Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Requests for arbitration/Anything_but_Piotrus? 2 A new essay 3 Something To Look At 4 The scope of the case and its evidence 5 When will this case be closed? 6 Timeframe

[edit] Requests for arbitration/Anything_but_Piotrus?

It's remarkable that the defense of Piotrus, by himself and his supporters, seems to consist mainly of attacks on others (M.K., Irpen, ...), or other attempts to distract from his conduct by watering down the issue to some general "Eastern European disputes". As the project page intro asks "When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise", which is acknowledged by User:Poeticbent by stating "Out of respect for ArbCom invaluable time", I hope that Poeticbent himself deletes his "Evidence" before arbitrators, who "may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent", have to waste time by removing Poeticbent's inappropriate request to rename Piotrus' case to something else.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the idea was originally my suggestion before the case opened. I consider myself a neutral party here: I've had a good working relationship with some editors on both sides of this dispute. Please assume good faith: I see no attempt to spin the proceedings in the request to rename, nor do I think the Committee would be swayed by such an attempt if it were attempted. Durova^Charge! 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Durova, has skills in these disputes, but I do not see any reason why this case should be renamed. Firstly, I do not have problems lasting for almost a year with Germans, I do not have problems lasting for almost a year with Ukrainians, I do not have problems lasting for almost a year with Russians etc., but I have problems with Piotrus. Secondly, if you look to the Piotrus initial case, as well as in his majority of supporters you wouldn't see any acknowledgment of wrong doing, rather quite rude comments. And third, if I misconducted my behavior can bee investigated in this case as well as others, by the rule (all involved parties are under examination ), so argument that case should be renamed because involves many parties and their behavior should be investigated don't hold much water (this term "don't hold much water" became most popular in the initial case). M.K. 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, although I've steered clear of direct involvement it seems to me that the behavior on all sides deserves examination. And since my username sometimes leads people to mistaken assumptions about me, I'll state that I'm not the least bit Russian; I chose the name because I happen to be a female war veteran and a history buff. If I have any inadvertent bias on these subjects it would favor the German side because I have partial German ancestry and I speak that language. Durova^Charge! 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I did not suggested anything about your name or nationality, could you elaborate? Do you pointing this your remark to me or you just speaking generally? Going back to the rename issue, as I said all parties can be scrutinized here by default, without any renames. M.K. 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova is correct that this matter is not about to be renamed anything else. That being said, let us steer away from the nationality issues, and whether our relations are good now, or have been good in the past with different nationalities. Or our backrounds and linguistic capabilities. Let us focus on the problems at hand, which are what behaviors have been implemented contrary to Wikipedia policy, and to the detriment of the WP project on the whole? Dr. Dan 00:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I don't recall making such a prediction. I'd prefer if it were renamed but have no inside information about whether that will happen. Other than that, I agree with Dr. Dan's priorities: I hope this arbitration addresses the important issues and resolves these longstanding problems. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to ... I see no attempt to spin the proceedings in the request to rename, nor do I think the Committee would be swayed by such an attempt if it were attemped. Maybe it's not a prediction, but your "erm" made me feel that I missunderstood your statement. In any event, we should proceed with this case as it is named and has been accepted. Dr. Dan 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new essay

People sometimes ask my advice because I've been though quite a few arbitration cases. In order to keep a level playing field and save time later on I've written a user space essay User:Durova/Durova's arbitration tips. Caveat emptor: I don't have an inside track on how any of the Committee members actually make decisions. Comments and suggestions are welcome at the essay talk page. Best wishes all, Durova^Charge! 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something To Look At

I would like to ask the Committee members who are not especially familiar with Eastern European matters, and Poland in particular, to take the time to look at this [1] from MetaWiki. It used to be called How to Deal with Poles and was changed to Poles are Evil (now changed back again to How to Deal with Poles). Prokonsul Piotrus, who I will refer to as P.P. in further notes, has been involved in the shaping of this satirical piece. It has undergone an interesting evolution since it was originally written. Although it is satirical, as in most satire there is an underlying message that is being conveyed regarding where many Polish contributors to English Wikipedia are coming from. The Pronkonsul being no exception. I think as this matter proceeds, this mind frame has to be considered and will be shown to be relevant when everything said is put into perspective. Dr. Dan 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, what point are you trying to make besides that you may be prejudiced against Piotrus based on his ethnic origin ? Why do you invoke the ethnic argument ? Where are the "many Polish contributors to English Wikipedia coming from" ? --Lysy^talk 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond, Lysy, as I have had a very busy last two weeks. I have not made any pre-judgements about P.P., either due to his ethnic origin or for any other reasons. All of my "judgements" or opinions regarding him, are as a result of his interaction with me and others on Wikipedia. I didn't create the article How to deal with Poles or Poles are Evil, it is rather a unique Polish contribution that you can find on some Polish contributors' user pages, and is frequently invoked by many Polish editors. Its relevance here is that P.P. (the prokonsul), has shaped it, changed it, and been intricately involved with editing it. So in conclusion, the point that I was trying to make was that some of the Committee members who are unfamiliar with some of the backround of the POV pushing, original research, and violations of policy that P.P. has been accused of, should have an oportunity to familiarize themselves with the general backround or framework that many of these matters came out of. And yes, the "thought processes" where some of these editors are coming from. Why would you have a probem with that? And please, kindly keep your insinuations about some anti-ethnic bias that I might have, off of this arbitration. That strikes me as pure WP:weaseling and is uncalled for. Now that I am less busy, I am going to present my evidence on the project page, instead of jawing on this talk page. Since I can't think of any other ethnic group with something as goofy with the "article" How to deal with Poles, on any other aspect of this project, you might suggest that it be archived into an ashcan in the near future. Best Dr. Dan 19:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The scope of the case and its evidence

What is the scope of this case ? Was it accepted, as the title suggests to investigate the conduct of Piotrus ? Or will it be considering conduct of other editors, too ? If so, which ones ? What kind of evidence is relevant to the case ? --Lysy^talk 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I can't make the decision, as I am just doing the clerking, but I'd say this case was accepted to focus on editing and the accompanying disputes in Central and Eastern European issues. While it is of named after Piotrus, I find it unlikely that the arbitrators intend to look at his behavior alone. So I recommend presenting any and all evidence related to him or the other parties and their conduct with regards to Eastern and Central Europe, and preferably within the last half year. Unless old behavior can be connected to current events, the arbitrators are not going to care for edit-warring that occurred back in July. So present what evidence you feel will help prove your point, and the arbitrators, the other clerks and clerk helpers, or I myself will tell you if it is getting too tangential. Picaroon (Talk) 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When will this case be closed?

I had planned to provide evidence, but have not done so yet, as I have few time for private internet access currently - and when I actually edited, I was distracted by having to repair the damage done by others recently. So, as a start, I'll just mention some pages from memory here without preparing single diffs or giving detailed comments.

Regarding Piotrus, I want to point out that he defended a fellow Polish editor I had reported for 3RR [2]. I am convinced that he should refrain from interfering in such cases, no matter if he is the legendary "leader of the Polish cabal" or not.

The 3RR case was partly about Copernicus, a long time German/Polish dispute, and partly about the use of Cracow or Kraków as the english name is supposed to be. I had some less than pleasant encounters with Piotrus on talk pages regarding this city name. On Talk:Free City of Kraków, he tried to silence me with "Give it a rest, Matthead: WP:NCGN and EOT". In related discussions about 13th century silver coins, like talk:Kraków grosh, Talk:Prague grosh, Talk:Prager Groschen, Talk:Groschen, he claimed that "grosh", which is unsourced Original Research by another Polish editor [3], is the proper English term for a coin. Eventually, he succeed in getting a very english article name, talk:Kraków grosz.

Anyway, I'll download the current project page so that I can read it offline, at least. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a statement based on the remarks above. It is not as refined as others, but it's better than remaining silent.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       04:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The case has not yet entered the phase where the arbitrator's vote, which nearly always lasts more than a week, but usually less than two. And I'd estimate it will be more than a week until an arbitrator initiates the voting. Picaroon (Talk) 20:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeframe

Should I relate myself to the diffs provided as the evidence against me for edits that are more than half a year old ? Will these be considered by the arbcom ? Should I be presenting past evidence as well. How far back ? --Lysy^talk 18:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for missing this question. The ArbCom is only going to be interested in diffs from half a year ago if a connection to present behavior is established. For example, a finding of fact that said "Example has made multiple personal attacks against his opponents, starting a year ago and continuing until now," would be considered a reasonable way of connecting past and present behavior. However, "Example is incivil," showing three diffs, one from August 2006 and the rother two from last month, is not a good past-present connection. I hope that makes sense. Picaroon (Talk) 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)