Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  • Blnguyen
  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Mackensen
  • Morven

Inactive/away:

  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality
  • Paul August
  • Raul654
  • SimonP
  • UninvitedCompany

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.


[edit] Scope problem.

Why are arbitrators signing up to a decision that has issues raised about in the workshop witch have not been addressed? At least agreeing Arbitrators should leave a note why they are being disregarded...--Alexia Death the Grey 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Workshop exists to post comments and to propose solution (and other items), but the final say rests with the arbitrators. Rest assured that they have taken into account what people have commented, but still feel the motion should pass. Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I would still expect at least a note in workshop or next to their vote why they have disregarded those questions even if just to signify that they have at least seen them.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedy 8

No comment on the rest so far, but I like this remedy very much. It will send a strong message about what isn't tolerated here. But could you please consider extending it to all accusations of national or ethnic groups holding fascist sympathies and all accusations of genocide denial, too? The latter seems appropriate especially in regards to conflicts in the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan issue.

Also, would adding an "any three administrators" clause as an alternative to forwarding the issue to the committee be appropriate, or do you consider this sort of sanction to need tighter control on its implementation? Picaroon (t) 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Second. Enforceable remedies are nice. It's high time to show we enforce our policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit asymmetric?

Kirill's remedies seem to be a bit asymmetric for me. Suva and Irpen have about equal amount of otherwise equal incivility, Irpen gets slap on the hand, Suva one year block. Alexia Death has no blocks (one block by Alex Bakharev was an obvious error that was immediately overturned) and her incivilities are minor. RJ CG has five blocks for edit warring (he is blocked at the moment as well) numerous cases of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring - not to mention, almost only activity of that user is to insert POV information to Estonia-related articles - and yet his remedy is same as Alexias. If I err here then never mind, just paranoia born out of constant harassment. -- Sander Säde 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it is slightly incorrect to discuss a ban of user without notifying him and giving him a chance to say a word in defence. I mean Petri Krohn.--Dojarca 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Remedies tend to be structured around behavior rather than previous blocks; if you're doing X, and we want to stop you from doing X, we'll have a remedy that prohibits you from X regardless of whether you've been blocked for X before.
(For what it's worth, principles #1 and #5 sum up my own feelings on the case fairly succinctly.) Kirill 02:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, good to get my hands on the knowledge. Get one year ban for one deleted template? Both of these templates were created in good faith. Although the wording might have been not the best. Not because I wanted to offend anyone but because I am having trouble of finding the neutral ground lately. The message to Petris page was asking why he acted like he did on estonian related articles. Right now I have no problems with him, the latest event of Moderated Nuclear Explosion was just coincidence. As of Ghirlas ban, I was already blocked for it and I have apologized repeatedly.
So I don't understand how exactly I have deserved one year ban. Suva Чего? 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that restrictions may be better than ban, but I trust the ArbCom has more experience then I. I would however enquire why a user who has been subject to significant evidence presented - Ghirlandajo - is excused from the remedies? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How curious, why is that you and not somebody else mentionning Ghirla? Coincidence, perhaps, but I don't think so... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be a remedy for Martintg as well. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And Dojarca. And Ghirla. -- Sander Säde 11:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

While no one has proposed bans as a remedy in the workshop, and ofcourse this is entirely up to the arbitrators to decide, and no doubt will undergo many revisions, having Estonian editors carry the greater burden of the penalties in a case where the locus is Estonian history, may do more harm to Wikipedia than good. A better remedy, if bans are required, could be to ban certain editors like Petri Krohn from editing Estonia related articles, for example, rather than a blanket one year ban. Given the tiny demographic of university educated english speaking Estonians, it would be a great loss to Wikipedia if Digwuren and Suva were banned from Wikipedia, and thus editing Estonia related articles for which they have already made great contributions, such as fascinating articles on Estophilia and Estonian National Awakening, or articles related to the Soviet Union with interesting well sourced articles such as Soviet historiography. Martintg 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'd suggest editing restrictions instead. Although a topical ban on Soviet Union subjects for certain editors may be worth considering, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I propose such a restriction for you Piotrus. After all you're interested in Polish history above all, so I don't think it will damage anything (yes, this is sarcasm). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I already said on the Occupation of Latvia case, editors like that Wikipedia can do without (I would rather call them "POV-pushers" but that's beside the point). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies are too harsh

Guys, the proposed remedies are too harsh, they involve many very productive editors, there long bans should be the weapons of the last resort:

  1. I have been in a number of conflicts with Digwuren and I find many of his edits to be quite disruptive. On the other hand, he certainly is very enthusiastic editor who creates significant non-controversial content. Taking into the account the particular situation around the network configuration in Tartu as found by the checkuser the only way to enforce the bans is to ban all the new accounts from Tartu that show vaguely pro-Estonian government POV. It would certainly generate a lot of collateral damage. Can we instead put him on a sort of disruption parole, there any uninvolved admin (that is basically any admin but me) could block him for up to a week for any editing appearing disruptive? We could add 1RR restriction or something. I think we can find a way for him to make productive editing while limiting the disruption and soapboxing.
  2. The same goes for Suva
  3. Petri's main area of interests lays outside the Estonian-Soviet-Russian relations, while all the problems found lay inside. Petri also a very productive editor who generate a lot of good content. He also voluntarily stays off the Estonia-related themes for weeks. At the most banning him from Estonia-related articles would solve the problem. It would actually be a pity as he is one of a few of editors independent from the pro Estonian government POV, who is able to check Estonian-language sources. Maybe we can only restrict his editing as per Alexia Death?
  4. The conflict between Piotrus and Irpen (or widely between "Russian and Ukrainian mafia" and "Polish Cabal") lays outside the topic of this case. Irpen's main interest is Ukrainian history, Piorus's one is Polish history. As both topics are tightly intersected the editors are bound to communicate with each other. Stopping their communication would hinder the development of many articles.
  5. Finally I agree with R8, but can it also include accusations of supporting Stalinism? It can also be quite offensive

Alex Bakharev 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Alex that the penalties are too harsh, Petri's attitude as exemplified by his soapboxing here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_venue_for_promoting_inflammatory_views should earn him a permanent topic ban on articles covered by Wikiproject Estonia. For whatever disruption Digwuren (or Suva) may be guilty of, it can never be said that they have engaged in the kind of ethnically vilifying soapboxing that Petri (or Ghirla for that matter) have done. Martintg 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, In this section I can see only see in the section the materials related to User:Roobit, the only connection to Petri is that he removed a long inflammatory declaration from an article to the Roobit's talk page. I do not see how the diff can justify any action against Petri unless you assume he is Petri's sockpuppet. Anyway I am glad you agree with me Alex Bakharev 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's only one part of a bigger picture presented here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Behaviour_of_experienced_editors_as_model, but it does illustrate the level of Petri's political activism. The Bronze Soldier issue has understandibly stirred up passions, but it seems that Digwuren has become a lightning rod for those who disagree with the policies of the Estonian government. Martintg 10:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur that the remedies are too harsh. I understand the principle of symmetry, but it is a false god and, frankly, an abrogation of an arbitrator's duty. If you are judges, then you must judge, and that means not taking the position of, "I don't care who started it! Everyone in the time out corner!" It means you must distinguish the instigation and the response, the piling on and the campaign. In fact, Irpen seems to me to have gone well above and beyond to not get into spitball exchanges. That's just me, though. The point is that throwing enormous, blind blows at the entire group is effectively no arbitration at all. Geogre 10:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the most thoughtful comment on this page, succinct and to the point. "Off with their heads!" - this is the sort of attitude that we came to expect from ArbCom and that prevented us from bringing the grievances to ArbCom for four months. Many of us know from experience that ArbCom is either reluctant or lacks time to look into the diffs and so has to operate with awfully vague statements about "general incivility" and "general disruption". For several months, I have been subjected to mind-boggling insults (some are listed on the Workshop) and, instead of equitable solution to the problem, I find my opponents remedy-shopping, so to speak, with general comments that "something needs to be done with Ghirla" because he stands in the way of their POV-pushing. It is sad that the proposed decision makes no distinction between civil and incivil editors, well-established contributors and one-purpose tendentious accounts, those who started the fight and those who attempted to defend their good name as well as they could. What's the point of sticking to civility, if this comment is equated with this and equal measures are proposed for both sorts of "disruption"? It makes no difference if you stick to WP:NPA or accuse your opponents of "throwing faeces around", as long as equal punishments would be meted out to you both. As long as editors are treated arbitrarily rather than equitably, I can't be reasonably expected to continue my involvement with this particular wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla, do you happen to remember this proposal? I do believe it applies here. -- Sander Säde 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alex that revert and civility paroles would be preferable to outright bans. I do strongly support the idea that such paroles are preferable to non-enforceable remedies (as where implemented in the "Piotrus" case, and haven't solved anything, obviously). But I would abstain on the restrictions on Irpen-myself interaction, and support Irpen's civility parole. Yes, sometimes something good comes out of those discussions - but the cost is simply too great. Much of my wikistress - sometimes reaching the point when I thought about leaving this project - have been caused by his comments. Bad faith assumptions on both sides run too deep for the discussions to be nice and friendly anymore. And the worst thing is that valuable editors (like Balcer) have left because they couldn't stand such atmosphere and accusations levied at them. Hence, the civility restrictions to stop bad faith accusations are a must. And please, let's not talk about technicalities like 'scope'. ArbCom can redefine scope as they please, to solve problems they find as they go along.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I strongly feel that all bans here should be lifted. Civility paroles and restrictions are different matter.Biophys 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Irpen

I have looked into Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed_decision#Irpen and frankly found no Arbcom-level incivilty there. The scope of the case are numerous conflicts around Estonia-related articles. Not a single diff in the section relates here. Instead all the diffs are part of the discussion Irpen had with Balcer, Piotrus and other Polish users. Most of the diffs are parts of an interesting discussion regarding interpretation of WP:RS. We know that research in certain areas during most of the Russian and Soviet history was compromised by tsarism, Stalinism, communism, Putin's new totalitarianism etc. We certainly cannot consider those sources reliable if they are related to the ideologically driven areas. But does it mean that any scholarship was compromised even if in completely unrelated areas? Irpen considered it to be intellectually dishonest, especially if it leads to disregarding of a side in a historical dispute. I see the discussion to be useful and reasonably civil. If we want to scrutinize it we need to review contributions by Balcer, Pitrus, Tymek, etc. It was not done yet and IMHO is outside the topic of the case Alex Bakharev 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irpen's comment

My comment to the proposed FoF about my conduct if I may. I am not perfect, like all us sinners, but I believe that diffs brought there now is not the best way to demonstrate that. Here they are, all seven from the Irpen FoF as of now, 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC), that are supposed to show that "Irpen frequently engaged in personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith"

Firstly, "assumptions" do not apply to communicating with editors one knows for years. One can make a wrong judgment (please decide) but one does not assume anything here.

First diff of FoF, please click. The content dispute is about the usability of the 86-volume Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary in the article about the medieval history. Without bringing a single source to contest any referenced facts about the 11th century interprincely feud, Balcer wants to impeach the source as a whole. From this huge Russian encyclopedia, he picks an article totally unrelated to the subject at hand. We discuss the medieval history of Slavic princes. Balcer suddenly brings in the article called Jews, knowing the antisemitic bias of the Russian Imperial scholarship at the time. I object to such analysis of the source, pointing out that it has too wide a list of authors from different fields to judge articles on a medieval apolitical topic by the article on another topic, highly political.
In response Balcer posts "Is there something about the POV prevalent in 19th century Russia that is particularly to your taste?"
I am sorry but taking into account that the issue at hand is Russian 19th century Antisemitism, this is an extremely offensive question especially from Balcer, an editor I respected. I indeed reply in shock: I expected better of you, to be honest, but we learn as we go
Please determine how was such diff an evidence of anything? Did I ever accuse anyone of Antisemitic views? Did I express them ever, to see this leveled against myself?
Second diff in "Irpen FoF" (please click!) is self explanatory. It is a mere elaboration of the dispute and a reaction to an attempt to discredit the source in toto without attempting to question a single fact presented there.
Third diff, is a reply to this post. It is exactly the same issue, the reaction to the user's attempt to discredit a source by cherry-picking irrelevant info from another volume of the encyclopedia.
Fourth diff is a reply to this post. It is again the request to cite specific facts the editor questions, while he attempts to dismiss the whole source and refuses to get into details despite being asked repeatedly
Fifth diff is a reiteration that I take a very serious offense when I am accused of Antisemitic or Polonophobic views. I contributed to many articles about anti-Jewish violence and this issue is very personal to myself. I am on the record on proposing "Accusing editors in having xenophobic views is untolerable" even as a separate arbcom ruling.
Sixth diff brought about in "Ipren FoF" expresses my missing the editor despite his offenses directed at me because I appreciated the content he wrote and explains why, although I try to stay away from Piotrus, we occasionally interact. The remedy proposed at this very case also suggests that Piotrus and myself should stay away from each other. In fact that diff explains why and how I am already trying my best to do just that and why there are exceptions I have to make to this self-imposed rule as we edit the same topics, and have much less interest in other topics. Much of the content related to Ukraine and Poland is written specifically by no one else but Piotrus and myself. Are we seriously expected to move to music or sports articles all of a sudden? Within the topics I do try to stay away from Piotrus. As much as I repeatedly find Piotrus commenting at random pages soon after I post, I never ever even click on his contributions as I expleained here. So much for "avoiding each other". And we both do get concerned especially when the article in a very much correction-needed (as it seems to one side) form are about to get to the main page. The neutrality of the articles that appear at the main page are also extremely important to the Wikipedia's overall reputation. Look what happened recently when I inadvertently acted in the total spirit of the proposed ruling and did not interfere with the most recent article that made it through to the mainpage according to Piotrus' proposal!
Finally, the seventh diff refers to Piotrus' refusal to interfere when my legitimate questions about the article's sources were answered in a combative and offensive tone as was even noted by a different admin right there. Piotrus called it both users insulting each other. Take a look at Talk:Adam Lazarowicz! Despite my being insulted where did I insult anyone there? To heal the wounds I long since talked to Tymek in a friendly manner trying to explain myself again. He posted a gracious apology to my talk in response. This issue is settled IMO. Piotrus has repeatedly given support to users who offended his content opponents, giving a Barnstar for good deeds to a user who called Ghirla "a paranoid loon", unblocking Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and repeatedly argued against the indefinite ban of the said editor, refusing to recognize the level of offense to me by Balcer and Tymek (I am happy that Tymek and I have made up after that and I hope to edit again with Balcer). I called on Piotrus a number of times to stop rewarding the incivil users who merely "push" in the right direction. I was appalled when Piotrus resorted to encouraging the newcomer Tymek who was at the time all combative and uncooperative. How did I insult that user to deserve taking that?

Yes, I have also lost my temper on some occasions. But the selected diffs, I believe, all fall within normal discussions. Perhaps I did not mince words in the seventh diff. But note that WP:CIV is not only having everything covered in a wrapper devoid of vulgarities.

I have no objections to Piotrus/Ghirla/Irpen long standing conflict being finally studied by ArbCom in the detail it deserves. This dispute was deeply aggravated by an accidental discovery that for months Piotrus was maintaining a secret online page where he was stacking diffs to use to attack Irpen and Ghirla when needed even when no ArbComs and RfCs were in sight. He did just that by hitting this workshop with those diffs that have nothing to do with the Digwuren's related issues. The discovery of that underground layer caused me such distress that I stopped editing Wikipedia for almost two months, the longest break ever in my many years of contributions.

This long standing conflict. "Russo-Ukrainian vs Polish cabal" as Alex Bakharev puts it, involves editors who write actual content and much of it. That conflict is deep, complex and requires a much more thorough investigation than a side ruling of the ArbCom prompted by the grievous conduct of Digwuren and a couple of other users. I would willingly submit my conduct in the Piotrus' related issues to a thorough review but please do such a study thoroughly and in a dedicated case. In fact, the need for such study is something both Piotrus and I agree upon.[3] We were both begging the ArbCom to sort this out through a serious and dedicated investigation, but the requests were brushed aside since the ArbCom members were usually busy with cases more crucial for the Wikipedia overall than to study the conflicts in this remote and obscure corner of Wikipedia (and the world). --Irpen 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus' comment

Irpen wrote above: "But the selected diffs, I believe, all fall within normal discussions." I extremly strongly disagree with this, and I am glad to see that this difference of opinions is taken before the ArbCom. As can be seen in my evidence, in those diffs Irpen accuses others of "playing the extremely intellectually dishonest trick", "habitual and sneaky attacks at sources you don't like", "horrific slurrish attack on [his] character", antisemitism (for not having edited an article...), "academic dishonesty", and using "the offensive users as battering rams in POV-pushing or against your Wikipedia opponents." I am sorry, but I don't believe that that this type of comments falls withing normal discussion. It does, however, seem quite home on a wiki-battleground. The proposed remedy does not bar Irpen's from useful contributions, but it should put an end to him "losing temper on some occasions" and "not mincing words", as he himself calls his behavior above. Irpen, I am sorry, but WP:CIV requires that we don't loose our temper too often, and we mind what we say. You haven't, and Balcer, a valuable editor, left because of you. I have yet to see you apologize to him for that.

And Alex, with all due respect, it is something that should be addressed by ArbCom, and a civility parole is a perfect way of ensuring that this will be solved. For ArbCom to declare those diffs offensive and show others that you cannot go and accuse your opponents of 'academic dishonesty' and similar things freely will do much to improve the atmosphere in the EE topics.

I also see no need to waste people's time on a separate ArbCom. If we can untangle a big part of the mess with the rulings here, so much the better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Piotrus' comment

Well, let's look at Piotrus' selected quotes above.

Irpen accuses others of "playing the extremely intellectually dishonest trick", "habitual and sneaky attacks at sources you don't like", "horrific slurrish attack on [his] character", antisemitism (for not having edited an article...), "academic dishonesty", and using "the offensive users as battering rams in POV-pushing or against your Wikipedia opponents."

I said before and I say now that attempting to win the content dispute by making rabid and meritless attacks at the source's authors is sneaky and amounts to an academically dishonest trick. What's uncivil in saying so? I never ever accused anyone in anti-Semitism. To the contrary, faced with such extremely accusation myself I confronted the user and pointed out at the unacceptable nature and total lack of merit of such accusations. I don't take such stuff lightly and nobody should. I expressed myself on that clearly enough at "accusing editors in having xenophobic views" proposed ruling.

As for the last quote, it is supported by evidence. Sorry, but this is what Piotrus have repeatedly been doing, applying WP:CIV selectively, exempting the offensive users who pushed in the "right" direction and attempting to use WP:CIV as a weapon in content disputes (see Methods and solutions that make the matters worse and WP:NPOV is replaced by WP:CIV.)

Contrary to the Pitorus' assertion I did not loose my temper "too often" and I am not asking to be excused for anything. Actually, I think I held myself pretty well, especially in view of being a target of Piotrus' campaign aimed at evicting me (and Ghirla) that lasted months, the campaign Piotrus conducted both in public and secretly (I only saw an uncovered part and I have no idea how large is the iceberg judging from the tip that came afloat.) Balcer suddenly throws some accusations and stops editing. The talk:Kiev Expedition (1018) is there for everyone to see. I ask all to read it and to see whether my reaction to being accused of anti-Semitic views was over the board, especially in view that Balcer did so in the past as well. Besides, I am skeptical towards dramatic departures that are accompanied by emotional good byes, blanking pages and deletion of them. This is drama and I have a low regard towards drama. When Piotrus' meticulous and elaborate secretive campaign became visible by an accident and I was disgusted by that beyond what I could take, I simply stopped editing for a long time. I believe that the user who is simply tired of it all would do the same but departures through drama, public condemnations, raisings the wikistress indicators at userpages, etc, are too often meant to make a point more than indicate the user's weariness. At least we should not take such drama at face value.

As for a separate ArbCom and a need for it, I don't care how it is done. All I am saying is that a thorough ArbCom investigation of this years-long conflict between "Russo-Ukrainian cabal" and "Polish cabal" or however you call it, is long since overdue. This was not done in the Digwuren case and it should be done because it is a huge problem in its own right, I would say a much bigger problem than the whole set of Digwuren issues. There is a very strong correlation between the derailed ArbCom cases and arbitrators' non-participation in the workshops when the latter get taken over by nonsense and trolling through the lack of oversight. Useless unworkable workshops produce disconnected decisions all too often. It was Piotrus who hit the workshop with a whole bunch of diffs from his secret stack which are totally unrelated to the Digwuren issue but are very much related to mine and Ghirla's years-long conflict with Piotrus and brought these issues to this ArbCom. I also have much to say on those issues. If Arbitrators think this disputes are relevant to Digwuren-mess, fine. But then please clean the workshop from nonsense and let's finally study this mess thoroughly as well. Piotrus who used to join my calls for the ArbCom investigation now says that it is "not necessary". A strange twist but the huge stack of problems remains unresolved. Most importantly, those issues predate the Digwuren-related mess and one mess should not be used as an obstacle to solve the other. The intrusion of the Digwuren-related issues since the end of Spring-2007 needs to be sorted out in its own right. This has nothing to do with the personal ethics of Piotrus which in my opinion is the main source of the Piotrus/Ghirla/Irpen mess.

Even if some disagree about this being a source, a thorough investigation of the Piotrus-mess is long overue and it was not done within this ArbCom. Therefore, I propose either to consolidate it into a separate case and concentrate the Digwuren case at the issues at hand or clean the workshop from trolling, subject it to a stern oversight and discuss the Piotrus' related issues there as well. I am not trying to avoid these from being studied. Quite to the contrary. --Irpen 20:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, it is clear that you believe you have done nothing wrong. And it is clear that you will continue to believe it, and repeat things like "Piotrus-mess and drama" or "Balcer's academic dishonesty" and such until the community tells you to stop. Which is why we are here. We have stated our cases. We disagree on whether you were incivil or not. The community - represented by the ArbCom - will decide which of us is right.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I repeatedly stated that I have no objections to that. It is obvious that I see my comments on your conduct as warranted and your conduct as highly unethical while you think you behavior was perfectly acceptable all along. These issues very well deserve a full ArbCom investigation, I repeatedly called for that, that would include much more than the small set of selected diffs you pulled from your stack and posted to the Digwuren's ArbCom trying to use it to settle your own scores against me despite these are totally irrelevant to the case at hand. Your entire "evidence" posted to the Digwuren's case is exclusively devoted to our dispute, not a single Digwuren-related diff. I did not post anything on you, Piotrus, to the Digwuren case evidence page because I think that posting arbitrary stuff to the ArbCom derails it and I was not looking at this process as an opportunity to settle issues I have with you.
If arbitrators think that it is best for the Digwuren's case to also be an Irpen/Piotrus case, however separate these issues are, I would accept it. I will then argue my positions towards your conduct and the sanctions imposed on you that I would like to seek.
However, with the workshop being turned into such a mess that even includes obvious trolling like this [4], [5], [6], [7], or obvious nonsense like this [8], [9], [10], [11], presenting this unrelated case is very difficult as the issue of the Digwuren-related conduct is massive enough for a case IMO. I think, it would be better to separate two very different disputes in separate cases. I am not hiding and I am not asking to be exempt from the arbitrator's review. If arbitrators think otherwise, I request the abritrators' or clerk's thorough clean up of the workshop to make it usable again and a stern oversight of the further developments through further participation of the arbitrators. Finally, arbitrators may decide in advance that your conduct was immaculate and my criticism of yourself is unwarranted and offensive. If this is what it is, I will have no choice but to accept it. The case is now so overloaded that posting anything seems already useless and there is no indication that it would be even read. I am simply requesting more feedback from the arbitrators on how they view this should proceed. --Irpen 05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M.K's comments

I share similar opinion as Alex provided above. Current diffs which should prove wrong doing are simply pointing to discussions which are far away from Estonian-Russian related problems and don’t indicated any punitive incivility levels. Discussion itself relates to a minor time frame. Such finding of facts formulation and consequences which arose from it can discourage future contributions.

After reading this case for a long time I made an impression that this case digress too far from original Estonian-Russian related problems to “who drove out user:Balcer, user:Lysy etc.” and even to personal theme. So my general suggestion to arbiters and contributors is to concentrate on the original area of dispute, however if arbiters thinks that need broader theme or extend Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case, undoubtedly Belarusian-Lithuanian-German etc. contributors would add additional clarification on the newest developments. M.K. 10:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The locus of this case is the interpretation of post war Estonian history, which is really just a continuum of the issues of Eastern Europe covered in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case. Note that Lithuania is a Baltic state just like Estonia and the issues surrounding Lithuanian history is exactly identical to the issues surrounding Estonian history. As an aside, Irpen's prolonged disputation with the admin User:ProhibitOnions for applying a block against CG RJ for disrupting Bronze Soldier became rather intimitatory [12] in my view. Martintg 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Martintg, you see the problem is that certain contributor chose to seize on opportunity to use this case as a bandwagon to bring grievances against certain users with who he is in years long and totally unrelated to this conflict dispute. There was dedicated case for these issues that ArbCom investigated, and as I said if now ArbCom is in position to rule on Piotrus/Ghirla/Irpen etc. conflict, it should separate it in order not confuse this messy case further, and give all parties a chance to post evidence and their thoughts. And final question - how Kiev Expedition (1018) article is related to Bronze Soldier? M.K. 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus/Ghirla-Irpen conflict may not be relevant, but there was a Ghirla-Irpen/pro-Estonian accounts conflict, which is certainly relevant. Otherwise who is the other party? See evidence. Colchicum 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Colchicum, please read again what M.K. said. Piotrus "chose to seize on opportunity to use this case as a bandwagon to bring grievances against certain users with who he is in years long and totally unrelated to this conflict dispute." Now, read again the entire Piotrus' evidence and try to find there anything at all related to "Ghirla-Irpen/pro-Estonian accounts conflict". As far as Piotrus' participation in this ArbCom is concerned, M.K.'s comment hit the nail in the head. Piotrus' campaigning against myself and Ghirla was going on for years. He has been following our contribution and collecting diffs at his secret page waiting for any opening to use them. He saw this ArbCom as an opportunity to bring in all the diffs he could find despite their having totally nothing to do with "Ghirla-Irpen/pro-Estonian accounts conflict", as you call it. That is setting aside that, as I explained, there was nothing exceptional in those diffs in the first place. He simply tries to use this ArbCom as a tool, or as M.K. says "a bandwagon" for his own goals. This has nothing to do with the scope of this case defined by the Arbitrators. --Irpen 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the fact that certain users are being disruptive across many wiki content areas, and using strategies against their opponents there similar to the ones illustrated here (thus indicating this is not an isolated incident but a part of a wider pattern of disruption) is important and needs to pointed out. It is indeed ArbCom's decision whether to use this evidence or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed. It is up to ArbCom whether the investigation of the conflict between Piotrus and Ghirla/Irpen is within this case's scope. Make no mistake, I do want such investigation to be conducted and if ArbCom considers this conflict relevant to Digwuren-related matters, I will gladly accept such move and post my evidence in relation to this matter. All I am asking is the clarity whether ArbCom wants to investigate this matter within this totally unrelated case, consider it as a separate case or not do anything at all, as it has done in the past despite pleas to the contrary. --Irpen 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Martintg's comment dated 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC), my take on this is different. The issues covered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus is not about content. It is about a long-standing conflict between Piotrus and some other editors caused by, what I think, a highly unethical way of how Piotrus does things. My harsh criticism of Piotrus' editing and wikilawyering patterns was never incivil. For example, I accused him in double standards towards sources and even falsifying references. There is nothing uncivil in that if I have a justification to say so. A separate issue is whether my view on Piotrus' conduct is justified or not and if it is not I should be held responsible for such harsh and unwarranted criticism of Piotrus. I have repeatedly urged the ArbCom to investigate this issue but in the last Piotrus' case ArbCom decided to simply close the case without decision and without spending time to decide which party is at fault.
Now, Piotrus continued collecting anything who could possibly find on me and Ghirla, as he was doing for months before being accidentally caught, to use at some opportune time and when he saw the ArbCom case devoted to a host of totally unrelated issues he, first, expressed his support of Digwuren despite the obviously disruptive conduct of the latter and, secondly, used this case as an opening to inject his complaints against Ghirla and myself, knowing that this may simply derail the case by arbitrary changing the scope and, possibly, may work his way.
The fact is that there was nothing in those diffs to begin with, as I explained here. It is also noteworthy that several Lithuanian editors, not just MK, have repeatedly expressed their frustration with Piotrus' conduct. It just shows that Piotrus' related matters have nothing to do with the commonality of issues that surround Lithuanian and other Baltic history. Finally, I have no qualms if anyone, including the ArbCom takes a look at my discussion with Prohibit Onions and his absolutely inappropriate reactions to reasonable questions. --Irpen 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"I accused him of double standards towards sources and even falsifying references. There is nothing uncivil in that if I have a justification to say so.". However if you don't have justification, that's another case, isn't it? And since not a single DR process ended with support of your claims, they are nothing but unsupported insinuations (not to mention that one way or another, they fall under my ArbCom parole, which you tend to forget about and slander me again and again on various talk pages, like here).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, I am looking forward towards the arbitrators saying that Digwuren's conduct is somehow related with the Irpen/Piotrus/Ghirla long-standing conflict. So far, they said differently. If they redefine the case's scope, I will post the detailed review on your ways of doing things to this ArbCom. I would prefer this to be consolidated into a separate case or your case being reopened as this has nothing to do with Digwuren, Suva and Alexia who brought here a lot of grief with their actions. There is not a signle diff at the evidence you brought about my actions in connection with these editors. But I would accept ArbCom's decision to broaden the scope of this case and would post a detailed review of your conduct. --Irpen 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petri Krohn

I looked through the given links by Kirill Loshkin on the behavior of Petri Korn and I cannot understand what coused the arbitrator to propose ban of him. For example, I cannot get how these edits in talk page may be considered disruptive in any way: [13] [14] and others presented.--Dojarca 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, please see this. I think you should re-read your AfD nominations - obviously you cannot change the closed one, but it is not too late to change the second and apologize.
As for Petri, I see a year block as too harsh. Block length should be sufficient to make it clear what is allowed and what is not - same as for others - but year will just drive editors away, in my opinion.
-- Sander Säde 20:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
He's apparently of the opinion that his fellow editors are a "hate group", "hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet", and have a "Holocaust denial agenda". This level of invective is far beyond what is acceptable in this project; I'm actually shocked that he hasn't been soundly community-banned yet, but better late than never. Kirill 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Kirill, Petri was blocked for the "Nazi skeletons" comment, served his time and issued a heartfelt apology the likes of which I had not seen on Wikipedia before. I was accused of Stalinism on IRC, on Wikipedia and even on the Workshop page for that matter - without any consequences for the offender whatsoever. I believe the diffs provided on the Workshop page make it clear that Petri was relentlessly stalked and insulted in a compaign which has few rivals in our recent history. It's hard to say how one would react to this sort of harassment if he were in Petri's shoes. Many people would have left Wikipedia in the face of such a campaign, and I actually expect the community to laud Petri for his ability to continue contributing. The same applies to Mongo and several other wikipedians who did not give up, even though Wikipedia did nothing to shelter them from the torrent of insults they had to endure for months. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is existing thing and unfortunately Wikipedia is not free from that. Anyway why dont you take into account multiple personal attacks, accusations of Stalinism, assumptions and incivility by other users such as these:[15], [16].--Dojarca 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Most importantly, long time ago Petri Krohn has issued the deepest and most sincere apology I have ever seen in Wikipedia. Was he engaged into a similar invective after that? --Irpen 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, three times since that apology:
  • Claims presenting sources such as [17],[18] is "hate speech" [19]
  • Claims of the existence of "hate groups" and "irredentism" on Wikipedia on Jimbo Wales' talk page [20]
  • Claims that one party to a content dispute "are in fact a hate group" with Nazi sympathies [21]
--Martintg 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing horrific in the first two of your "three times" above. He criticizes the source (not the editors) in one diff and makes a general statement about lack of the needed, as he thinks, policy in another diff. No attacks on the users that I see. The last one is bad indeed, whether warranted or not. If he really thinks so, he should hit the ANI with diffs and have the hate group editors banned. So, yes, one diff is inexcusable. Are we banning for a year for one bad comment in three months, especially when we see a very clear sign of improved conduct? Or is there more? --Irpen 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For a single diff? No. But this is, in my view, merely the latest episode in a long-running—and seemingly incorrigible—pattern of attacks, and that does merit a ban. Kirill 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I agree with Petri that there is a hate group in our Wikipedia. Does this opinion deserve any sanctions?--Dojarca 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I second that. And if Petri does get banned, you will not have to sanction me, because I will disappear as well for the duration of that block.--Pan Gerwazy 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Remedy 8 is in order here (although the problem is not restricted to national and ethnic groups, accusations of Holocaust denial, Nazi sympathies or Stalinism and is underlied by the notion of collective guilt in general; I would propose something like Accusations of being guilty by association against a Wikipedian may result in blah-blah-blah), as to the rest, I consider it too harsh and selective. RJ CG has an impressive record of blocks for edit-warring, he has not reformed himself so far, and his contributions are largely restricted to this particular topic. I see no reason why Petri Krohn should be treated more harshly. While it is wise for him to refrain from touching the topic in question (and he seems to have already realized this), generally he is a very valuable contributor with many other interests (as well as Piotrus and Irpen) and it would be unreasonalbe to ban him outright. Given the proposed harsh treatment of Petri and restrictions concerning Piotrus and Irpen, I am surprised that no restrictions have been proposed concerning Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks), Dojarca (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks) and Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks) (and, uh, well, me – not a big deal, this year I was going to be much less active here anyway). As far as I can see, compared to them Irpen is relatively benign in this conflict. Colchicum 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in the case less than yourself and certainly had nothing to do with the Bronze Soldier brouhaha. As so often, I am amazed by the lengths one would go when gunning for his opponent all over Wikipedia and beyond. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact Irpen did not participate in any edit wars and even his participation in content disputes is very limited. The only thing on which was based the restrictions proposal is his appeal to the arbcom regarding behavior of Piotrus.--Dojarca 07:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I indeed take no part in edit wars and try to adhere to 1RR, the pledge I sometimes cross but not frequently. But still one correction: while I did appeal to the ArbCom for a very long time to study the behavior of Piotrus (and myself for that matter) I never tried to use this case to straighten out this much older conflict. It was Piotrus who brought my dispute with himself and Balcer to this case to which I did not even bother to respond since I thought that this is irrelevant. Loading the evidence and the workshop pages with nonsense and irrelevant grievances works very well if one wants to derail the whole case. This was the last thing I had on my mind.
Piotrus' diffs cited verbatim in the "Irpen" clause show that I expressed my being strongly appalled when Balcer repeatedly accused me in xenophobic agenda, particularly of Antisemism (something I take very strongly) and that I called the practice of repeated wholesale attack on sources but refusing to dispute facts or suggest different sources as signs of academic dishonesty. If my harsh characterizations were unwarranted, then indeed I should be held responsible for them. If, however, they were justified, there is nothing uncivil to call a spade a spade. I did not use any incivilities in doing so.
I can compile diffs and demonstrate what led me to such characterizations. I simply never thought that this is relevant to the case whose focus is the conduct of certain users in Estonia-related articles. It simply never crossed my mind to use this case to settle my totally unrelated issues with Piotrus. My observations and common sense suggests that once the proposed decision is started, arbitrators would unlikely go back to the workshop. But if arbitrators would like to merge these totally unrelated issues into one case, I am asking them to say so, but to please aggressively clean up the case's pages from trolling and nonsense so that they are readable and usable again. Right now, posting anything there seems totally useless. Since the Piotrus/Irpen dispute is much more complex that Digwuren's disruption that is in the plain view and unlike some, I have no habit to stack the diffs to have them handy when I need to hit Piotrus, presenting my part of the Piotrus/Irpen dispute would require a significant effort and I would hate to see it wasted if my explanation supplied with the diffs is not going to be even read. The only reason why it was not posted was that I did not consider those issues relevant for the Digwuren ArbCom. --Irpen 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither did it cross my mind that my interactions with a Ukrianian editor on Bogdan Khmelnitsky would be produced to back up claims of my "incivility" (I respectfully referred the guy to a passage in WP:TROLL, and still think that was the most appropriate thing under the circumstances). Anyway, the arbs seem to give little thought to the scope of the case, as delineated by themselves at the inception of this case. For some this is not a specific and very distinctive case of disruption, but just another chapter of the never-ending Piotrus vs. Irpen/Ghirla saga. That's why I was so pessimistic about the perspective of the case to be settled by ArbCom. We'd better put up with being called "paid KGB trolls" or "hermaphrodite trolls" rather than risk being hammered by "enormous, blind blows" of the arbitrators (as Geogre put it). --Ghirla-трёп- 21:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of Stalinism? You must be kidding, right? [22] That one was about soemone complaining that a friend of yours put his comment before the rationale of the AfD...--Pan Gerwazy 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Tot ziens. Colchicum 23:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what many people think, that one does not mean "Goodbye", but "See you soon." And so, for those who noted that Colchicum later apologized (very casually) for it, I point out that he later retracted the apology - which makes it even worse: [23]Auf Wiedersehen.Pan Gerwazy 00:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus

Why is he still an admin if you find him sufficiently problematic for this to be the second arbcom involving him, and one which includes restrictions on his editing behaviour? 86.137.25.192 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please log in and say whatever you have under your username. Personally, I think that admins should set examples by their conduct but adminship is rarely revoked for conduct where the admin buttons were not used. Right or wrong, this is how it works. --Irpen 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexia's Statement

20:02, 1 May 2007 I joined this project. It was almost exactly five months ago. I joined unaware of the rules governing this project. On my second day I saw this [24], equating three whole nations to Nazis. As someone new to the project I learned by examples and tended to react rather than act.Please see the diffs of my incivility and attacks. On July 15 Ghirla said to me: "You have been told a dozen times that the trolling of administrators' noticeboards by Korps! Estonia is not welcome." And nobody bit him for that. On 16th I had a revelation to his tactics of upsetting people and getting reaction rather than action and so I reacted for the last time, following his example form previous day with "Troll ignored." referring to the statement not the editor... I do apologize if it was seen as an attack. Also, I would like to point out that these diffs are from July, from my 3rd month on Wikipedia. I am much wiser today, than I was then and appeal to amnesty of Piotrus ArbCom to be extended to us as well if it is extended to Ghirla.


I fail to see how the diffs listed show sustained revert waring in cases of Erna Raid, where we worked out an attributed and sourced sentence finally incorporated into the lead, or in case of a diff[25] from Monument of Lihula that I myself reverted in 2 minutes [26]. I acknowledge guilt in other cases, but if you take a look at the dates on diffs, they are from June and July, and for me represent lessons already learned.

The restrictions... Well all in all I did try to start a discussion when ever I reverted and firmly believe too much reverting and too little dispute resolution goes on, tho I am aware I myself have erred against that occasionally. Please see my essay on the matter [27]. Civility however is subjective. I cannot control how people read into my statements, so I propose that if hurting someones feelings its flowed by a sincere apology and an explanation it does not count as incivility. Does not matter to me since I am not going to participate in this project any longer, but in the interest of retaining the right to communicate without fear of block over misspelled name on misunderstood word I urge the arbitrators to consider this.


If measures of restriction on Wikipedia are used only preventively and not punitively then why do the governing forces hold back on admonishing and using them long time editors who should know better and only apply them to newbies? When this ArbCom was requested I supported it, because I wanted all sides of this conflict measured with the same stick. This is not happening as evidenced per the Proposed decision page. If this is not happening, nothing will change. And I can no longer contribute to this project.

--Alexia Death the Grey 07:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of racism by Sander Sade

Sander Sade today accused me in racism [28]. Probably this may deserve some sanctions as Sander Sade is the most uncivil user here in my mind (even more incivil than Digwuren). He does not respect any Wikipedia's rules.--Dojarca 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use the evidence page to post individual complaints. And I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for an isolated incident. Warned perhaps. --Irpen 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not the first time: [29]. Added to evidence.--Dojarca 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, who "Sander Sade" is, sorry. But care to explain why have you in your third deletion nomination badmouthed Estonians, a totally irrelevant subject to nomination? From the article Racism, "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.". I do believe it covers your actions very well. -- Sander Säde 09:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not bad mounted Estonians. I only made clear that all the accounts in question are based in one place.--Dojarca 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And exactly how is the nationality of the editors - or, in that matter, editors at all - relevant to the deletion? What is relevant is the content of the article, not who created those. You keep presenting those checkuser cases - forgetting to mention that one of them was rejected by checkuser clerk and the other is about Digwuren and me - and I don't think that even you can think that I and Digwuren are a same person. Not to mention, in all three cases only Digwuren has been active editor - and yet to try representing them as a group effort by evil Estonians. In my viewpoint such behavior is racist, pure and simple. -- Sander Säde 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What is relevant is that the accounts come to the Net from one place. I could say that they all come here from Tartu. Would it be racism or maybe anti-Tartuism?--Dojarca 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet another time. Sigh. Most of them are not from Tartu. Read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. Martintg is from Australia. Colchicum 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that what he said is I don't think you've grasped what are reasons for deletion - and that personal attacks, your grudges against one ethnic group (I do believe it is called "racism") do not belong to deletion nominations or Wikipedia in general, and this was said in response to three XfD nominations filed by you during the last month where you (rather than some of your ancestors or compatriots) summarily attacked your fellow wikipedians insead of providing a rationale for deletion [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. While the wording is questionable, I'd rather agree with this claim. As you seem unwilling to assume responsibility for your actions and repeat your bogus claims for the fifth time or so, I am disappointed. BTW, a and ä are two different letters. Furthermore, you couldn't make clear that all the accounts in question are based in one place (it would be a grave privacy violation anyway). You are not a checkuser clerk. As to the checkuser cases of Digwuren and DLX yo refer to, you may wish to re-read them: 1, 2. Colchicum 10:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the topic belongs here. The material should go to Evidence or Workshop. At any rate I would recommend everybody to take a deep breath and count to ten before typing anything there. It seems that the logic is going from the talk page. Even Colchium, who is one of the best editors on the post-Soviet topic somehow imply that Doijarca's complains on a behavior of a small group of editors (not their compatriots or ancestors) somehow justifies calling him racist. I guess it is either me or him or both of us who are loosing or cool Alex Bakharev 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure about racism accusations but Dojarcas conduct and repetive usage of infamous RFCU's should be put to stop. We should create some sort of remedy on that. If someone starts AFD again with rationale: "This user is probably a sockpuppet of whoever and has been a party in arbcase, thus this article must be deleted", the user is blocked at sight for a week and AFD discarded. Suva Чего? 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't imply that Dojarca's wording of the XfD nominations (the article is bad because it was created by...) is motivated by racism (probably it isn't, but I wouldn't care anyway), they are inappropriate, even more so as they are recurrent. Colchicum 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a rationale for the AFDs in question. All the nominated articles are either POV forks, very poorly written, had inherent POV issues or all that in the same time. In fact we now have to deal with Digwuren's campaign for creating a series of "Soviet occupation"-related POV forks with similar content intended only for inflammatory purposes.--Dojarca 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why was these checkuser cases evoked? How is it relevant? No, don't reply. That's enough. In fact we now have to deal with Digwuren's campaign for creating a series of "Soviet occupation"-related POV forks with similar content intended only for inflammatory purposes -- Assume good faith. Colchicum 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. May be it was POV-pushing purpose. Is POV-pushing a good faith? Probably. But that the creations (and multiple re-creations after deletion) of all those articles and templates is interrelated is a fact that should not be hidden from those who vote on deletion. But this is not of course the only reason for deletion. The main concern here is the low quality, high POV and not necessity of such a large number of repeating each other articles on the same topic. I don't understand your concerns here as I saw that you yourself voted for deletion.--Dojarca 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything to hide? AGF. User:ChrisO, closing admin: It is not, however, a recreation of the deleted Soviet occupation denialism. But you continue to testify here that it was a re-creation of the deleted article, that the participants are all from Tartu, etc. Here are my concerns. Colchicum 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The admin who closed the previous AFD had another opinion [35]. The article has been re-created second time by Vucumba and it has been protected against re-cretion [36] by User:ChrisO. Digwuren also has been blocked for re-creation of Estophobia.--Dojarca 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Bye. Colchicum 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinionated newcomers

It is impossible to enumerate all future participants of this conflict. If a restriction only applies to a limited number of established accounts, controversial articles will soon be overwhelmed by opinionated newcomers, who are only bound by 3RR. Because the conflict is not limited to Estonia-related articles, I think that some general editing restrictions placed on the main participants of the conflict are warranted, but at the same time I would also suggest to apply some similar restrictions to certain controversial Estonia-related articles (like Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, Rein Lang etc.). Colchicum 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the genuine newcomers are different from the puppets by the amount they know about arbcom rulings. All newcomers are usually ignorant about the existence of arbcom even less about the rulings. While the major participants have no interest in providing all views on the subject no major progress on the contested articles is IMHO possible Alex Bakharev 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but imagine Bronze Soldier of Tallinn back in May with anonimous contributors bound by 3RR and registered contributors bound by 1RR. Something has to be done to prevent such a situation. I would suggest to place Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, Monument of Lihula, Rein Lang, Estonia-Russia relations, René van der Linden and all articles ever split from them on probation with 1RR and civility parole (with due announcements on the talk pages).
As to different views, well, sure, no suppression of a particular view should be allowed, but I don't think that affirmative action policies are reasonable. It is perfectly ok that the major participants have no interest in providing all views on the subject or are unaware of them. E.g. communists would hardly be glad if an anticommunist tried to represent their views even in good faith. We should only make sure that the participants won't try to suppress other points of view when other people bring them in. But it seems to me that so far this hasn't been a major problem in this particular case. Colchicum 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some arbcom ruling should be imposed on the general topic, not only on certain accounts. We face here persistent edit wars, hardcore POV-pushing, historical revisionism, WP:POINT-related disruption and numerous personal conflicts and clashes. Arbcom at some point anyway should deal with it. But the ruling not necessary should be editing restrictions, but rather some principle enforcements based on Wikipedia rules to encourage content neutrality. I also agree that suppression of other views is unacceptale and I think this principle should be enforced by the arbcom. I disagree though that it is not a major problem for the case.--Dojarca 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence. I am afraid that I am only aware of large-scale deletions of sourced anti-Soviet content made by User:Cmapm on Estonian SSR. As to historical revisionism, it is not a crime. Ironically, it is merely yet another point of view (which some people are too eager to suppress). You should probably be aware that, as to the topic in question, (relatively pro-Soviet) historians like Geoffrey Roberts are referred to (and self-identified) as historical revisionists rather than E. H. Carr or Jonathan Haslam. Colchicum 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok what looks like revisionism in one country may not look so in another. I have proposed two principles, essential to enforce neutrality:
1. All opinions and facts on the topics covered by this arbcom case should be attributed as much as possible with usage of phrases "Soviet historian X noted" or "British researcher Y calculated" without representing any view as the only correct or as a fact. If a newspaper said that some opinion is revisionism, we should say that the newspaper said so, not that the opinion indeed revisionist or wrong.
2. No sourced material should be deleted. If editors from the opposing camp disagree with the source, it should be properly attributed in form of indirect speech rather than deleted.
These should be enforced as strong and as long as possible.--Dojarca 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
These are Wikipedia policies. No need to reiterate them. What is not clear is how to enforce them. I wonder how it is possible to enforce something without placing restrictions. FYI, "revisionism" means just that the point of view breaks with the tradition. There is nothing inherently bad about it. Colchicum 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And we face that these policies are questioned here. Yes, probably there should be restrictions, but to enforce the existing policy.--Dojarca 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the discussion is worth continuing, especially as you produce no diffs to support your strong claims. Colchicum 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Digwuren voted against both these proposals here:[37]. This is a typical example of incertion of a newspaper's opinion as a fact [38].--Dojarca 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sad thoughts on this situation and decision

This entire arbitration case and underlying situation have been sad and disagreeable from the beginning. We obviously have a group of editors from varying backgrounds and points of view, who are in a position to add much good content to many of our articles, including in underrepresented fields. But much of the goodwill that they could create by doing so, and much of the fun they could have in the process (which after all is what keeps people contributing) is dissipated by the constant name-calling, edit-warring, feuding, and hostility that surrounds these entire groups of articles.

I am completely confident that Kirill Lokshin, who is the most active arbitrator right now and has a good deal of background on related disputes from prior cases, has done his best to put together what he considers a fair and reasonable decision. That does not mean that I agree with every proposal in the decision. In particular, the findings and remedy directed at established contributor Irpen strike me as harsh and excessive and I hope that they will be carefully reviewed by other arbitrators.

Frankly, I had hoped that seeing the proposed decision that Kirill has written up could serve as a final chance at a wake-up call for this group of editors. Nothing else seems to have done so. The decision in the Piotrus case earlier this year—an amnesty for post offenses combined with a finding that the behavior of several involved editors was unacceptable and needed to change radically—was not heeded. In fact, several of the involved parties denounced the decision and stated that only Arbitration Committee findings as to who acted the most wrongly coupled with coercive remedies could solve the problem. It is hardly surprising if, in the next case involving some of the same group, the arbitrators took these statements at face value. "At wit's end," one of the headings in Kirill's decision reads, and I don't blame him.

No one wants to see legitimate, if strong-minded, contributors banned from the project. It really is a last resort for any administrator and I am sure for any arbitrator as well. For that matter, no one wants to see editors admonished or restricted in an ArbCom decision finding themselves so upset by the decision that they feel their only course is to cease contributing, either. On the other hand, we also can't have an entire group of articles and editors damaged every week by the continuation of the behavior that we have seen from several of the editors at issue in this case, either. Arbitration often discusses the editors whose problematic (or perceived-as-problematic) editing and comments become the focus of community attention and concern. Less visible are the other potential contributors who may abandon an area of editing, or the project as a whole, because they cannot or do not choose to work in an atmosphere of constant hostility and strife and, it is not too strong a word to use in this case, hatred.

Now that Kirill has posted a proposed decision, and parties to the case have commented on it, the other arbitrators will start to vote. In this regard, editors should note that the initial decision in a case is not always adopted. On the other hand, if you are an editor, or a supporter of an editor, who is subjected to a remedy in this decision, and you feel that a given finding or remedy is unwarranted, I think it will be helpful if you can suggest what else the arbitrators might possibly do that would at last bring peace to this entire grouping of articles. Newyorkbrad 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My sad thoughts, too

Brad, I believe the community has screwed up with this case all the way from its inception back in May. Given the unprecedented level of incivility involved, they had every opportunity for nipping it in the bud when it started to spill onto ANI. It was Piotr's and Colchicum's unsolicited involvement and encouragment of Digwuren and his ways that gave this farrago of harassment and incivilities the appearance of a legitimate content dispute. As a result, the incivil campaign escalated to the point where ArbCom admits its helplessness to remedy the situation, except formulaically banning one editor from each side and "restricting" everyone else whose name happened to be mentioned during the case, even if they have no interest in Estonia and its disputes with Russia (as is the case with myself).

Since we can't ban the entire Tartu university, with its firewall issues, it does not appear likely that Digwuren will be impeded from editing Wikipedia (or at least having some fun on #wikipedia, as he used to). The only outcome will be the mass departure of reasonable and versatile editors tainted "by association". I will personally advise those who would have remained to never go to ArbCom, lest they risk being sanctioned for unrelated matters. Better put up with accusations of paranoia, slander and lies on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps I should post some warning to this effect on my user page:

“ When seeking to be shielded from even the most brutal forms of incivility, never apply to ArbCom. You may end up by being ceremoniously sacrificed for the sake of "symmetry" or for some other formalistic considerations. Put up or shut up. ”
as Digwuren presciently advised me before the case. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It is sad to see that your only contribution here is to engage in further polemic. Martintg 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla, could you please stop reiterating this fantasy about Tartu University. Digwuren has nothing to do with it - and attempts to show it otherwise does not change that. -- Sander Säde 05:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I do agree with this characterization of the case. I did some soul-searching on the topic "what would I consider fair?" and came to these conclusions:

For involved users
  • Digwuren, Petri Krohn, RJ CG and Dojarca: One month block and one year incivility parole. 1RR per week for one year.
  • Suva, Irpen and Piotrus: one year incivility parole with a recommendation to avoid controversial topics. Any incivility will be punished with a block of one month. One revert per week allowed, other then in case of obvious vandalisms and spamming.
  • Alexia and me: one year incivility parole, any incivility will be earn a stern warning and if next one occurs within a month, one month block without any further warning. One revert per day, other then in case of obvious vandalisms and spamming. Any other editor mentioned in this case may be included to this preventive measure/punishment by a decision of ArbCom during one year starting from the end of this ArbCom case.
  • Ghirlandajo: One year block and indefinite incivility parole.
General considerations

(all of them have indefinite length)

  • No unproven accusations of sockpuppeting, neo-nazi/fascism/stalinism. Harsh blocks for such behavior (minimum length one week)
  • No tagging controversial articles without providing an explanation and valid reliable sources that support your position (must be done within 30 minutes. If that is not done, removal of that tag is not considered a revert)
  • Zero tolerance for racism. Long block in first case, one year in second, indefinite in third incident.
  • Incivility and personal attack policies must be enforced more vigorously.
  • Certain articles vigorously patrolled by uninvolved administrators.

Obviously, these are just my personal opinions and nothing more - however, hopefully it clarifies my view in this matter a bit. I do strongly believe that this would be fair punishment and would not only diminish problems described this ArbCom case, but would also send a strong message to editors involved in other similar controversies.

-- Sander Säde 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments, but a call to punish someone you typically disagree with more harshly than already proposed, is not really in the spirit of the type of response I had in mind. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, only ones with harsher punishment are Ghirla, RJ CG and myself. Ghirla because there is an active ArbCom decision about him - and together with Dojarca they are the only ones who have shown no regret over their actions whatsoever nor see anything wrong about their behavior. Also, I do believe Ghirla to be biggest culprit in great many incidents, removing him will defuse a big part of this whole situation. RJ CG for similar reasons but lesser extent, myself because I am applying voluntarily for same punishment as Alexia.
I do realize that this was not the response you wanted. But I do think that this situation has gone too far to end it with non-decision like in the ArbCom case of Piotrus. Wiki-stress levels of most involved users has gone far above and beyond the level where they can be expected to contribute to Wikipedia - I know that lately I've had no time or will to do any meaningful contributions, whereas during the relative calm of few weeks ago I managed to create an article in a single day, which reached GA, and another one that I plan to apply for GA as soon as I am capable to expand it a bit. But only hardened old-time edit warriors can be expected to be able to contribute in an environment that has been created through accusations, edit warring and harassment. That is why I want this case to end with a real decision - and decision that is not flawed by looking at edit counts or how long someone has spent on Wikipedia. I want fair decision that will defuse the situation and let us re-start contributing to Wikipedia.
-- Sander Säde 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Petri Krohn

Petri Krohn issued a statemet regarding proposed decision against him in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_postpone_by_User:Petri_Krohn. I place this notice here because of concerns expressed by Newyorkbrad that that page may not be read closely.--Dojarca 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is commendable that Petri has abstained from editing Estonia related topics and moderated his behaviour for the last couple of months, the problem is that lasting damage has been sustained to Wikipedia with his actions during the time of the Bronze Soldier event and afterwards, in claims of hate groups, posting messages on talk pages of Russophones[39], [40] inciting action against these "hostile Estonian POV pushers", nasty edit comments, initiating checkuser cases against these Estonians knowing full well they were distinct personalities, etc, etc. All this activity has unfairly damaged the standing of a whole group of enthusiastic newbies which is still reverberating today, as evidenced by Dojorca's attitude here, the belief of Alex that Digwuren holds pro-Estonian government POV, the view by Mikkalai that Estonians are his "eternal enemy" [41] and Ghirla's continuing polemic. But not only these people, but any new Estonian now coming on board is stigmatised by this as well. What needs to be done is for Petri to expain clearly to all the Russophone editors here, Irpen, Mikkalai, Ghirla, Alex, Dojorca, Grafikm, CG RJ, and others, that he was wrong in characterising these Estonians as Holocaust denying neo-Nazis, he was wrong in inciting them against the Estonians here. He should explain to them than the ethnicity of individual editors should not be a factor and that individual editors should not be held personally and collectively responsible for the policies of the government of the country they reside in. In other words he must call an end to this campaign against this group of editors. Martintg 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dojarca and Martin

Given his stridency in this case and his agreement with the view above that some editors here form a hate group, continued inappropriate invocation of the past checkuser cases and the nationality of the article creator in AfDs, he ought to be subject to a restrictive remedy for obvious reasons. Martintg 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to you, even to a greater degree. Is this a new variety of block shopping - "remedy shopping"? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetry

It seems that the current decision proposal as well as the decision on the previous case both are based on the principle of symmetry between the sides and maintaining balance and status quo. Do we really need such a false neutrality and appraisal policy in face of real threat to Wikipedia's process? In fact we face here a certain POV-pushing and mobbing group of editors who arent inclined to constructive discussion with their political opponents. While supporting unlimited descussions on talk pages they stricly revert any edits in main namespace by their opponents on sight dispite the nature of arguments and changes they made. The group also strictly supports each other in any discussions and votings showing no respect to neutrality and any other rules of Wikipedia. The other group is the editors of different political views who try to maintain neutrality and at least basic rules and principles established by community or fouders of Wikipedia. How arbcom can equate these two groups and try to trade any restriction against one group on similar restriction on another regardless real behavor of the users. This looks like equating attacker with those who united to stop violence. I call the arbiters to think once again do we really need such false justice when we face real attempt to pervert Wikipedia's process.--Dojarca 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty obvious, as I pointed out above, that all participants, irrespective of their background, contributions, revert-warring, or level of incivility, are about to be subjected to the same set of "restrictions". We came here to be judged on our merits, and instead we get the same irate "off with their heads" approach. And Digwuren and Petri Krohn are about to be eliminated as two sacrificial cows, one from each side, to maintain some phony semblance of neutrality. What does it matter that their level of incivility, revert-warring, and WP:POINTing is not really comparable? I am disappointed if that is the ArbCom's idea of justice. Furthermore, this indiscriminate application of the same remedies to entirely different wikipedians stems from the the practice of remedy-shopping instigated by Sander and Colchicum above. What I did not expect is that an arbitrator would fall so easily into the trap. They seem to be intent on treating all participants equally rather than equitably, and this is the most frustrating thing about the draft. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom shouldn't judge on merits, it should judge faults. It is not clear why you consider the proposed editing restrictions (no incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith) enormous, blind blows. After all, these restrictions should ideally apply to all Wikipedians, however different they may be, though the policy is not always enforced, and the ArbCom is intended to fix this if necessary. Colchicum 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the diffs supplied to shore up Kirill's statement, my every comment qualifies as "incivil" by his measure. That's what Piotrus has been arguing about and demanding for two years: basically, everything that I say on any subject is incivil and deserves to be sanctioned. Most regulars know that I have had to counter intermittent outbursts of dramatic block shopping on ANI and IRC. If the "restrictions" are adopted, the ANI abuse will become a routine activity, preventing me from being active elsewhere. That is not a big deal for a person used to dealing with one stretch of articles or segment of Wikipedia (as yourself), but it is a big deal for a person who normally edits diverse articles and may be engaged in multiple totally unrelated disputes (like myself). I don't know anyone whose block log has been linked to as often and as unjustly as mine. Now all my opponents, be they from China, Ukraine, Armenia, or Finland, will get a powerful tool to poke me with whenever they feel like it. It's not like I and Kirill know each other for the first year, so he probably knows some of that background. As far as I can recollect, we have never agreed on any subject. I am mildly surprised that he did not recuse when proposing a remedy touching upon myself but, since he feels that he can assess my activity in a detached manner, I am prepared to trust his good judgement in this regard. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably missing something obvious here, but I don't recall us ever having interacted all that much. (Going back through my talk page archives for the last year, all I could find was this, this, this,this, none of which look particularly like having "never agreed on any subject".) Could you please be a bit more specific as to why you think I should recuse myself? Kirill 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Have I voted for you in the Military Project? Who I hold responsible for making talk pages useless with annoying never-ending assessment drives? Let's set all this history of contention aside. It does not lead us anywhere. My opinion about the proposed draconian measures may be found here. What I want to see is the remedies commensurate with the offenses. After spending the first half of the year in Russian Wikipedia, I was trying to rehabilitate and to resume productive activity here when I ran into Digwuren's activities which nobody bothered to censure (well, at least until Fayssal's block in July, but that was for revert-warring rather than incivility). For several months, I have been subjected to mind-boggling insults (some are listed on the Workshop) and, instead of an equitable solution to the problem, I find my opponents remedy-shopping, so to speak, with general complaints that "something needs to be done with Ghirla" because he stands in the way of their POV-pushing. It's amazing how easily one's name may be smeared by the head-hunters. There appears to be some truth in the old saying that, once you start hurling dirt at your opponents, some will stick anyway. The regulars know that I have been much more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, so one thing that I don't understand is why people want to have me ousted from English Wikipedia for good, considering that I am hardly active on Eastern Europe-related topics at all and that my appearances here grow increasingly far and few between. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Symmetry doesn't matter here. Could you please clarify who are the members of the groups you are talking about and provide evidence? I am afraid that there are no innocent victims here. Colchicum 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Digwuren

I have a few old accounts to settle and a few statements to make, and a few things to explain.

I'm mailing this writing to a few random arbitrators whom I remember from the proceedings, and expect that they share it further, as appropriate. I'll also file it in the arbitration case.

[edit] Accounts to settle

I want to apologise to JdeJ and Alex Bakharev, whom I insulted by careless -- and quite uncivil -- choice of words, and to Dihydrogen Monoxide, whose RFA's failure I unwittingly contributed to.

I want to declare that I believe M.V.E.i., with whom I have had more than one major conflict, and who was recently blocked for a year, has made considerable -- even if slow -- progress, and to encourage him in his future affairs. He's still young; if he'll overcome his anger issues, he might even make an admin one day.

I want to forgive to Petri Krohn the slights he's made, insomuch as it is in my powers. Unfortunately, it seems not all of them were directed against me, so I can't forgive them all; but to me, his recent good behaviour has redeemed the slights of past. Insomuch as it is mine to suggest, I firmly believe that banning him is an overkill; a suitable parole -- or better yet, overall enforcement of Wikipedia's civility policy -- would be much better approach.

I realise -- in retrospect -- that in my many altercations with Irpen and Ghirlandajo, I have displayed incivility to both of them. Although I feel I must point out the extenuating circumstances -- in particular, the baiting and the bad precedents set especially by Ghirlandajo, which I too uncritically accepted -- I still believe in due forgiveness. I would like to declare my forgiveness to both Irpen and Ghirlandajo -- whose articles on Russian history are legendary in their quantity -- and I hope they'll accept my apology. Learning from past mistakes, and supported by all-around civility paroles, we might eventually learn to get by. Being an avid enjoyer of fine literature, I certainly appreciate Ghirlandajo's humorous reference to Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, but I certainly wouldn't want to actually remove anybody's head -- even in a metaphorical sense.

Last but not least, I want to thank people who have encouraged me, including Colchicum, Martintg, Piotrus, Riana, Sander Säde, Vecrumba and numerous others. Some of them may want try to convince me to stay. While I can't predict future too well, I consider my staying or returning unlikely unless Wikipedia changes considerably. However, as explained below, my not attending Wikipedia will not necessarily mean I can't contribute. My email address is listed below, and I'm open to further coöperation.

[edit] Statements to make

Although this artificial controversy (I created that article, by the way) might lead people to think otherwise, I've been far from only editing controversial articles. For example, I created thorough stub-lines, and added numerous facts, to the succession chains of Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Social Affairs of Estonia, and probably others which I do not remember. I wrote the articles on Viimne reliikvia, the most famous Estonian movie ever, on Eduard Bornhöhe, the man who wrote the book the movie is based on; on Rene Reinmann, the noted felon-cum-councilman; on Pullapää crisis, the incident that was close to toppling the Republic of Estonia; on Tallinna narrid ja narrikesed, the book that has enriched Estonian culture with the character of Jaan Tatikas, and numerous others -- not to mention tenfold as many various stubs, tied together as a structure for further expansion. But due to the asymmetric ways wikipolitics works, only the controversies are widely known.

I have, in my time, achieved three DYKs and one GA. My very first DYK, Rene Reinmann, was immediately AFDd by Petri Krohn. I'm sure I could have got much more of this kind of recognition, if I had only known about the DYK/GA/FA processes. Sadly, I didn't.

On the other hand, I am quite disappointed that the ArbCom has still not processed the "evidence" by FayssalF. I know for a fact that I have had nothing whatsoever to do with FayssalF's alleged intrusion, and I never expected the ArbCom to just ignore it, as it seems to have done.

I'm even more concerned that despite strong evidence of lies in ArbCom proceedings -- Ghirlandajo is the main culprit, though Dojarca has also considerable guilt -- ArbCom hasn't done anything to combat this problem. When I filed a motion to enforce truthfulness, Irpen promptly accused me of trolling. I do not believe it's possible to come to proper conclusions without having a proper understanding -- it says so right on my userpage -- and accordingly, I'm very pessimistic about the ArbCom as a process if perjuries are tolerated.

The nastiest things I've ever been called on Wikipedia are 'patriot' and 'nationalist'. With 'Nazi skeletons' (by Petri Krohn) I can deal -- it's an obvious hyperbole. 'POV-pusher' is nasty enough, but given enough wikilawyering, I can get it covered with AGF. But calling me a 'patriot' or 'nationalist' implies that I have an allegiance to a random ethnicity -- and that such allegiance shadows my analysis skills. I'm proud to not have any political allegiances, and I abhor such labelling. Certainly, I didn't write Rene Reinmann, nor Injurkollegija (which, by the way, to this day lists Rein Lang and Vladimir Zhirinovsky as though they were its only notable members) to glorify any particular nation.

One of my greatest fears is that after me, the Irpen-Ghirlandajo duo might try to pretend that every user with some vague understanding of Estonia-Russia relations is an evil sockpuppet of me. It is my understanding that this has happened to Bonaparte: even if he used a small army of sockpuppets, not everybody banned by Mikkalai as Bonaparte's sockpuppet is a sockpuppet. (I know this through my analysis of these supposed puppets' styles.) Thus, I want to caution ArbCom to not allow this form of national stereotyping to take place. Despite what you might read on Wikipedia, there are, in fact, more than one people in Estonia. Even if I should go to attend a class in Helsinki, there will still be some people left in Estonia.

Finally, I may not believe Wikipedia in its current form is a good idea, but it does not necessarily mean I'll hold grudges, or will try to convince others to leave. I know there will come people after me, and some of them will need to walk the same path and make the same mistakes. As much as it is in my powers, I can share my understanding of both Wikipedia's problems, and other topics I might know of -- such as propaganda, or Estonia's history and culture, or perhaps, say, parsing theory. To this end, everybody is free to write to me at <digwuren@gmail.com>. I might even take up my own advice to Petri Krohn, and start a blog.

[edit] Explanations to present

[edit] Background

I happen to be a mathematician, with considerable interest in (artificial) intelligence and numerous related topics. (See my userpage for a fuller list.) One of the related topics has been, improbable as it may seem, propaganda. Due to my current residence, I also happen to have considerable understanding of history and current politics of Estonia; both topics considerably unrepresented on Wikipedia.

[edit] Beginnings

Back in April, the Bronze Soldier affair was making political headlines, and led into massive waves of propaganda through various media channels. The most interesting ones happened to be the Russian propaganda.

Somewhat randomly, I happened onto the Wikipedia's article of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, and it was quite obvious to me it was in a horrible state. This state of affairs was partially caused by the propaganda war surrounding these events. Up to this time, I had heard of Wikipedia only as the "free encyclopedia that anybody can edit", and -- naïvely -- I believed that when seeing such inaccuracies, it's my duty to fix them. As can be seen in the article's talk page's archives, I originally described the problems in depth, and expected that other people editing in the article would see things reasonably and calmly, and the page would improve. After a while, I created an account, too.

It turned out I was wrong. One of the most active people at work in the article was Petri Krohn, who, as it became quite obvious in the following weeks, had a fatal combination of overactive imagination, dislike -- conscious or not -- for either Baltic people or Estonians (I never figured this one out), and a sharp intelligence. This combination led to his making up the wildest of conspiracy theories and attempting to push them as facts.

[edit] Conflict resolution

I made an attempt after another to convince Petri Krohn in the errors of his ways, but it bore no fruit. Upon reading the applicable Wikipedia policy, I ended up deciding that an appropriate step would be collecting evidence of the errors of his ways, and present it to the public for commenting -- a procedure that, it seemed, was called RFC/U. A few other editors, including Alexia Death, graciously donated their time and effort to clean up this issue, and to make Wikipedia a better place. And for a while, all went good.

However, I, or perhaps "we", had neglected to take into account a phenomenon of immense importance in Wikipedia: the wikipolitics. Bishonen, a friend of Petri Krohn, and about the same time herself involved in a RFC/U on her, suddenly decided that RFC/U on Petri Krohn would be a Bad Idea, and invented the bogus idea of "not certified". Based on this idea, DrKiernan ended up deleting the whole affair -- only for Bishonen to undelete it when she wanted to use it as a step of "former DR" in the Arbitration Case Named After Myself. At this time, I was still a believer into Wikipedia's policy, and seeing that it didn't really work as written was quite a disappointment for me.

[edit] Disillusionment

By about that time, the Bronze Soldier brouhaha had cooled down, and I started looking for other activities. I had already tried the infamous Vandal Patrol job, but it wasn't half as rewarding as I expected it to, so eventually, I left it to others. I had also noticed a gaping hole in Wikipedia's coverage of Estonia-related articles, and attempted to fix it. And this turned out to be a grievous mistake.

It just so happens that in Stalin's era, Soviet Union occupied most of Eastern Europe, for various periods of time. Estonia was one of the longest-occupied territories, under Soviet rule from 1940 to 1991 -- save for the three Years of Brown Plague in 1941-1944 -- and almost all of recent cultural history of Estonia is thoroughly interwoven with the occupation. For one, occupation-era censorship culture had raised humorists to such a highly respected position that in the first post-Soviet parliamentary elections, a party consisting mainly of humorists, the Independent Royalist Party of Estonia, got 8% of the seats almost without really trying. (I wrote the article, based on newspaper archives and a few bits from the Estonian Wikipedia's version.) For another, the whole composition of the all-time famous Estonian movie, Viimne reliikvia, is considerably influenced by the Soviet historiography's view on medieval Estonia. (I wrote the article, based on the Estonian Wikipedia's version, and a few bits of literature history literature.)

However, when discussing the occupation -- which no reputable historian denies, by the way -- NPOV mandates that all major viewpoints surrounding it must be discussed. And that includes Russian Federation's one who, in the footsteps of Soviet Union, denies the occupation. Accordingly, I did my best to get them discussed in the appropriate articles. They were good and thorough articles. One of them was even assessed as GA once -- only to be speedily delisted due to an abusively added tag by somebody who didn't like its title.

Through this and related incidents -- I participated in a few articles regarding pseudoscience, for example -- I learnt the hard way that a sufficiently determined clique, even a small one, can really hold Wikipedia hostage by cleverly abusing wikipolitics. I started to get the nagging suspicion in the systematic lying campaign in Ghirlandajo in AN/I threads of about August; by now, I have observed Ghirlandajo in action enough to probably be able to emulate him. But I would not do that, because I am not evil.

[edit] Arbitration

And then, the arbitration happened. It came quite sneakily, in the short week following the celebrations of August 20, and I didn't even got a chance to respond to the wild accusations before four arbitrators had already -- to my surprise -- voted for accepting the case.

The case was requested by Irpen. Alexia Death had indicated several times that she would like arbitration to take place, as Petri Krohn had threatened us all with the mighty hammer of ArbCom. I had been certain in my knowledge that the policy does not allow ArbCom cases to take place unless all earlier DR steps have been tried. But as if by magic, the Petri Krohn's RFC/U that, by Bishonen, hadn't been a DR step, reappeared, and was presented as example of "earlier DR" -- by none other than Bishonen. I guess I hadn't learnt enough for my previous experience, because for a while, I thought that arbitration would restore sanity and end the unending uncivility. Now, I'm quite skeptical of this outcome. Remembering words of Alexia Death, if even one of the arbitrators would rather bite newbies than to apply justice equitably; if even one of the arbitrators thinks it's better to make those troublemakers go away than to punish the one who lied to the ArbCom about the troubles in the first place, Wikipedia is beyond repair. In the future, perhaps, the situation will improve, and the ideas I've listed in WP:TAAR may get taken seriously -- but this is not the case now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Digwuren (talk • contribs)

[edit] In response to Digwuren's statement

As far as the parties are concerned there seems to be a concensus that nobody really wants any of the other parties banned off the project (although we have not heard the opinion of Irpen or Ghirla in regard to this). I know the Estonian editors have said in the past, on the various talk pages, is that all they want is the harrassment to stop. The proposed findings have been a necessary wake-up call to every one involved, I believe.

Given the fact that when Digwuren, Suva and Alexia joined the project back in May, they stepped into a very hostile environment caused by the controversy of the Bronze Soldier events, which was not of their own making, but the that of Estonian government. Unfortunately many editors here seemed to have focused upon them in the belief that they somehow represented, as Alex Bakharev said above, the view point of the Estonian government, that by virtue of the fact that they are ethnic Estonians they some how are collectively responsible for the events surronding the Bronze Soldier. This is a misguided view.

All the Estonian parties are enthusiatic to contribute. For example, Digwuren has created many stub articles, with the obvious intention of expanding them before being diverted by this conflict, concerning famous Estonians in history, literature, that arts, popular culture and other interesting aspects of that little country on the eastern shore of the Baltic that was for so long hidden behind the Iron Curtain, and is of interest to a reader like me located in far off Australia. Article stubs like Estophilia, Mehed ei nuta, Aleksander Hellat, Alo Mattiisen, Arvo Valton, August Wilhelm Hupel, Constitutional Pilsener, Elektrooniline Riigi Teataja and many more on User:Digwuren#Significant_contribution_to have been neglected for far too long due to this distracting conflict. No doubt given the opportunity, Digwuren would rather spent time expanding these articles.

I think everyone concerned believes restrictive remedies are the way to go rather than outright bans, particularly in the case of these newbie editors like Digwuren, who should really be given the opportunity to contribute. Perhaps mentoring could help too. I don't want to see Petri banned either, remedy 8 would be an effective measure, as well as other similar restrictive measures as the others for civility and edit warring. The Bronze Soldier issue is now long past, let us all draw a line under this. Martintg 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexia's approval of the General Restriction

The general restriction is what, broadly speaking, I have been hoping for to happen from this case. Actual way to enforce the rules govrening the behavior of editors, an aim of my Community Court idea. It would do a ton of good to the general climate BUT it has to be enforced indiscriminately on all offenders disregarding editing history, or it can and probably will be abused to bite newbies and the source of the problem, established editors set in their ways setting a lousy example, are left free to ignore the guidelines again. This kind of persistent notification and correction will be less harmful than individual restrictions and banns to overall editing while effectively keeping situation under control. It is my firm belief that the current situation has risen due to the fact and policies governing editors behavior have been left unenforced or have been enforced selectively, the former being more harming of the options as this creates double standards. If this is actually properly enforced I may regain my faith in something changing.

A caveat I see is that any attempt to report such incivility and attacks will be countered by sweeping accusations of block shopping...

As an extrapolation of this idea, I would see much benefit in getting things done when 3RR per edit no matter who reverts and 1RR per editor was to be applied to the whole scope of Eastern Europe topics, specially ones prone to edit waring, signified by a talk template notifying of the restriction. It would take the power out of ganging up and allow the discussion to appear. Otherwise restricted editors can be overrun by socks or newbies free of any restriction. Feel free to comment. --Alexia Death the Grey 06:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian roulette?

It seems that the proposed decision allows arbitrariness and freedom of interpretation. All of us placed in danger of immediate block on any reason. Is it what did we need? I think we need certaity rather than tyranny of any random admin. In fact admins in Wikipedia also have their political views and are politicized nothing less than other users. Do we really need a sequence of unjustified political-motivated blocks? Does anybody think this Russian roulette will help the dispute resolutions? It seems that arbcom wants to avoid real decisions and responsibility and put it on other admins.--Dojarca 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Community Court essay for a proposal to solve this on a larger scale. However in this case, as I said, sincere sounding apology and explanation after perceived offense should abolish the sin in order to keep honest mistakes being punished as incivility and allow for free expression, except in cases where incivility is not disputable or subjective, like directly worded ethnic slurs and unproven accusations. Alternately, perhaps arbitrators appointing several specific active and uninvolved admins to deal with these complaints would prevent such problems? --Alexia Death the Grey 09:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Bah, humbug. The shootings will continue until morale improves! ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points made by Digwuren concerning "Bishonen, a friend of Petri Krohn"

Hi, Digwuren, it's me. Above, you refer to me as "Bishonen, a friend of Petri Krohn"; the 'inventor' of "the bogus idea of 'not certified'" with regard to user RFCs; the subject of a user RFC at about same time as Petri Krohn was; and the mastermind behind a clever (?) scheme for first making somebody delete the RFC/Petri Krohn, then undeleting it myself. (On the #wikipedia IRC channel, you call me more simply and comprehensively "the B witch".) I'll try not to waste words, as I'm IMO hardly a major player in this case; I hadn't realized that you consider me to be its Machiavelli.

  • 1. I don't know User:Petri Krohn. I thought I'd never had any contact with him, but checking his talkpage history, I find in September 2006 this block warning from myself, and this follow-up. He didn't reply, but ceased the behavior I was objecting to. To the best of my recollection, the only contact I've had with him since is this post, during your RFC on him, where I suggest he should waive the requirement for dispute resolution and let the RFC run without being deleted, as it might be useful in a following arbitration. He again didn't reply. Oh, wait, though... was that really me? Don't you tell me I was trying to get that RFC deleted, for diabolical (unknown) reasons of my own? ("Bishonen.. suddenly decided that RFC/U on Petri Krohn would be a Bad Idea.") And can it really have been me who strongly urged you on the RFC talk to get some real dispute resolution going so the RFC wouldn't get deleted? Anyway. If I have had any other contact with Petri Krohn and forgotten about it, you will find it on the wiki; there have certainly never passed any e-mails, IRC conversation, or other offsite communication between us.
  • 2. The idea of an RFC being uncertified, which you believe to be a bogus invention of mine, is defined here ("Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered 'uncertified' and will be de-listed") with a link to here for specifics about those minimum requirements.
  • 3. Yes, I was being RFC'd myself about the same time. (Well, two weeks earlier, but so what.) Er... what's your point? When you saw I'd recently been RFCd, you surely took a look at it? (Here it is, for anybody who'd like to.) And if you looked at it, you surely know how almost ridiculously favorable to me it was, and how sorry the nominator must have been that he ever brought it? Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
  • I think the point Digwuren is making is that the RFC/U that you disqualified for lack of prior DR, was subsequently offered by yourself in this Arbcom case as evidence of prior DR. Do you see the inconsistency here? The tragedy for Petri is that had you allowed that RFC/U to proceed, he may well not find himself in this situation today of facing a ban. Digwuren and the others had legitimate issues but the community failed to address them because you deleted the RFC/U. However, thanks to you undeleting his RFC/U and offering it to ArbCom as evidence of prior DR, it has been scrutinised and atleast one member of the committee deems the matters contained in it, and repeated on the evidence page, serious enough to warrent a ban. Martintg 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Had I allowed the RFC/U to proceed"... good grief, it's like I was speaking a foreign language or something. Or do you simply not read what you reply to? I again here offer the diff to my attempt to get Petri to allow the RFC to proceed—because letting it proceed without attempted dispute resolution was up to him, not me. I wanted the RFC to proceed. But Petri didn't waive the DR requirement, and Dr. Kiernan took the decision to delete the page. Between them, they made the RFC not proceed. They killed it. If you think that was a "tragedy", go bother them, because I'm not going to post this information more than the twice I now already have posted it. Do you take Petri and Dr. Kiernan to be under my remote control? To be my socks? My sex slaves? What? As for Alexia below, with her usual about the bias and bad faith of whoever isn't agreeing with her—you'll just have to chew that cud on your own, Alexia, if it still has flavor for you. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
I the interest of correctness, Bishonen did not delete the RFC. I was not aware of Bishonen having relations with Ghirla and his group at the time. Otherwise a question of interest conflict or more probably bias would have risen.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a weird one. There is no "allowing" RFC's to go forward. The reason we have these policies is precisely to avoid this kind of nonsense. Administrators don't deign RFC's worthy or not. They're certified, or they're not certified. If they're certified, they go on. If they're not, they're deleted. A person who has been watching the situation may, or may not, be the one to do the deletion, but that's entirely mechanical. If someone has evidence that, double secretly, the RFC did meet the requirements, then that should be presented somewhere, but any allegation of "my RFC got deleted because you're friends with this person or that" is ... I'm trying to find a polite word for "uninformed or willfully pretending not to understand"... misguided. Geogre 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bad faith accusation of "willfully pretending not to understand" could easily applied to your comment, but I will not engage in this kind of back handed polemic. Martintg 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of prior dispute resolution

An issue in this case is the application of a disqualified RFC/U on the conduct of person XXX, as evidence of prior dispute resolution in the conduct of person YYY. While ofcourse it is at the discretion of ArbCom on what they choose to hear, is it not policy that there should be some evidence of a genuine attempt at dispute ressolution before going to Arbitration. Bishonen citing Petri Krohn's disqualified RFC/U as attempt of prior dispute resolution does not appear genuine example of this attempt, particularly her strict interpretation on the policy of going to RFC/U without prior DR.

I am not wikilawyering here on some point of policy, but am talking about everyone's entitlement to a fair go. Proceeding directly to ArbCom without prior mediation case or RFC/U for Digwuren, which I argued against here [], has denied him and the other parties an opportunity address the issues. Digwuren is a professional mathematian, thus highly educated and fluent in many languages. It is clear from his statement here that he is a reasonable person fully able to assess and modify his own conduct. Any prior DR process would have quickly revealed that. However, the lack of any prior DR process and the lack of input from Irpen or Petri to NewYorkBrad's request for alternative remedies other than an outright ban, is evidence that their intent is more to do with the elimination of (what they perceive as) an opponent by any means, rather than any genuine attempt at resolution. Martintg 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about "elimination" of Digwuren. He may as well be allowed to edit if he is put on the restrictions that would disallow him to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. I never once called for a ban. Arbitrators have seen many more users who disrupted Wikipedia and have much experience in such matter and if they can device a remedy tailored at this user that would guarantee that Digwuren's, Suva's and Alexia's contribution would become productive instead of disruptive they would, I expect, adopt such a measure. Whatever measure to put an end to disruption works best is fine with me. --Irpen 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
But unlike Alex Bakharev, you have never stated that a ban is excessive, and NewYorkBrad did make a request for input. Given that the majority of the evidence of this alledged disruption by Digwuren, Suva and Alexia has occurred on Estonia related pages, in the words of Ghirla, why do you even give a hoot about Estonia? What is your interest here? Given that those three are born, raised and educated, to university level, in Estonia, they would have a better idea on Estonia related topics than say someone like CG RJ who resides in Canada and seems to alternate between editing Bronze Soldier or Rein Lang exclusively. Martintg 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, that's a very interesting point. Weren't there really any WP:DR steps have not been tried before the ArbCom,? Where there any RfCs where Digwuren could have been warned by the community about his behavior? Where there any attempts at mediation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Martin, I give a hoot what's going on on-wiki. Digwuren's activity was wide enough to cause the huge grief in an entire sector of Wikipedia, not just Estonia-related matters. I found the level of disruption intolerable and violations of multiple policies as blatant as they possibly can be. My personal experience is that the bad-tempered users are not reformable. I have tried to work with several short-tempered users who were willing to contribute but whose temper brought them to trouble despite my best effort to convince them to cool down. As you can see I repeatedly asked MVEi to become less combative. I repeatedly asked RJ_CG to stop edit warring. These are just two most recent examples. There is a handful of more users who I met who despite my efforts failed to reform and are now banned.
You, as a user supportive of Digwuren, should have gone out of your way trying to cool him off. Instead you gave your unqualified support to him, Suva and Alexia and they, being encouraged, felt that their ways of conduct may actually work. As I said in my original statement, the encouragement he received from users like you only aggravated matters. Maybe Digwuren is an exceptional case and arbitrators, who have much more experience with bad-tempered users, can device a narrowly tailored remedy that would stop the disruption without ban. If this works, I am just as happy. --Irpen 01:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, while I could see what you mean by disruption caused by Digwuren (though it is not that blatant IMHO, much less so than troubles caused by M.V.E.i. and especially by RJ CG, and comparable to the case of bad-tempered well-established editors), I fail to find anything comparable in the behavior of Alexia and Suva. I also fail to see how any of us encouraged Digwuren to behave in a certain way more than the provoking attacks by the other party, and he seems to have reformed himself to some extent (as well as M.V.E.i., by the way, but unlike RJ CG). What should we do? He is an adult and we are not his parents. BTW, Digwuren's activity wasn't hasn't been "wide enough": [42], Estonia-related articles mostly, perfectly legitimate interest for an Estonian, hardly an entire sector of Wikipedia. If you mean AN/I specifically, both parties have their records there. Colchicum 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse your view of short-tempered editors "grievously" disrupting an entire sector of Wikipedia, is hyperbole. Ghirla brings a different slant. Instead short-tempered, we have cool headed editors who "prepare this attack in the cool of the Tartu classrooms, so as to launch it on June 22, the day when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union", and the disruption of an "entire sector" is really related to Estonia: "Their mass arrival (or should I say invasion) of English Wikipedia in the run up to the V-Day made regular editing of Estonia-related articles virtually impossible." What ever slant is taken, at it's core is the castigation of Estonian editors who merely wanted to restore the balance to Estonia related articles, with Ghirla lamenting: "They disrupted a large swath of our pages", pages that accordimg to Petri Krohn, should only represent the Russian POV as the NPOV [43]. Martintg 07:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Marting, could you please provide diffs with all texts that you highlighted by italics? I did not see it.Biophys 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ghirla's view that it was coolly orchestrated "attack" confined to Estonia-related articles is endorsed by eight other editors here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn#Outside_view_by_Ghirla. It is totally at odds with Irpen's view that Digwuren's activities were bad tempered and was spread over a wide sector of Wikipedia. Irpen's comparison of Digwuren with M.V.E.i is totally off-centre, Digwuren has never engaged in the kind of racist polemic we see here [44] that has earned M.V.E.i a year long ban. In fact we see Digwuren attempting to advise him that stereotyping people is a bad thing [45]. Martintg 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think this view by Ghirla is certainly over the top. But his view was endorsed by several WP users, which makes the problem even bigger. It shows group ownership of articles, a phenomenon that was ctiticized by some wikipedians [46]. I believe that Digwuren's ban is hardly justified. He had no opportunity to improve - I did not see any RfC about him. In addition, his statement above shows a willingness to improve and collaborate with others. He must be given a chance.Biophys 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
See evidence page - there are almost more diffs about Ghirlandajo's behavior then rest of the parties together - and that is with several users withholding from providing evidence, as they are afraid of further abuse. Sadly, it seems that Kirill did his overview before those diffs were added and other arbitrators do not bother reading through evidence and workshop pages.
As for the endorsement of Ghirla's fantasy - that is not a surprise, see the names - same users always popping up over and over again. Perhaps I would only had expected more from Alex.
-- Sander Säde 06:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but both Digwuren's "bovine fæces" and this one:[47] were written after his statement. I see no willingness there to collaborate. He is even invited by the other user to provide arguments and refuses a second time, calling his second taunting remark "a second opinion". And I concur with Irpen that none of the people always choosing his side have evere tried to hem him in (even by Colchicum and Piotrus, who I still consider to be honourable men) - on the contrary, the fact that that sort of thing has happened on the other side has been used to "prove" how bad Vlad, MVEi, RJ CG and Ghirla must be, if even their supporters are telling them to calm down. --Pan Gerwazy 08:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the divison of people to groups is unhelpful, especially when every side is trying to protect their "turf". I personally had some arguments with MVEi and RJ CG, but we were able to compromize. ArbCom should consider more carefully opinions of neutral people who are familiar with the conflict, such as Colchicum.Biophys 15:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dojarca

Dojarca (talk · contribs) repeated the same personal attacks and false claims in XfD nominations for the fourth time [48] (1st, 2nd, 3rd), despite being repeatedly asked to tone down the incivilities during the last month. Is it ok? Colchicum 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Which claims are false?--Dojarca 03:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks or false claims that I'm aware of in the diffs you provide. Besides, two article among those were deleted or redirected which proves that the nomination made was right and that admins listened to it, despite heavy meatpupetting. OTOH, I think your attitude towards Dojarca could be at least a bit more civil... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interesting opinion. Colchicum 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides, two article among those were deleted or redirected which proves that the nomination made was right -- Flawed reasoning. We all will eventually die. Does it mean that it is ok to kill us? Colchicum 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You could have least been honest enough to say "...meatpuppeting on both sides" (although "our" side has done no meatpuppeting that I am aware of. Seems I was excluded.). However, you failed to answer how identity or ethnicity of article creator is relevant in any way in AfD - doubly so when a great number of people have edited the article afterwards. As for civility, then I do believe you should address Dojarca on that - see his friendly note - and as for the lies, then there are plenty in diffs, do look at evidence. -- Sander Säde 08:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that you guys failed to follow the diffs, but if it makes you happy, here are some of the personal attacks, false claims and bad faith asumptions:

  • created by a long-term vandal User:Digwuren (see blocklog: [1]),
  • created by a number of closely associated accounts, representing extreme nationalist point of view.
  • inherently POV template created by a POV pusher and long-term vandal Digwuren]] (see block log[1])
  • created by Estonian user Digwuren with long history of disruption (see blocklog: [1])
  • This article is a part of his campaign of creation numerous POV-forks
  • Note that the topic is havily occupied by a number of related accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX).
  • Please note that the topic is havily occupied by the related accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX).
  • who also created (and attemptred to re-create under other names) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet Occupation -- Closing admin certified that it wasn't a re-creation.
  • who also created (and attempted to re-create under other names) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation - the same

Warned many times, no apologies followed. Instead, we have this move-warring on the template that hasn't been deleted: [49]. Do we need more? Colchicum 12:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, try to be honest, at least at the arbitration pages. Telling half-truths does not put your testimony in good light. "Created by a long-term vandal Digwuren" was corrected by Dojarca himself. [50] [51] As for the rest, there is nothing incivil there. These are opinionated comments but made in good faith and with a good degree of justification based on the conduct of the involved users. --Irpen 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Invoking nationality in four cases is good faith?! Invoking declined checkuser case three times is good faith? Using the identity of creator in four cases is good faith? From user, who said "I see this namination as probable personal attack on Petri Korn by some of his foes". No, I have no good faith towards Dojarca any longer. Not until he stops his lies, ethnic attacks and attempts to censor Wikipedia - and apologizes profoundly.
Yes, I know you discussed AfD's with Dojarca - and quite frankly, I would have expected more from you, Irpen.
-- Sander Säde 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, Irpen, these comments absolutely cannot be justified (even more so as content deletions depend on them), and if we are judged for our words here (which, I believe, is a wrong approach, but real), then we are. Dojarca hasn't corrected himself, or why else do we have the fourth XfD with the same wording filed by him and no apologies? If there are rules, nobody, not even Dojarca, should be exempt from them. Yet Dojarca, unlike many others here, seems to feel more and more exempt from this arbitration. What do you mean by the half-truths? These are diffs, I cannot modify them. Colchicum 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Colchicum, dont you agree that Digwuren has a long history of disruption?--Dojarca 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is up to the ArbCom to decide. What is for sure is that regardless of whether he is disruptive or not (matter of taste so far), such XfD nominations are uncivil and inappropriate, and you were told of this many times. You are not entitled to be uncivil with anybody. XfD is not an appropriate place for reports of vandalism, disruption, POV-pushing or any other name-calling. It is striking that you are still so reluctant to acknowledge this. It is never too late to apologize, though.Colchicum 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying, Colchicum, is that you brought up diffs where Dojarca calls Digwuren "a long term vandal" omitting the fact that he soon changed the wording himself completely on his own: [52] [53]. As for the rest, I don't fully agree with his assessment but note that just not fully agree and correctness of the assessment aside, these strong comments are within the framework of the discussion. AGF does not apply to the context when there is a strong evidence to the contrary and his entries you invoke above are, although opinionated, but no uncivil. But most importantly, you pointing towards Dojarca's calling Digwuren a vandal and omitting that he himself amended that statement is a half-truth. That was my main comment. --Irpen 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what discussion you are talking about. Do we normally discuss contributors in AfD nominations? I am sorry, I don't follow Dojarca's edits closely, but even now I don't see much difference between a POV pusher and long-term vandal Digwuren and a user with the long history of disruption Digwuren. Moreover, apologies to Digwuren would be in order rather than such "amendments" and further name-calling. Colchicum 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Inflammatory wording aside, what strikes me most is that it is now repeated for the fourth time. Colchicum 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it is because we need to inform those who vote on deletion that the article is a part of a disrupting campaign of forking and POV-pushing. Hiding these facts would be inappropriate.--Dojarca 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, XfD's are not votings. And I think the users will see that the deletion is a campaign of censorship and POV-pushing when you sign your post. -- Sander Säde 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)