referenced information, which is not suits his POV: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] small example of this behavior pattern.

Fueling revert wars

Such tendentious and one sided edits, usually accompanied with WP:OR and strong POV, fueling revert wars (present an history sections):[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Accompanied with such edit summaries as “you are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda” [25], [26] “preposterous claim” and by making his famous NPOV after which referenced text usually disappear [27] As I noted in the main ArbCom case he was blocked for WP:3RR [28], instead of acknowledging his mistakes he tried blame bad faith contributor, and if contributor who reported him, indeed had bad faith and the block was unjustified there had to be issued an technical block to denounce previous one at least. There is no such, so we can see that he breached the WP:3RR rule, which is installed to prevent revert wars.

I also initiated another case regarding his reverts [29] and as I understand the case did not resulted any actions due to demonstrated self revert. But that is troubling to me is that in his comment he tried to show that he was conducted some sort of established contributor's “vandalism” removal , and on reviewing 3RR board admin talk page he quite unethical accused involved contributors of “Holocaust revisionism” [30]. I hope that ArbCom members will familiarized themselves with these claims and my filled 3RR case.

Violating WP:LIVING

In the initial case I posted some evidence regarding this problem and now I elaborate on this issue, as it is very important not only to particular involved parties but and Wikipedia general, as such violations leaves Wikipedia vulnerable. Violation of this policy directly involves Habilitated Doctor of Humanities Kazimieras Garšva, one of his investigation fields is crimes carried out by Polish insurgents, so you may understand that Polish public do not like him much (say at least).

Violations started then Piotrus started to placing doubtful and badly attributed sources [31] , WP:LIVING clearly states “Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. 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.” Inserting some none English information from tourism portal, badly labeling it as Lithuanian embassy site [32] hardly can be called “high quality references”. But the problems did not end, soon after another related article was created with quite clear WP:POINT intentions [33] (observe edit summary) problems with references there exported and with particular living person and others directly connected article, but now problems became even more evident, presented “sources” not only did no direct concur statements in article but also there were contradicting, seeing such misuse of sources and “referenced” quotations I took necessary steps authorized by WP:LIVING policy, which states “Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion” [34] [35] [36] as problems continued I asked for more contributors to check usage of citations and references [37] as the major claims of this article there pointing to Polish sources. But in vain all my work there reverted citation request as well [38] by Piotrus. Who even tried to argue that WP:Living policy is not applied in other articles which deals with living persons life facts, while policy suggest contrary – “This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles.” Even more policy allows to removed false claims from talk pages (!). Such basic information should now all admins. And more Piotrus argued that everything is verified [39] After some time he personally found flaws in his attribution of claims with references [40]. Misuse of sources and quotations are present [41] after some time as well, of course if proper cite and reference check was completed such problems would be solved. Even now, both creator of this article and admin Piotrus, starting to invent new things how references should labeled and used, instead finding high quality and neutral ones [42]. This is one side of problem, another one that he started to mock from the living person Mr. Garšva [43] even more labeling various tags to contributors who challenges his claims [44] (“It saddens me to see that we have editors who support point of views of extremist organizations”) [45] (“Definite proof we have Vilnija fans among us”) etc. Yet another example of tendentious Piotrus’s edits – article in question heavily rely on Polish newspapers, while non Polish newspapers cant be used in other articles [46].

Recruiting support for proper articles versions?

I have serious thoughts regarding some articles that some editors there brought to scene only to revert “proper” version of articles preferred by Piotrus. My findings of this issue covered here [47] then one particular contributor user: LUCPOL, closely associated with Piotrus, reverts articles to the Piotrus versions. The feelings of not tolerated behavior surges then noticing that LUCPOL just reverts “proper version” without contributions on talk or in main space nor before nor after reverts, and in these cases Piotrus already in dispute with others. Assuming good faith I would like to ask Piotrus – do you ever asked or suggested directly or indirectly to User: LUCPOL that he should revert some articles’ versions in which you there in dispute?

NOTE: headlines of text below was added on 2007-05-29

UPDATE I will reply to Prokonsul Piotrus’ presentation. Sadly presentation failed to address specific concerns and shows signs of unwillingness for constructive solution and have a quite a rude pattern. However my response I will start from “Piotrus response to other side's claims” first point.

Response to Piotrus response to other side's claims. Further evidences

Response to point 1 in Piotrus response. Content analysis, further evidence of misleading information usage, accusations etc.

Contributor conducted some sort of content analysis, if I remember ArbCom investigation pattern, committee do not investigate a content, but if administrator Piotrus thinks that the specific area should be discussed I have obligation to present contra argumentation of his claims. First, if I not mistaken most of “all” sources about which Piotrus talks, are conducted by polish representatives; and remembering Piotrus response (preposterous claim) to the presented data we can assume that Polish representatives do not speak much about these specific crimes carried out by Polish criminals. And if I remembering NOV policy right all conflicting scholarly points should be presented including United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which specifically mentions Polish Jew killers, as well as Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania.

Following Piotrus remarks “even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary mentions only Lithuanian ethnicity in YB” ArbCom members could witness particular contributors’ distortion of sources and original research. As this source’s English summary do not talk about YB (Ypatingasis būrys) (you would not find any of these names in the summary) at all. That P.P. did – confused completely different structures such as SD; German security police, Lietuvių saugumo policija (Lithuanian security police) (these 3 organizations are presented in source English summary); all these mentioned structures are not the same as Ypatingasisi būrys (aka Sonderkommando). I brought to ArbCom members this misused of sources fact as it is not the isolated incident, bad attribution and misused information being used by Piotrus to justify page titles [48] [49] ending with living persons matters (see evidence of my comments above).

Staying with the first point, only going to part “Note that M.K. has also "removed referenced information" himself”. After reading this part of Piotrus response it became clear to me that administrator Piotrus do not know WP:LIVING policy at all. Such “evidences” of my removal of referenced information stands no ground, because the information provided in source (such as these presented by Piotrus) do not concur the articles text at all. And different contributors also noted the same [50] , as well as neutral mediator [51]. I long time ago tried to explain that see sources are not sufficient , but yet again I was accused of “legal” defense of this organization. And related policies clearly suggests that misused and misquoted information should be removed immediately and without any discussion.

Response to point 2 in Piotrus response. Further evidences of revert wars, stalking

Now going to the second point. Let facts speak for themselves about revert campaigns:

[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] a “small” revert campaign, on only one (!) article. [62] [63] [64] and yet another 3RR warning . Please note I took here only the small part of systematical reverts conducted during his own ArbCom case time frame, in which one of listed problems is his revert campaigns. And I do not want to go in other a bit older cases as it is the same pattern as noted. Probably these revert campaigns also due to “suspicious” contributors actions as well...

Staying in the same point No. 2 just going to different location specifically part “such strong bad faith claims based on such”, personally I do fail to understand that presented sources ([65]; [66]; [67]) should suggest, as I think that removal of valid information should be addressed on talk as this [68], then do this considered as P.P. notes “trotted out”? (maybe Piotrus remembered his own trolling?)Analyzing this; some how P.P, forgot to note that on this page he accused me of harassment [69] (contributor on whose talk page I made my remarks demonstrated ill behavior; if it be any need I will present a spectrum of evidence on this issue including this, accusation of faking the history)

Moving to other point - edit summaries - lets see that administrator is doing with his edit summaries [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] Last two examples are very much saying; as contributor to whom these messages there addressed quite clearly suggested to Piotrus that such practice of stalking should end, even more contributor asked an advice from administrator on trolling action of an admin and was suggested to proceed with mediation with Piotrus.

Response to point 3 in Piotrus response.

Going to point 3, completely not relevant to presented evidence by me, as there is no answer why we mocked living person in question or why he prevented of smooth cite check or why he continued mock from contributors working in this field.

Response to point 4 in Piotrus response.

Going to point 4, it would be great if Piotrus could stated straight, if he (in presented) cases asked contributors to revert “proper” article versions or not. The newest development also strengthen listed concerns [76]

Response to Piotrus claims about other side. Further evidences

Response to point 1 in Piotrus response, last paragraph. Further evidence of misleading information usage during ArbCom case

Moving to new section - “For ArbCom to investigate and comment on.”. - First point. I will not comment on Piotrus contributions relating other contributors “classification” as I see it as very rude as well as highly inappropriate to ArbCom case.

But I will comment starting from “He has disrupted Poland-related…”. Crimes committed by Polish criminals during WWII in small countries and specific regions are described very limited or non existent in English sources, so we have to really on local historians, official institutions; one of the sources Armija Krajova Lietuvoje ISBN 9986-577-02-0, which Piotrus dislikes and labels various rude comments on it without providing any academic data, despite was asked to do so (I once again ask him to present his academic sources which denounce specific claims of presented book). But going back to specific claims about “His POV has been proven wrong by a MedCab case” first I did not participated in MedCab case at all, as it was closed few moth ago before me [77] and as never was listed as the disputed parties of the provided case by Piotrus. Even more I was explained that it over [78] , so I asked mediator about specific question [79] and received and answer that extremist label which used Piotrus should be removed and of course Piotrus denounced mediators suggestions [80]. So that we have: a) I did not participated in MedCabal case (contrary to Piotrus) b) Former case mediator challenged Piotrus core claims about label “extremist”. So it is up to you to consider factual accuracy about claim “is POV has been proven wrong by a MedCab case”. Going to claim : “ignored by WPMIHIST reviewers…” once again incorrect as one of the involved contributors became a new moderator… It saddens me very much that misinformation is used by Piotrus even during arbitration process.

Response to point 3 in Piotrus response. Further evidence of false accusations, intimidation, misuse of information

Currently skipping point 2 and going to point 3 about allegedly harassment. I will start from specific diffs, presented by P.P. First, this one P.P. claims it as “incivil comments and accusations”. On article Ponary massacre act of some sort vandalism occurred , which was reverted by Lysy after few minutes [81]; while comparing two versions (before vandalism and restored version Lysy) huge parts of article vanished, so I see nothing wrong by asking [82] that full text should be restored, rather then “proper” version. Simple.

Moving forward this one , P.P. once again forgot to draw a full light to this development, so lets take a look. One contributor started to mocking from Lithuanian language again (he did this continues times) [83] ; was condemned by other contributor [84]. As Piotrus and Halibut are friends I think that Piotrus could use more to influence his friend to stop such continues mocking from state language; such practice of mocking was criticized during Halibutt’s RfC, even more was suggested that similar “conducts” is vandalism . And mocking from state is so intense that valuable contributors had to leave this project earlier [85] (it is good that after several months without any edits he reconsidered and come back). So summarizing, then did ethnic slurs are tolerated or considered as valuable contribution (do ethnic slurs considered a contribution at all?); I think it is not valuable contribution at all, probably Piotrus has different opinion.

Next. this one then administrator comes to your talk page and threatens and makes intimidation to block you you should act, especially then accusations complete baseless and bad faith driven. Ironically Piotrus himself suggested to start DR process…

Next going to long part of diffs which starting “which should fall under wikistalking” if users who listed there DGG, Connolley, Irpen, etc thinks that I somehow attacked them let they speak here. In these cases Piotrus just picked my answers, but forgot to add his own, lets correct this error [86] and should be stated that Piotrus like to make false accusations denounced such claims by neutral contributor .

Going to the Piotrus part “he is harassing other editors, ex.” complete misuse of information I will take several random examples to demonstrate this. Lets start from this. Halibutt came to my talk page and started urging filling a complain against him [87]. Around a week if, I not mistaken, spammed my talk page with rude remarks such as my anti-Brasilian hatred etc . Ironically all info was already provided on articles’ talk page, and this remark was urging to review it again. But as time showed I did not help, as Halibutt reappear to talk page with yet another rude comment accusing that I “do not have the courage and honour”; that I lie . Ant let me remind that WP:CIV concludes that accusation of lies is serious violation of specific policy; and yes I think that my response was proper to this accusation [88] (somehow Piotrus thinks that it is an harassment conducted my me; just wondering that he would do if someone will call him anti-Brasilian hatred, without courage and honor). But this particular story did not ended; Halibutt removed this warning by edit summary revert troll. Seeing such developments and that particular contributor just conducting provocations I removed highly offensive remark [89] with summary in which I pointed example [90] . Now Piotrus took these two diffs out of context and presented them as my “harassment” “evidence”.

If we take this random example, it as well would not hold under deeper scrutiny. The question surrounding very sensitive issue – moving articles names – but this case (Jogaila article; to understand situation complexity maybe committee members would like to read some talk pages of this article) is even more special as the voting procedures there conducted around seven times (!), marked by extensive sockpupetism; in one of these votes Halibutt initiated campaign of support by flaming the messages: [91] [92] [93] As this is WP:POINT, such behavior could develop to uncontrolled situation, and trying to avoid such things I sought an advice from more experienced editor (who participated in these vote campaigns from beginning to the end). General discussion (concerning both Halibutt and Piotrus too) were address on WP:ANI [94]. As you may witness, continues Piotrus accusations are improper here as well.

Concluding remarks, further and continues evinces of mocking, intimidation, baiting, accusation of Holocaust revisionism etc.

And lets go to concluding remarks. As Piotrus made remarks about specific contributors departure, but he once again forgot to mentioned that the same contributor accused another contributor of criminal act [95] , let me remind that Death threat is serious accusation and probably unique in wikipedia in general.

So that do we have – Piotrus diffs which taken from context (usually from very old talk pages) and usually accompanied with inaccurate information, everything mixed and presented as "evidence" of harassment. But if we analyze such “contributions” as false accusations of vandalism, another “harassment” [96] intimidation of blocks threatening with sanctions, [97] mocking from state tragedies baiting contributors accusing of Holocaust revisionism we will see true and current misbehavior of administrator Piotrus. List can be filled and filled with the bad conducts, his threats and warnings there dismissed by others [98]. even now a neutral contributor suggest that Piotrus’ ArbCom presentation is a problem holding threats. And indeed rude pattern of Piotrus responses continues from his install ArbCom message.

My update is long, but is absolutely necessary to demonstrate Piotrus incorrect information usage and spread; it is also draws more light to his misconducts. M.K. 11:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Piotrus response to MK's evidence update

Responding part which holds statement “First, as for misusing reference in…” I spoke about misusing this sources in the ArbCom case, there he tried to convinced that this sources’ English summary speak about YB. As it still not clear I will explain more: Piotrus during Evidence presentation tried to convinced : “even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary mentions only Lithuanian ethnicity in YB”

This claim was long time ago (before ArbCom) challenged with undisputed facts, after it he the very same messaged redrawn in 2007 March 6, and acknowledged : All right, since Bubnys in the English summary indeed doesn't talk aboyt YBs,. But as we observe now in ArbCom he is once again presenting this source and claiming that “even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary mentions only Lithuanian ethnicity in YB” while in March 6 he personally acknowledged that this is untrue [99]. Such continues misinformation during ArbCom is unconstructive.

Going to second paragraph - “his 10 diffs for my "fuelling of revert wars". I just wondering if this BOLD, revert, discuss cycle also enforce rude accusation of violation of policies , somebody said revert war ? Or knowing same pattern preposterous claim as well as you are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda also part of this cycle?

But I also want to stop near Piotrus’ one of the last remarks - “See also my edit summary on the last diff he quotes :)” , probably contributor have in mind this revert [100] and yes if we go one more diff forward in this article he will spot mush telling edit summary – don't revert, discuss.

UPDATE of 2007-05-30, responding to Piotrus [101] , in short this classifies WP:OR. I one more time will try to explain and show continues Piotrus misleading pattern. First contributor in question continues to claim “Therefore the abstract does mention YB (but under English name).” As it looks such concussion (pure OR) contributor made only because he saw name “SD troop in Vilnius”, as you may image “SD troop” in any sense is not same as German Security Police and SD Special Squad (Sonderkommando) (Sometimes shortened to YB or Ypatingasis būrys , shorten English name would sound Special Squad). It is simple to understand this, as SD had dozens of different departments and squads including 1a, 1b, III, 3/a etc. And different departments committed atrocities, for instance in Paneriai (which mentions English abstract) atrocities started to be committed in 1941 July 11d. there around 300 people there killed, but at that time there was no, in any sense, German Security Police and SD Special Squad (YB) involvement, as there is no data that it existed at this time, even more it appears in later period only. Later duties there taken by SS department. This why author speaks in general about SD rather then only one specific unit or department. While in the main body discussed developments in details.

Going to the next – “Next, the abstract only mentions two nationalities as related to those organizations”, wrong; for instance SD troops there listed as “German”, despite it employed and different ethnicity people; in other words abstract does not deal with ethnicity rather it is used for subordination, while text itself covers all aspects.

Going to another “adjusted” remark “but they often mention Lithuanian component of YB” and “that even M.K.'s primary source does not stress Polish or Russian participation in YB” wondering how contributor, who completely does not know the language in which article is written makes such strong conclusions? Article then specifically dealing with, lets say, general SD structure empathize that SD employed different nationalities people, while going to the more specific departments it list more specifically who was recruited, this was done specifically and then dealing with German Security Police and SD Special Squad (Sonderkommando) (YB) by noting Poles, Lithuanians, Russians and Germans in the squad. (it is worth to remind that squad usually consisted from ~40-50 persons, while in killings participated 7-20 persons) The same findings there repeated not only in the source which we analyzing (somehow Piotrus calls it “M.K.'s primary source”) now, but and in printed versions as such "Genocidas ir rezistencija, 1997", Vol.1, p.160–175.; Polish involvement in killings there covered and in United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s academic publications, there in deep are discussed Pole’s as Jew killer’s killing motives etc. So we have different sources covering these issues.

And such continues remarks as “that even M.K.'s primary source does not stress Polish or Russian participation in YB” becoming really unproductive and unencyclopedic, as per my explanations above. And let me stress that source is the most comprehensive compared to all Piotrus presented ones; compared to such sources as this (I even don’t talk about this source reliability). And let me stress that WP:NPOV requires that would be fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by verifiable source. Probably nobody will dispute that this person and this institution’s publications are not authoritative sources. And yes the findings presented in these publications are significant, and I do not see how presenting significant scholarly findings are undue weight in this case.

Rude Piotrus’ ArbCom Evidence presentation

Piotrus in his Piotrus request to the ArbCom continuously makes pattern of intimidation over his opponents - threatening of block even more in another development he insisting that “users (M.K., Jadger, Dr. Dan, Irpen) should be should be cautioned that they are not neutral”.

That is the most unacceptable that Piotrus in his other Evidence statement started mocking from contributors by labeling and placing them to various self-proclaimed “groups” . In this statement, Jadger, Dr. Dan was accused being “not productive”, while I was accused having “extreme POV”. These labels should not be tolerated here. Sadly Piotrus so much talks about civility, but as it looks he personally do not follow them even during ArbCom case.

Response to Lysy evidence. Further evidences

I will not respond to personal opinion of my editing image labeled as “M.K.’s editing habits”. Going to section 2 labeled as “M.K assumes bad faith.”

Reponse to Lysy’s claim “M.K assumes bad faith.”

In my view I did nothing wrong in this case, first I had a question and with this question I did not run to various forums, but contrary, contacted specific contributor - explain myself, and give him the opportunity to do the same. After additional information, which I receive from him I politely desisted

Response to Lysy’s claim “M.K falsely accuses of personal attack”

Sadly Lysy is know for his ill behavior in different places, starting form ethnicity related slurs (I know you think you are not Russian but Russified Ukrainian. Sigh) , contributor to whom this “message” was directed identified it as well as racist talk, and ending with remarks directed to towards me – starting to label to me various POV “research”, how I dismiss other POV etc [102], only because I provided sourced definition used in multiply academic English sources. As such personally targeted behavior involving “research” is not acceptable, I urged to stop these type of remarks [103]. Curiously, as now contributor talks about falsely accusations during this event, but before me, on the same day and in regards the same article, he personally issued a warning to different contributor, with highly provocative remark Is anyone paying you for disrupting wikipedia (you can compare my laconic and polite to this one.) However my approach to solve these type problems failed as after few weeks I was once again accused, by the same contributor, but this time “only” for faking the history. I “deserve” this “title” because…because I asked that stamens provided in article should be soured.

I can understand that with contributor who stylizes himself as Polish nationalist , I should be extra careful, but I would not agree that nationalists or ordinary contributors have right to accuse of falsification of history or stage “research” of my POV or accuse of harassment.

Another point – in my laconic remark there is no words “you have been warned” [104]. Maybe Lysy have in mind another place there these words were used and there I (?) had in mid different contributors’ warning to him.

As my primary concern is Piotrus misbehavior I would not expand presentation about Lysy.

UPDATE of 2007-05-30, responding to Lysy’s presented diff; actually in this diff there is said that you have been warned I had in mid this warning by different contributor in similar area [105] , however only today I found out that this template was revoked back then. And it was my mistake for not scrutinizing the full picture of it, and I should wrote more clearer on these issues by directly linking the proper diff. So my remark left on article talk page in any sense is linking my remark left on users talk page.

P.S. I intend to continue presenting evidence in upcoming days. M.K. 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Piotrus

I do not envy the task ArbCom has taken, albeit I think it was inevitable sooner or later; some users - parties in this issue, myself included - have shown that they are unable to resolve their conflict without a third party enforcable ruling. So, here we are.

Please note that at the moment I am posting this only one other user (M.K.) has presented his evidence (agaist me and several other Polish users), with a note "I intend to continue presenting evidence in upcoming days"); I have asked him to finish it twice ([106], [107]) so far with no effect. Please bear in mind that if M.K. updates his section or other users post their evidence my reply below may be no longer comprehensive; I however see no way to avoid it given that the party which filled the ArbCom request in the first place had 2 weeks to finish presenting their evidence. I am therefore assuming they have done so and present my reply below. I will do my best to keep this a consise summary of 1) my response to the other side's claims presented in evidence so far and 2) my claims about the other side. I will reply to current evidence in sections with a single example discussed in detail if feasible; otherwise this would be way over lenght recommended by ArbCom. If ArbCom would like me to expand on anything and address any edit/series of edits in detail, please let me know.

Piotrus response to other side's claims

Piotrus response to MK's original statement

1. "Removal of referenced information": of course I occasionally remove information, including referenced. I never do it lightly - but it is perfectly acceptable behaviour per Wikipedia:Verifiability ("Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor") and related policies (ex.WP:NPOV#Undue_weight).

   For example taking the first diff presented by M.K. I'd like to point to NPOV:UW: all sources (8) in Ypatingasis būrys agree it was a Lithuanian unit; very few (2) mention in passing that among its ~100 members there were several of other ethnicity/pre-war citenzship (even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary mentions only Lithuanian ethnicity in YB). Non-Lithuanian participation in YB is notable enough to mention in the YB article, but it should not be used to argue in articles where YB crimes are discussed that those crimes were commited by 'Lithuanians, Russians and Poles'.

   Note that M.K. has also "removed referenced information" himself ([108], [109], [110], [111]) which I think was much more reliable, relevant and neutral (from Cas Mudde/Routledge and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

2. Fueling revert wars - a good example of accusation not backed by anything but bad faith interpretation of my edits. He who has never reverted on Wikipedia, please throw a stone first :) But seriously, the real problem here is a user who is using a year-old 3RR case filled by a suspicious user and a 'no action' report filled by himself to argue that his opponent is a revert warrior. Such strong bad faith claims based on such flimsy evidence and trotted out on many discussion/talk pages ([112], [113], [114]) and edit summaries ([115], [116], [117]) to discredit me and others is what is really disruptive. Note also I am commonly starting talk page discussions to avoid edit warring, and initate DR procedures seeking input from neutral sides (ex. [118], [119], [120]). I also start DR mediations like Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution or help with guidelines to end many revert wars (WP:NCGN). The only DR procedures initatied by MK are to complain about my or others behaviour when we don't agree with his POV (and see how helpful he is in such discussions)...
3. Violating WP:LIVING. For starters, it was ME who reported KG page to WP:BLP to gather input from neutral editors and BLP experts. User:DGG offered help and the Kazimieras Garšva page has been stable since January 28 with a compromise that the community (me included) find apparently quite acceptable. Vilnija page is also rather stable this year. The only worrying behaviour on those article's were M.K.'s repeated attempts to remove reliable sources critical of this organization and that person (see example from point 1).
4. "Recruiting support for proper articles versions" - bad faith speculations and allegations. I helped LUCPOL with several issues, including translating his statements in a dispute resolution, I also contribute to Silesia articles (he founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Silesia. Apparently in return he occasionally looks at some of the current disputes I am involved in and supports my edits. Excuse me if some editors want to help me instead of drag me through DR :)

Piotrus response to MK's evidence update

This section was added after my initial statement as a reply to new evidence presented by MK on 23 May

My reply to MK's update will be short, as I believe he presents no new evidence that I had not addressed above (again, if ArbCom disagrees and wishes me to reply to any part of evidence in more detail, please let me know). I would however like to discuss two of his new statements and show how evidence he is presenting is misleading at best, and slanderous at worst.

First, as for misusing reference in Ypatingasis būrys, the ref in question was added by a Lithuanian editor and creator of the article; and used in this article by MK himself. But if want to use that reference in relation to that article, it's suddenly a case of "bad attribution and misused information"? :)

Second: his 10 diffs for my "fuelling of revert wars" on a single page look quite condemning... until one notice that they are spaced in 3 weeks from 18 April to 9 May; in essense a normal part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Because of the (sometimes heated) editing and discussion, the article has significantly improved, the current version seems also stable w/out any disputes; two weeks of no edits indicate to me that a consensus has been reached on neutrality wording and source reliablity. See also my edit summary on the last diff he quotes :) If this is fuelling revert wars, than I am indeed a revert warrior :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The following comment addresses new evidence presented by M.K on 29 May.

Keeping this growing section short, I will address only one piece of evidence which I believe is new and relevant: [121]. As can be seen from the translation of Ypatingasis būrys in the relevant article, it's English name is Special SD and German Security Police Squad. There was also a similarly named organization, Lithuanian Security Police (Lit. Saugumo policija). The source in question mentions both Lithuanian names in Lithuanian main text, but uses only English names in the summary ('German security police and SD as well as of Lithuanian security police'). The usage of different names is confusing, and has confused me in March; however later I came to believe that the English summary indeed does mentions YB but under English name (the 'SD troop in Vilnius' reference in the abstract, YB were a Vilnius organization). Therefore the abstract does mention YB (but under English name). Next, the abstract only mentions two nationalities as related to those organizations: German and Lithuanian, although indeed it indeed does not clearly state that YB was Lithuanian, and therefore my statement that 'even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary mentions only Lithuanian ethnicity in YB' can be seen as misinterpretation (I have assumed that YB falls under 'Lithuanian' part of 'Lithuanian Security Police' but indeed it is not clearly stated in the abstract). Therefore what I should have written - in hindsight - is that 'even M.K.'s primary source in its English summary does not mention Polish or Russian ethnicity in YB, neither do all others, but they often mention Lithuanian component of YB; further M.K.'s source in its English summary only mentions two nationalities in relation to those organizations (i.e. not as victims but as perpatrators): Lithuanians and Germans'. My apologies for any confusion, but please note that my orginal argument - that even M.K.'s primary source does not stress Polish or Russian participation in YB, while all the other sources don't talk about it but note the Lithuanian one, and thus minimazing Lithuanian participation by stressing Polish and Russian (who were primarily victims...) is violation of WP:NPOV:Undue weight - is still valid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus response to Novickas

This section was added after my initial statement as a reply to new evidence presented by Novickas

In order to keep it short, let me just pick the two most obvious mistakes: 1) Józef Łukaszewicz: beside the fact how could I have used a geographical naming convention I didn't cite to rename a biographical article, see the case closed by mediator; ironically Novickas latter comments about good/bad faith perfectly apply to that editor own actions (see medcal cabal name and mediator reply) 2) "In both of the above cases, PP has shown no initiative in resolving the issues; the articles remain as they were": Who initated the discussion about name (after I decided my original name is not good), who proposed an RM, who supported the move from apparently controversial Wilno to more neutral Vilna after new refs and arguments were properly presented - and oh, that article has been moved few weeks ago...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus response to Ghirlandajo

Presented in response to claims and evidence added by Ghirlandajo.

First, please note Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, opened to discuss just such baseless slanderous accusations that I am acting in bad faith and damaging Wikipedia ("this open examination of his behaviour will induce Piotr to move his activities off-wiki, which will make Poland-related articles even more impenetrable to objective editing than they are now", etc.). That ArbCom case was dismissed "without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future" pending a mediation, which was also put on hold due to Ghirlandajo's withdrawal from active editing for several months, withdrawal which ended this month. If Ghirla intends to once again repeat the claims that led to the previous case, than I think we should consider reopening that arbitration (where I asked for a civility parole to be put on Ghirla to stop such defamations from being repeated). Such defamations were often criticized by other editors (he has been warned about incivility by ArbCom already once before); further his claim of baiting opening his ArbCom addendum is criticized here by Durova.

Second. Examples of misstatements Ghirla makes. Jogaila example - I always have and still oppose that very title, so apparently my stubbornness doesn't work every time :) More disturbingly, he claims that Piotrus will never "concede a point on talk page", he "discuss ad nauseum but he will never back down", "talking with Piotrus never results in a compromise, as he never would change his opinion"... colorful if untrue. In addition to evidence I presented above see examples where reasonable arguments convinced me to change my opinion/vote: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127] - I can cite many more, but I think that's enough to show how Ghirla's claims are grossly inaccurate and damaging to my person.

Thirdly, the entire Vlad section is in big parts unrelated to this ArbCom (and my person in particular), but in relevant parts anybody is welcomed to check Vlad's disruption and incivility at Talk:Institute of National Remembrance (briefly, his incivility ([128], [129]) made it nearly impossible to discuss content with him, and whatever creditentials he claims his knowledge of Polish language and accuracy of translations has been criticized by other Polish editors (ex. [130], ). Let the block log of that editor speak for itself who is violating any Wiki policies.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus claims about other side

For ArbCom to investigate and comment on.

1. Extreme unmoderated POV. Briefly. We all are POVed. I have admited on many occasions I have a Polish POV. Nonetheless I believe my almost 20 Featured Articles, dozens of Good Articles, and scores of DYKs and such (see here) show that I can overcome my POV and produce high-quality FA NPOV work including that on controversial subjects like Katyn massacre or German invasion of Poland where I evidently can cooperate with Russian/German/etc. editors (please see also statement by Featured Articles Director, User:Raul654, at my RfC, and such outside party's comments in this ArbCom as Hillock65's, Zscout370's and Biophys'). Most of my critics here are either 1) not productive content editors (Jadger, Dr. Dan...) whose input is mostly limited to inserting POVed statements, revert warring about them and harassment on talk or 2) content editors who have a very strong POV of their own on which they refuse to compromise; they believe (or act like) their POV is NPOV.

   M.K. belongs to that second group and has demonstrated such extreme POV on many cases. He has disrupted Poland-related articles on several cases (see Vilnija/KG issue above, for another example consider his continued POV edits to Armia Krajowa using Vilnija sources to portay AK as a criminal organization culminating in failed attempt to delist it from GA list). His POV has been proven wrong by a MedCab case, ignored by WPMIHIST reviewers, by GA reviewers (twice...) - which of course only means he is using that article as an example of a place where Polish editors wrong him in revert wars and so on...

2. Incivility. Incivility has been shown by all sides in this conflit, occasionally even by myself (which I deeply regret and I believe I have apologized whenever I was asked for). This is unfortunate, but with one exception I don't believe behaviour of any user with regard to WP:CIV merits ArbCom attention at this moment. The mentioned exception is based on my belief that one user has been extremnly uncivil, significantly contributing to worsening the relations between many editors (primarly Polish and Lithuanian). The editor in question is User:Dr. Dan, already once blocked for incivility. It is my belief that - intentionally or not - that user has been baiting both sides, frustrating many editors and talk page discussions with worst-style Usenet flaming. Lenghty list of his misconduct is presented on a separate section below.
3. Bad faith, slander and harassment. Per my statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus#Statement_by_Piotrus, I believe M.K. violates Wikipedia:Harassment with regard to my person (and likely that of several other editors, like Halibutt or Lysy): nitpicking good-faith edits, repeated personal attacks (false and bad-faithed claims of our wrongdoing - this ArbCom and his statements in my RfC are perfect examples), discussion space incivil comments and accusations (ex. [131], [132], [133]), user space harassment (on my talk page, ex. [134] and [135], as well as on others' users talk (which should fall under wikistalking), ex.[136], [137] [138], [139], [140] (note I am not the only victim, he is harassing other editors, ex. [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]... causing some of them to limit their involvement in this project - ex. see statement by Halibutt in this ArbCom, note that Halibutt's loss as an active editor (formerly 156 most active editor) is a big loss to this project; M.K. has yet to make it to that list...). It doesn't matter to him that he receives little support in RfC, his mediations get rejected - he keeps repeating the same accusations over and over again until his opponents are so disgusted with this harassment that they leave the project (or respective discussions and articles). Please note that M.K. is often helped and encouraged in such behaviour by Dr. Dan (evidence below).

Piotrus evidence against Dr. Dan

Because of frequency of disruption, this is a large amount of evidence, I am therefore putting it in its own section for ease of reference. For chronological order, please start at the bottom.

May'07

• but that doesn't stop him (also here...)
• Dr. Dan's post was deemed "unhelpful" and removed even by one of the users who tend to take his sides in debates (Irpen)
• accusing editors of forcing bias on English Wikipedia
• the hypocritical biased remarks that often emenate from this group of my friends
• inflaming an until-then civil discussion
• edit summary on talk: "I'm not interested in a hostile personal exchange here replete with rude or snide remarks"

April'07

• (Wikipedia is) a place where someone can twist and turn information (sourced from totalitarian newspaper articles, and skewed statistics), to satisfy some fantastic fantasy, and then award barnstars to each other
• when asked to be less inflammatory in his comments, another sarcastic remark...
• implying revisionism PA
• accusation of 'nationalistic POV pushing'
• accuses his opponents of "mentality bordering on childish vandalism"
• accused his opponents of "Whistling Dixie!" in text and edit summary. "Whistling Dixie" is a slang expression meaning "[engaging] in unrealistically rosy fantasizing"
• accusing other editor of baiting in text and message summary
• accusing others of idiocy

March'07

• flaming and editing others' posts
• one of Dr. Dan's peculiar habits is copyedit other user's post in talk; this sometimes led to (accidental?) confusion, ex. [147], [148],. Note the user was asked not to do so on several occasions, ex. User_talk:Dr._Dan/Archive_3#Soviet_invasion_talk,
• It was you who called me a liar first, later questiones the users sanity...
• this and several previous posts at this page accuse another editor of lying when that editor noted Dr. Dan insulted him in the past (here Dr. Dan accused parents of that editor of being member of communist party (in Poland's context it may be very offensive to some). Note Dr. Dan instead of apologizing denies it was offensive and basically calls claims that he might have been offensive lies and such. Quote: "I remember the entire conversation (...) and the rest of the garbage that you are lying about. (...) I never insulted your parents. That's a lie." Oh, edit summary begins 'Lies'... (also note [this comment about the same accusation before)
• In addition to the general offensive tone of the post, AND an accusation of vandalism, that user, which - repeat - has never started or significantly expanded an aritcle, is accusing the 63 and 169 most active editors of "Quit playing games with history and propagandizing a Polish nationalistic skewed interpretation of these events in the article, and thereby cheapening the WP project." Edit summary: "Quit cheapening the WP project!"
• calling others contributions "unbalanced propaganda piece" (please note that user has never created or significantly expanded an article)
• vandalism accusations in edit summary again
• edit summary: "Please stop vandalism with intent to confuse or propagandize"
• are you a liar (something that you recently called me) hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?
• in edit summary accuse other editor of 'weasalising' despite his term being obviously more POVed
• accuse another editor of vandalising in edit summary
• PA: " that particular editor has a history of manipulating WP much worse than OR" and his reply to yet another warning about NPA
• when asked to stop personal attacks on that page, he claims the other party is guilty of it (without diffs)
• uncivil comment other editor
• baiting
• rv changes which gained consensus on talk with accusation of vandalism
• clear flaming: off-topic discussion post speculating about one editors sympathies for anti-semitic and pro-nazi views, also here
• invoking the infamous WP:DICK
• are you trying out for an audition for a comedy act?
• refering to people complaining about his incivility as 'whining'
• lumping together "Polish editors" and critiquing their contributions to Wikipedia
• reffering to actions of Polish editors on Wikipedia as Polish propaganda
• Nota about being incivil on his talk page

Feb:

• It would give me great pleasure to not play games with you, and to ignore you completely. (...) You're incapable of answering simple questions, and are discourteous as well.
• Another warning about being incivil on his talk page
• Refusal to participate in a mediation

January and earlier:

• RFI from Jan'07 that resulted in a 24h block for incivility with examples
• Since I like you, I won't ask you if you are too lazy to look in a dictionary, or suggest that you might not have decent libaries where you live.
• Let me warn you back. You are not special. You are not a Proconsul. You are not the Grand Inquisitor. You are not a minor politruk out of the Katowice woj.'s former local PZPR. You are forever threating and warning people as if you have some unique privilege to do so. (...). Loosen your żupan collar and quit making veiled threats.
• refers to a question about above post being incivil as 'an attempt to censor me'. Further, accusses his opponents of 'adding, reverting, or deleting information', 'a series of veiled threats and warnings to myself and others, with an almost gloating and smug-like quality to his having engineered my 24 hour block'. Refers to an editor 'His inability to work with people without this constant need to censor and block people' and 'Would it be uncivil to ask him to grow up?'

Piotrus evidence against Ghirlandajo

This section has been added after Ghirlandajo proposed a series of findings and remedies in workshop of this case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hoped that our informal mediation from late last year meant the differences between me and Ghirla had been (mostly) settled. Alas, his activity in this ArbCom and unearthing of issues I thought were settled back then proves me wrong.

Ghirlandajo has already been warned by ArbCom about incivility and personal attacks in January 2006. His continued incivility and personal attacks towards Polish editors in particular has been subject to several blocks ([149]) and another accepted ArbCom case in December 2006 (please see my statement there for many diffs to his incivility and personal attacks from 2006 (and a very long list at his RfC linked there)), that was however dismissed in February 2007 "without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary" due to Ghirla's wikiholidays and informal mediation. The mediation - in which we were making what appeared to be good progreess - has however also stalled too due to his wikiholidays.

Upon his return, he has resumed his habit of being uncivil to editors of other nations. After the following post ("no Russian editor can edit Poland-related articles in English Wikipedia without facing some sort of harrassment", "I'm not the only one who was driven from English Wikipedia by a gang of Polish editors and their allies from neighbouring countries") he has not accepted mine and mediator's (Durova's) requested to return to the mediation (scroll down to 'Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads' section). With his return to the previous levels of activity, the previous levels of incivility have reappeared again: "I wept reading this. Poor Lithuanians! They seem to be so frustrated", accusing (Ukrainian) editor of trolling and pestering, suggesting anti-Polish hook at DYK, accusing others of "unmotivated slurs", etc.

Therefore since Ghirla intends to argue for findings and remedies in this ArbCom with - at the time of my writing - diffs from 2006 and earlier, I would like to present newer diffs (from this year) and ask for the same thing I (and others) asked previously: that he is placed on a civility parole.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus request to the ArbCom

It is my belief that M.K. should be warned to stop harassment of me and other editors (like Halibutt and Lysy) under a threat of a block, and put on probation from Poland-related articles. Majority of his positive contributions are in the field of Lithuanian architecture and history, unrelated to Poland, it would be a loss to see him go but his disruption of Poland-related articles needs to be put to an end. Some form of mentorship and adoption would be also highly advisable. Considering the neglible positivie content contributions coming from Dr. Dan at all, and vast amount of disruption, I feel that a probation from any Poland-related articles and particulary talk pages is highly advisable and the least strong solution ArbCom should utilize in regard to this editor. Finally, several users (M.K., Jadger, Dr. Dan, Irpen) should be cautioned that they are not neutral and reminded of how Wiki is supposed to work.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Lysy

M.K's editing habits

I was reluctant to get involved in the evidence phase but since my name was mentioned by both Piotrus and M.K in the context of M.K harassing me, I would like to state that I don't really mind it, as there were only few occurrences. What bothers me, however, is M.K's relatively high level of aggression against other editors, which demonstrates itself in the two examples I'm providing below. My feeling is that M.K focuses too much on warring against other editors instead of creating or improving the contents. This attitude can result in building a bad fight and personal conflict atmosphere instead of collaboration.

M.K assumes bad faith

• M.K insinuated [150] that my revert of his Vilnius University edit was coordinated with Piotrus. This was not true and I took it as an undeserved accusation of bad faith. Otherwise I did not see any purpose of M.K's innuendo. I don't think I ever did anything to earn the bad faith reputation in M.K's eyes.

M.K falsely accuses of personal attack

• Following my edit M.K posted a "Stop personal attacks" message in my talk page [151]. As I did not see any personal attack in my edit, I had asked him to explain this. In wake of any reasonable explanation, I assumed it was simply an attempt to intimidate me with the false accusation (additionally using wording such as "you have been warned" [152]).

Response to M.K's evidence against Lysy

M.K's reaction to the two examples I provided above was not to address my concerns but to tarnish my name and provide evidence against me instead. Sadly, this reaction confirms the very problem that I complained about: his aggressive and bad faith attitude towards fellow editors. The evidence that M.K provided and the way he attempts to portray my edits illustrate the point that I made above about his focusing too much on warring against other editors.

Response to "Lysy is know for his ill behavior"

• The evidence provided by M.K does not show that I am "known" for my ill behaviour. It only documents that I have had lost my nerve in an individual case in the past. I believe such cases are isolated and not typical for my behaviour. Regardless, I am trying to improve my conduct and hope I'm succeeding in it. This said, I particularly regret this edit from October 2006, which was borne of my frustration (which I actually admitted there). I have to admit that I am still finding it difficult to accept that wikipedia NPOV policy allows for pushing Nazi or Soviet propaganda. Nevertheless, Irpen's ethnicity is not something that I should be ever commenting upon.

Response to the claim of personal attack

• I believe the diff [153] provided by M.K does not constitute any "personal attack" as he claims, but was my rather friendly attempt to approach him in hope that he would consider admitting also other POVs, even those conflicting with the one he was presenting. I would be happy to hear ArbCom's opinion on whether this indeed was a "personal attack".

Response to "contributor who stylizes himself as Polish nationalist"

• I think that most of the editors I work with, whether disputing my edits or not, are aware that I consider nationalism to be a pejorative term. In November 2006, I humorously added [154] "I am a Polish nationalist" to my userpage, immediately following the motto "Scholarship and nationalism are essentially incompatible" that I keep there. I am sure that every editor who knows me, M.K included, was aware that my statement of being a nationalist was a joke, and I'm disappointed to see M.K bringing it as a piece of evidence against me now here.

Ghirlandajo fuels revert wars

• Even while the "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future" remedy is being voted upon in this very RfArb case, Ghirlandajo, the most experienced Russian editor with many thousand of edits, is fuelling a new revert war [155] with wholesale reverts with mostly irrelevant, inflammatory edit summary, calling the largest Polish opposition daily "an obscure Polish outlet". This is hardly courteous or cooperative behaviour. --Lysy^talk 08:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Novickas (involved party)

A short list of grievances addressing issues of concision, personal experience, the expressed desire on the part of arbitrators to view only recent incidents, and personal time constraints.

Tendentious editing

• There are some loopholes in WP guidance that PP has exploited. I hope these will be closed soon.

• • A rule in geographic naming conventions [156] explicitly states that one must "Always look at search results, don't just count them". This rule is NOT explicitly stated in the personal naming section. This loophole was used by PP to rename an existing article and put it up as a DYK, although the Google hit research was, to use a relatively charitable interpretation, of low quality; see Talk:Józef_Łukaszewicz#Citation_of_64_English-language_Google_hits_on_J.C3.B3zef_.C5.81ukaszewicz.

• • The rules in event-naming offer a loophole as well: although a consensus has been reached on referring to places in the former PL-LT region by their Polish names, the names-of-events policy states that one may call events by a commonly used name. To this end he has created two DYK articles that refer to Vilnius in the 20th century as Wilno: Battle of Wilno (1939) and Operation Wilno - both of these articles created considerable conflict. A brief look at the talk pages shows that these are not commonly used names.

• • In both of the above cases, PP has shown no initiative in resolving the issues; the articles remain as they were.

• The Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing article states that "Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all". PP has invoked the good faith assumption on his own behalf at least twice recently to my knowledge: "My dear Lokyz, I find it very unfortunate that you'd interpret my good faith gift in such a manner" User_talk:Lokyz#Re:_Please_stop_stalking_me and "please, please assume good faith, and that I am trying to help us all here" Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution.

• What category does this fall into? PP mis-stated WP policy when he removed a sourced citation with the edit comment that the source is "quite POVed" [157]. From a newbie one could overlook it. The source, as mentioned in [158], is not only published but frequently cited.

Use of questionable sources

Today's DYK article Treaty of Warsaw (1920) uses polonica.net [159] as a source, as do several other articles. This site's home page contains some very disturbing language and images. Novickas 14:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although P. has since removed polonica.net references from a number of articles, he has suggested that his reference's appearance on that site doesn't necessarily disparage the reliability of the Patryk Dole article [160]. However, Patryk Dole does not seem to be what most of us would consider a reliable source. He apparently participates in a blog [161], the "Christian Confederacy of Intermarium", but no academic or mainstream publications contain his work. Dole is mentioned in a discussion thread at University of New York - Buffalo [162], but not as a scholar. Novickas 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Still awaiting the last removal of this reference - from Bezdany raid. The matter was discussed at [163]. Novickas 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007: removal by P. of referenced material before reaching consensus

See the article history of Kiev Offensive (1920) from August 2 to August 5, 2007.[164] As of 10:41, August 2, 2007, the article contained 44,081 bytes. Piotrus then made nine edits to the article; by 14:49, August 3, 2007, it contained only 37,920 bytes. These edits removed a number of references pertaining to the conduct of the offensive, and Irpen objected - a request for comment was filed - etc, etc. It appears that the section describing controversies surrounding the offensive has by and large been restored, and the article has remained relatively stable since about August 6th.

The issue - was it justifiable for P. to have removed that much of the article without reaching a consensus on talk, where the issue had not been discussed in depth for several months? A consensus seems to have been reached, but were those edits responsible WP behavior on P's part? Novickas 02:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Errabee

Piotrus incorrectly claims Halibutt has left this project

Piotrus claims above that Halibutt's loss as an active editor (formerly 156 most active editor) is a big loss to this project. However, Halibutt has been quite active recently [165], averaging at least 6 edits per day. While this certainly is (much) less than he was used to, I wouldn't qualify 6 edits per day as losing an active editor. Errabee 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I said it numerous times and I'll say it once again. I left because M.K, Ghirlandajo and others slandering my good name here and there. I asked for assistance numerous times, I asked them to provide any proof for their claims - to no avail. After some months I started returning here from time to time, but I do not plan to return for good. If the wiki community has to be M.K.-style - so be it, but I'm off. I continue to expand the articles I used to work on before I withdrew, but I don't plan to spend as much time on wiki as I used to. I also admit I got fed up with the rules of Wikipedia once I saw M.K. breaking them on a daily basis - and not being punished. Does it explain the matter? //Halibutt 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And I have asked you, Halibutt, to give us the evidence that Ghirlandajo made a death threat against you - to no avail. It's a very serious charge. This would be a good time to present the link or other evidence before you really leave. Thanks! Dr. Dan 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ghirlandajo

I have neither energy nor time to dig for diffs. They may be easily found by anyone who gives himself the trouble of examining some controversial page actively edited by both Piotrus and Irpen. As I have said in my statement, I have no particular interest in the outcome of this arbitration. Piotrus has made it clear that my contributions are unwelcome in his sphere of interest. So I find it prudent to concede that swath of articles to him, as I have many other pages to look after. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

The latest bout of baiting, as well as some of his hostile comments above, spotlighted such level of Piotr's aggressiveness towards his opponents and such feeling of self-righteousness, that I determined to speak up on one issue, although the other parties seem to favor the policy of appeasement. As may be seen above, drama follows Piotrus wherever he goes. His favourite tricks have been exposed a long time ago. For instance, the reunification of Western and Eastern Ukraine and Belarus by the Soviet Union is routinely labelled "invasion" and "aggression". It's fine, probably they were. But the partition of Chechoslovakia (Teschen) by Poland and Hitler (Munich Agreement) is called "acquisition" or simply suppressed. This is a normal practice of editing, as seen by Piotrus. It's all about arguing what is "liberation" and what is "occupation". Who wins? The one who has more time and patience to carry this discussion on talk pages for days, months, weeks and (as in the case of Jogaila) years. Piotrus is the only person suited for this task by temper and disposition.

During all these years in the project, I have never seen Piotrus concede a point on talk page. He will discuss ad nauseum but he will never back down. So what's the point of wasting all your spare time on talking if the talking leads us nowhere? Talking with Piotrus never results in a compromise, as he never would change his opinion. Most users lack patience to deal with this sort of double standards which is readily perceived as disruption and misuse of process. As a result, even well-meaning editors, after dealing with Piotrus, refuse to use talk pages the way he does and start to revert war. This inevitably leads to his loud complaints on WP:ANI and other available public noteboards, seeking for his opponent to be blocked from editing. When a seemingly authoritative person says on ANI or IRC "See evidence of X being incivil [diff]", that will make someone look at a link with "incivility" already in mind. User:Vlad fedorov seems to be the latest example. I have never edited a page with him and I find many of his editing practices regrettable, yet after spotting his edits on Talk:Institute of National Remembrance I detected the following sequence of edits, which appeared all too familiar to me:

• Vlad claims to have graduated from the Warsaw University and knows Polish. This qualifies him for spotting signal inaccuracies and inadequacies in Piotr's rendering of Polish-language sources. Just check Talk:Institute of National Remembrance/Archive 1#Mistakes in translation of Polish texts for one example.
• Piotrus is naturally alarmed and seeks action against him. Apart from traditional forum shopping on WP:ANI, with accusations of incivility and revert-warring, we see him rushing to IRC the very same day.
• Just as I expect some IRC regular interceding on his behalf, I see the following comment by User:David Gerard: Irpen "has been gunning for Piotrus for some time - his edit pattern needs thorough review". Breathtaking for anyone who have actually followed Irpen's edits. But the most interesting point is that David provided on WP:RfAr a diff leading to Vlad's talk page, as if it contained some incriminating evidence against Irpen (which it did not).
• Bishonen asked David to explain his strange remark on RfAr: "Those aren't very nice things he [Irpen] says about Piotrus: "Remember that Piotrus will try to reduce the content disputes to civility issues and [will] eagerly try to paint you an abusive user every time he gets the chance." I don't know whether they're true, but they're Irpen's opinion, and what's bad faith about that?" David Gerard chose to ignore her request.
• A fortnight later, Vlad again found himself in trouble. I explained to him that he should stop revert-warring and other silly activities and sent him an e-mail with my premonitions about the impending block. I felt that he would be blocked by some IRC people if he does not change his behaviour.
• I never received a response but, when I checked Vlad's block log a day later, I was not surprised to discover that he was indeed banned by David Gerard on the grounds of "incivility", seemingly without any prior on-wiki discussion on the subject. Vlad's eternal opponent User:Biophys, who was guilty of the same offenses if not more, was left unpunished, despite some lengthy discussion of his actions on WP:ANI.
• Today I accidentally stumbled upon David's revelation of his credo: "it's one thing to come to -admins for sanity checking your urge to block someone, it's quite another not to flag it on ANI afterwards". In other words, it's alright to block people based on IRC discussions as long as you keep it all secret. James F may be proud: his invention works the way it was probably intended to be. Now that Piotr's activity is behind the scenes, you won't prove anything if tomorrow another of Piotr's opponents (say, Irpen, M.K. or me) is blocked by David Gerard or someone else. You will find no traces... except only in the block log.

That's why I am downbeat at the outcome of the present arbitration. Instead of soliciting blocks of his opponents on-wiki, Piotrus will do the same on IRC. Even ArbCom is powerless to deal with that. I'm afraid that, notwithstanding the final decision, this open examination of his behaviour will induce Piotr to move his activities off-wiki, which will make Poland-related articles even more impenetrable to objective editing than they are now. The drama will continue, but without my participation, as I have not edited Poland-related articles since last year, and I don't intend to. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 2

As long as the case is not closed, I decided to bring to light one instance of Piotr's abuse of his admin tools in order to drive away his knowledgable opponents from Wikipedia. I take issue with this block. The IP appears to belong to a generally polite and knowledgeable person who opposes pro-Polish POV promoted by Piotrus and User:Space Cadet, a tireless revert warrior infamous for his continuing history of personal attacks.[166] Needless to say that Piotr never distanced himself from Cadet's offensive edit summaries, let alone blocked him. Look at the history of the IP's interaction with Piotrus, who started rollbacking his opponent's good-faith edits, as if he was dealing with an ordinary vandal: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172]... After IP noticed that he "removed deliberate untruth", Piotrus issued a stern warning to him. In reply, the IP referred to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus.[173] After that Piotrus blocked his opponent in this content dispute for a month with the bogus summary "revert warring, personal attacks", in the face of continuing trolling, revert warring and personal attacks by Space Cadet. Following the block, Piotr's opponent - who might have become a useful wikipedian - seems to have left Wikipedia forever. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Biophys

I came to WP only a few months ago. But it was surprising to see a group of Russian-speaking users who constantly attack edits of other people from the former Soviet republics (Baltics, Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova), and also from the former Soviet satellite countries (mostly Poland and Romania). Several ArbCom cases belong to this category. Obviously, if a group “A” has constant conflicts with groups “B”, “C”, “E” and so on, something should be done about this group “A”, but not about others.

I think this ArbCom case has nothing to do with Piotrus, but it is a part of a bigger campaign by a group of Russian users who are trying to censor any Wikipedia content critical of Putin’s administration, Soviet political repressions, and other things like that. They try to censor not only political articles about Russia, but also about Baltic Republics, Poland , Georgia, etc. Hence the alleged “problems” with Piotrus and others.

Note that even wording of this ArbCom case follows typical Soviet phraseology. Irpen wrongly blames Piotrus of using people as battering rams [174]. This reminds me about human beings treated as “nuts and bolts” in the Soviet Union. Ghirlandajo tells that I am “an eternal opponent” (almost an “eternal enemy”) of someone. Dear comrades, I am not a battering ram of Piotrus, and I am not an enemy of the people.

One of clear examples of the ongoing information warfare in Wikipedia is the article about online information warfare itself - Internet brigades, an example that involves me, Piotrus, Irpen, Vlad, and others. First, I have created a small stub, but it was deleted [175], after voting by Irpen, Ghirla , Pan Gerwazy, Grafikm ,Kuban Cossack, and others. I created a better article with a different name, but it was nominated for deletion in just a few hours by Grafikm [176], and again by User:Vlad_fedorov [177]. But User:Vlad_fedorov can not wait for the end of deletion discussion. He starts a canvassing campaign, as noted by User:DGG [178] and starts editing this article immediately to "prove" his POV that article describes a conspiracy theory. Users Lysy and Piotrus are coming to save at least Polish part of this article. Vlad gets 3RR violation. Ugly discussion takes place at the talk page (Vlad wrongly blame me and others of falsification), but Irpen is coming to hide the incivility of Vlad: [179]. I ask an advice from ANI; Vlad blames me of incivility too, and we both get blocked.

Please see this version of article "Internet brigades" [180], since one of members of this group of Russian-speaking users started editing this article since I have posted it here.Biophys 14:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) It is noteworthy that same User:ellol recently asked me using slang of Russian mafia[181] the following: Do you understand Russian well enough to realize that "...it is better to come to an agreement than to be killed by knife" (Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок), and that "someone must be punished for making too much noise" (Западло не отвечать за базар). Biophys 16:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is not information warfare, then I do not know what information warfare is. Yes, something should be done here. But who is guilty? Me, because I created this article without asking anyone's advice? Piotrus and Lysy who wanted Polish part of this story to be properly described? Or Vlad, Grafikm, and Irpen who work as a team to delete an article on undesirable subject, which blames Putin's aide Vladislav Surkov and perhaps Russian secret police service FSB (Russia) of conducting information warfare online?

Perhaps I am too paranoid here. But this is serious. Today this group is coming after Piotrus, tomorrow they will came after me and others, and finally they may destroy the entire wikipedia community, unless some serious measures are taken. Biophys 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Yury Tarasievich

Just my two cents. Hope this helps, and not makes matters worse.

Working with referenced information

After my experience in Polonization this year, I feel unhappy about user:Piotrus and several other editors assuming the right to judge sources and sources' authors on the basis of sources/authors compatibility with some vaguely defined ideals, not on the basis of the sources/authors veritability or academic review.

See the whole current talk:Polonization, see today's (not related to Polonization) entry in user:Irpen's talk: [182]

On the other hand, the passing remark in the thematically somewhat-loosely-connected book may be used ad infinitum to prove everything.

See reference #38 in Polonization ("Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10586-XGoogle Books, p.144"), compare the context of the quote, the scope of the book, and the use it's put to in the article. See Piotrus' only contribution to the Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy text.

Also, there's a definite tendency to discard anything not known to Piotrus (and those other editors), or to bracket it with the wording corrupting its meaning. See reference 1 ("In Polish historiography, particularly pre-IIWW...") in Polonization and compare this with discussion on "self-polonization" in talk:Polonization.

The Google searches are mis-used -- put forward as almost an academic source of information or an ultimate argument.

I don't see this as a solid wikipedian behaviour. BTW, this was pointed out by me in the talk:Polonization, byt generally ignored.

My experience with M.K.

As user:M.K is involved here, I have to say this in favout of him (her), that this user actually talks about content conflicts. We had sort of a clash over Lithuanian Metrica in Summer 2006, and I was hugely surprised to have a to-the-point discussion by e-mail with M.K.

---Yury Tarasievich 22:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dr.Dan

Dr. Dan is the Problem?

For a brief moment it appeared that this procedure was going to die out of its own volition, or at least due to lack of interest. Personally I saw signs that some of P.P.'s behavior had changed, and his editing habits had even mellowed after the acceptance by the Committee to mediate this dispute. I considered this to be fortunate and it even made me consider dropping out of the entire discussion as my sole purpose or involvement in this procedure was to see a change or improvement, if you will, in relations between those contributors concerning this part of Europe and its history and culture. I had hoped the acceptance by the Committee to mediate this ArbCom was somewhat responsible for that brief change that I perceived. This was not to be the case here, and on May 23, 2007, this evidence section was treated to some interesting revelations from P.P. about himself and how he percieves others regarding himself. To the suggestions that he had gone overboard and was responsible for original research, falsification of sources, tendentious editing, using his administrative powers to unblock disruptive and uncivil editors, removing sourced references because they didn't agree with his point of view, continually reverting items that he did not like, and a great deal of other problems he has had with many people on Wikipedia, he chose instead to tell us that the real problem is Dr. Dan, Ghirlandajo, Jadger, M.K., and others, and that if somehow they "could just go away" everything would be just peachy on Wikipedia. If only they could all be censored, or in someway prevented from challenging the way Polish related articles are put together by him and some of the others participating in this ArbCom, then the entire matter could be neatly wrapped up, thrown out and he could gloat that see, "I can do whatever I want. I'm bulletproof." P.P., did you ever consider that maybe where there's smoke there might be fire? That maybe, just maybe, you have crossed the line enough times that those editors that have a problem with you are not trying to wage a vendetta against you, but to get you to at least consider what you have wrought? And to stop? Because this has not been good for the Wikipedia project, and it has certainly been bad for Polish relations with virtually every neighboring country's editors on WP, those on Poland's borders (and a few that aren't). As evidence I asked those reviewing this matter to look closely at the "evidence" presented by P.P. and his suporters about Dr. Dan, and the relentless attempt to deflect from the real reason the ArbCom was brought against him. All of the complaints against Dr. Dan are not some isolated remarks that were made into thin air or are dangling like some kind of hanging chad that was not in response to some similar kind of provocation by the others involved here. Please read them closely, and take the time to read the preceeding remarks leading up to them. Let everyone heed this specific quote by P.P. "Incivility. It has been shown by all sides in this conflit (sic), occasionally even by myself." Then he adds "(which I deeply regret and I believe I have apologized whenever I was asked for (sic)." Really? That's very nice of you. But unfortunately not true. Then P.P. goes on to tell us all, "This is unfortunate" and actually not that big of a deal (the Committee shouldn't be bothered with it), "but with one exception. The editor in question is Dr. Dan." P.P. then goes to great lengths to list accusation upon accusation against me, and his friends, say yes, Hear, hear. Ditto, ditto. Funny that P.P and all those in agreement on "my bad", didn't welcome this ArbCom to begin with. No, they all fought it tooth and nail and hoped it would not be accepted. This is telling evidence in itself. I should like to think that even though it would be a pain in the butt and time consuming, that he more than anyone else would want to clear the slate and have this all looked at. But just as he would never voluntarily risk putting himself up for a vote on his retaining his administratorship (which I think he would succeed in keeping, and I have told him so in the past), he preferred to have this procedure quashed. Just in case. Why risk a possibly unfavorable outcome? I'm sorry but the issues brought to the table here, were already seeds planted and germinating long before Dr. Dan began participating in the WP project. P.P., if somehow you think that everyone telling you that you have a problem is wrong, and their claims can be deflected by a series of attacks on my person, and your proposed solution to censor me would correct the problem, that's really very sad IMHO. As further evidence I ask the Committee to look over the the Vilnija "article". The opening statement has no less than seven citations. The author who opened the article with the edit summary " nationalists are going to love me for this one" user:Halibutt is a close collaborator with P.P., and P.P. was heavily involved in shaping and editing this article. If Wikipedia consisted of nothing but articles of this quality, it would have died a quick death a longtime ago. Then take a look at the talk page of "Operation Wilno", since changed to the Vilna Offensive. Tedious as it might be, reading the entire talk page would give the Committee members a better idea of what's been brought up here at this ArbCom. This is the gist of what has been said over and other at other talk pages, and reading it in its totality is much better than a snatch here or a link there. Lastly, he has made much ado about my 24 hour block for "incivility", yes the one that the administrator who blocked me herself called "controversial".[183] In a nutshell, P.P., contacted user: Durova, and asked her to block me. And she did. P.P. knows that he is on safe ground (with me anyway), because I oppose all forms of censorship, and would never "contact" someone with the ability to censor him, and then ask them to block him. Certainly not to do this act as a favor to me. That whole thing was a very sad matter, so please quit trying to make the molehill into a mountain. For what it's worth, since the block, I have definitely toned down my own rhetoric on the talk pages. Maybe this procedure will cause you to make some changes of your own regarding your own behavior. I hope so. Dr. Dan 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Matthead

Being from Germany, I got involved in some disputes with Polish editors, Piotrus being one of them. He certainly is not the worst of them, but he combines a high quantity of edits (something he likes to point out) with a pattern of behaviour that reminds of the infamous "How to deal with Poles" text (something he seems to take pride in, too, listing the link on his user page).

Piotrus fights with or for other Poles

Piotrus himself had brought up the "leader of the Polish cabal" issue in a RfC last year. He continues to support other Poles in disputes, e.g. by trying to defend the Polish editor I had reported for 3RR [184]. In his statement, Piotrus says that using "socks once is as relevant as ... being convicted of 3RR once", something which I find astonishing. Is using a sock puppet on Wikipedia equal to making a revert? How can somebody use several socks only "once" which Piotrus tries to suggest? Four edits in the heat of the action in less than 24 hours can be enough for a 3RR violation, while sock puppetry involves probably several cold blooded intentional bad faith acts spread over a longer period of time. And Piotrus compares both? Anyway, the Polish user in question had used socks, but no action was taken against him, which I find hard to understand. My summary "rv to apprapriate edits. And Krakow is certainly not more appropiate than English Cracow, especially in historic context. How about Krakau during Austrian rule?" is described by him as "claim that Krakau is more correct", which is close to a lie I have to say.

In this case, Piotrus has shown to me (and maybe others) that he tries hard to fight for certain editors, and against certain others. As Wikipedia is no tag team wrestling match, he should be warned not to interfere anymore in any similar cases involving other Poles, or editors that are involved in Polish matters.

Piotrus pushes Polish POV on English Wikipedia

The 3RR case was partly about Copernicus, a century old German/Polish dispute which will hardly be settled by Wikipedia, and partly about the use of Cracow or Kraków on English Wikipedia. Polish editors fight against the use of the traditional Cracow and insist on Kraków as the only proper English name of the town, something which alienates not only native English speakers. Piotrus claims to study in the town in question, is very busy canvassing Kraków in English Wikipedia, and is even making personal attacks when critized. On Talk:Free City of Kraków, Piotrus tried to silence me with "Give it a rest, Matthead: WP:NCGN and EOT"[185] When I stated that I am "opposed to edit warriors", he answered that "It must be hard being opposed to oneself, Matthead" [186]

Piotrus pushes his Original Research on Wikipedia

Other disputes were related to historical coins, dating from 13th century to the recent past, which are called Groschen both in English and in German. Polish language uses "grosz" for a subdivison of the current Polish currency. After the Original Research term "grosh" had been introduced to English Wikipedia [187] by a Polish editor in 2004, Piotrus introduced his Original Research "Kraków grosh" in 2006. In 2007, he claimed that "remember WP:UE: grosh is better then grosch(en)" [188], without giving any sources for that "English" word. In the same edit, he ignored the results from the American Numismatic Society online database of coins presented by me, and tried to portray the term used by ANS as "complete OR" which is "unused even on German websites". When I patiently tried to explain to him that German websites use the German name which is different, he still insisted [189] that "Only one German site used" the English name, and that "it is you who is trying to force an OR Germanized name in English Wikipedia". He repeated [190] his false claims and defend his OR term with the 217 Google hits mainly created by the very Wikipedia article he created a year earlier. The counts are now reduced [191] as the article has been moved. After I explained the matter to him again in detail, [192], he repeated the "single google hit" argument once again, and threatend me with "for such personal attacks you may find yourself reported at WP:PAIN". After that, I responded once again, but he chose not to answer. In a separate thread, he simply denouces a source inconvenient to him by stating "ANS database is a mess, and it as has been shown above, we have many, many more sources for other variants" [193], The many, many sources consist of a single Britannica entry misattributing a 19th century Polish name for the 14th century coin in question. In addition, he moved another article "from German 'groschen' to English 'grosch'", and quoted Google searches that counted names that are compelety unrelated to the coins. Anyway, he succeeded and has "his" article at Kraków grosz. Since January 2007, it is tagged for not citing any references or sources for that name, while sources for the proper name are given.

That's enough from me for now, and probably for the remainder of this case. Having few time to edit, I decided to make this not very refined statement anyway to give at least some "feedback" to Piotrus. I'm looking forward to him presenting a long list of my deeds soon. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthead's response to evidence presented by Ev

Hmm, no response by Piotrus, but a quick one by someone else? I've go to confess that I somehow felt inspired to look up the article on "Münchhausen by proxy".

I also looked up the talk page of User:Ev (formerly User:Evv) where it's hard to overlook that it features a large Polish flag due to a "Thank you for your Poland-related contributions" by Piotrus. Does that look like a sign of neutrality?

On Ev's talk page, I've already stated my confusion about his/her contributions to the coin naming questions.

With the statement "The American Numismatic Society's curatorial database proved to be of little help because of its inconsistency and the fact that we couldn't find the parameters according to which it was created (that would have helped to clarify the reason behind that inconsistency)", Ev basically rejects the American Numismatic Society database as a reliable source, apparently based on failed Original Research on "parameters". Are Wikipedians entitled to reject printed sources if they can't trace back to the tree that was used to make the paper? Also, it would be interesting to know who "we" are or were.

Regarding the diffs Ev is giving to show that "Piotrus does change his mind and agrees to follow", I've pointed out [194] back then that Piotrus' approval of the Prague coin naming scheme "English locality name, local coin name, per our policies" seems to have been made in pleasant anticipation to trading in his original "Kraków grosh" to get the desired two Polish names Kraków grosz for the Cracow coin, having already established Kraków as "English locality name". -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthead's response to Rex Germanus

It's hardly surprising that User:Rex Germanus tries to make new friends according to "the foes of my foes" reasoning, but it is surprising that Piotrus seems to have swallowed the bait eagerly [195]. Does he really want or need friends like Rex?

Recently I had to complain at WP:ANI after Rex had called me an "idiot" [196]. Sadly, this seems to be acceptable on Wikipedia nowadays. Rex also included edits from me in his black book-like Rex' nationalism scale, but he keeps removing the diffs [197]. The self-proclaimed expert on nationalism apparently has earned the majority of his blocks [198] on Dutch-related topics, and then has moved on to fight "german name bias" [199] by trying to move many articles e.g. like Sprachraum to [200] Glottosphere. On the the other hand, he pushes his Dutch POV, e.g. he "moved Greater Netherlands to Groot-Nederland: to link up with Heel-Nederland" [201], the latter being an article he had just introduced, without references to the present day. Rex also has pointed out that I had answered the summary (...póki my żyjemy!) with the advise "go to Polish Wikipedia", but then Rex himself had told me "If you want to edit a wiki in German go, to the German wikipedia" [202]. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Ev

A statement regarding the naming of the articles on the Kraków grosz & Prague groschen, mentioned by Matthead above, and in which I was involved.

To better judge what took place there, I invite the arbitrators to take the necessary time to read Talk:Kraków grosz & Talk:Prague groschen and reach their own conclusions.

Both articles got their current names as the result of formal move requests, taking into consideration the names by which the coins are referred to in modern English-language publications:

• The Polish coin: formal move request based on these sources.
• The Czech coin: formal move request based on these sources.

In both cases, whatever opinion he may have held before, once presented with examples of the names used by English-language publications, Piotrus does change his mind and agrees to follow the form (or a form) used in those sources (diff. & diff.).

The American Numismatic Society's curatorial database proved to be of little help because of its inconsistency and the fact that we couldn't find the parameters according to which it was created (that would have helped to clarify the reason behind that inconsistency).

Best regards, Ev 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Rex Germanus

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Rex Germanus' response to evidence presented by Matthead

Personally I have never had any problems with Piotrus, however I must say the following. Matthead opened: Being from Germany I got into conflict with poles. Matthead might be from Germany, but that's not a guarantee of conflict with Polish users. I must warn every objective viewer or admin, that Matthead is totally biased in this case. He is fiercely anti-Polish and nationalisticly German, this is a combination that does guarantees conflict with Polish users. I sincerely doubt Piotrus is the main contributor in the problem Matthead has with him.Rex 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthead is biased

Matthead frequently looks for trouble with Polish wikipedians. Some examples:

• [203]
• (go to Polish wikipedia)
• (replaced modern Polish names with German ones while writing "clean up"
• (same)
• (removing Polish link

Rex 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.