Statement by Durova

As the Committee is already aware, I attempted to mediate the dispute between Piotrus and Ghirla a few months ago. Piotrus remained willing to pursue that process but Ghirla declined. I proposed Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation afterward, partly as a non-arbitrated alternative to some of the longstanding Eastern European editorial conflicts. Piotrus has been amenable to that option but on no occasion did his opponents agree to it. I write this without comment on the actual merits of the case. Yet it is my considered opinion that lack of resolution on this issue has hindered Wikipedia's smooth functioning in a number of ways, not the least of which was its connection to the immediate events that brought down Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. I consider the loss of that undermanned noticeboard to be a considerable detriment to Wikipedia. As a group, the involved parties in this proposed case have consumed substantial volunteer resources in fruitless endeavors and it is my opinion that they have sometimes pursued unhealthy structural changes to Wikipedia in pursuit of narrow goals. I request that the Committee accept this case to examine all sides. Durova ^Charge! 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Per Morven's comments, I suggest renaming this proposed case to Eastern European disputes. Durova ^Charge! 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Darwinek

A short comment. It seems to me M.K. arguments don't hold water per Piotrus analysis, but M.K's behaviour indeed violates WP:HARASS in my opinion and he should be warned to stop it. I constantly witness M.K.'s behaviour and can say he has got a personal problem with Piotrus (which is not Piotrus fault) and therefore this "case" shouldn't be accepted by ArbCom. - Darwinek 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Appleseed

Just about everyone listed as an involved party is part of a relatively small but dedicated group interested in articles about Central and Eastern Europe. However, it is not the entire group, and it is skewed heavily toward Piotrus' detractors, few but vocal. This skew is the first red flag of what I believe to be a bad-faith RFAr by M.K.

The accusations presented here are not new: M.K's vague accusations of "violating policy"; Dr. Dan's calls to desysop; Irpen's accusations of "tendentious editing" and his claims that Piotrus drove away Ghirlandajo, etc. Most were previously presented in Piotrus' RFC, and in the end the community decided overwhelmingly in Piotrus' favor.

As Irpen points out, there are indeed difficulties among this group of editors, but for the most part they are content disputes. It is my belief that with enough editors, POVs cancel out, and Piotrus' opponents are trying to do an end-run around this (sometimes difficult) process. Since Piotrus is familiar with WP policy, and his opponents are unable to win content disputes on a technicality, it appears they have resorted to dragging a prolific and respected editor through RF*s.

Please note that in addition to filing this RFAr, M.K also cosponsored Piotrus' RFC, and is inexplicably using it against him despite a favorable outcome for Piotrus. M.K also authored Halibutt's RFC. It is my understanding that M.K's harassment of Halibutt in that RFC and elsewhere led to Halibutt severely cutting back his involvment with the project; prior to this, he had been a very prolific editor. Repeating that achievement appears to be M.K's motivation in this RFAr.

The Piotrus-Ghirlandajo conflict was previously scrutinized in this RFAr. Later on Durova offered to mediate, but Ghirlandajo left just when a compromise (which involved cility parole) was about to be reached. I am not sure why Irpen thinks Piotrus caused this. Ghirlandajo, who was the other sponsor of Piotrus' RFC, has since been making some under-the-radar edits while avoiding this outstanding issue. Ghirlandajo's RFC can be found here. So here we have another issue that's already been addressed.

To summarize, I think that M.K.'s accusations are a rehash of accusations that were previously addressed in several venues. It has been initiated by an editor who resolves content disputes by dragging his opponents through RF* pages. It would be unfair to put Piotrus and everyone else through this again. Appleseed ( Talk) 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Chris Croy

I have no connection to this case or any of its participants. After reading all of the above and looking over M.K.'s diffs, I have no clue what's going on. For example, M.K says Piotrus abused his administrative powers by...unblocking a user who was blocked for 24 hours. I'd like for someone who knows the situation better to create a chart detailing the POV everyone is supposed to be pushing, e.g. Piotrus favors a Canadian point of view while M.K. favors a South Western Sahara point of view. The chart should include examples of specific disputed facts, e.g. Piotrus believes the First Canadian Spork Division was right to invade the Southwestern Sahara to stop the on-going genocide of the Lilliputans by the Yahoos while M.K. believes it was all about the South Western Sahara's camels and furthermore the use of sporks in mortal combat was a crime against humanity. Would someone please do that?

Statement by Poeticbent

Sifting through the list of grievances by User:M.K I have a nagging feeling of dejavou and wonder how much of what is being said here was inspired by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla. Yet another editor is counting “South Western Sahara's camels” (see statement by User:Chris Croy) and protesting against the misrepresentation of their possibly inflated numbers which has been revealed by the “Canadian Yahoos” promoting the actions of “First Canadian Spork Division” in the region.

But seriously, as Peter Cheremushkin of Moscow State University wrote: “the twentieth century provides a striking example of the difficulties involved in the process of potential reconciliation [between Eastern-European nations - Poeticbent]. The Poles have historically viewed Russia as a foe, and for their part the Russians regarded Poland as a kind of appendage to their country. In one way or another this was true both for the Soviet period of history and for the post-Communist world. The burden of the past has continued to hamper the creation of new relations."⁽¹⁾

Meanwhile, according to David A. Crocker⁽²⁾: "If reconciliation is understood as the transformation of a relationship, then reconciliation systems can be visualized along a continuum, ranging from “thinner” to “thicker”. At one end is the so-called “thin” version of reconciliation in which former enemies can peacefully coexist and are willing to listen to each other. At the other end is a “thicker” version, which implies the achievement of a harmonious relationship."

"This process begins with the acknowledgement by opinion-makers (journalists, historians, intellectuals, or in this case, Wikipedians), who can speak openly of the wrongs wrought by their nation on another nation."⁽¹⁾

________________________
1. Peter Cheremushkin, “Russian-Polish Relations: A Long Way From Stereotypes to Reconciliation”, Moscow State University (pdf file)
2. David A. Crocker, “Reckoning with the Past Wrongs: A Normative Framework,” Ethics and International Affairs, 13 (1999): 60

-- Poeticbent  talk  17:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Evrik

It seems to me M.K. arguments don't hold water per Piotrus analysis, and may be harassment. Personal feelings on M.K.'s part have almost nothing to do with Piotrus' actions (which is not Piotrus fault). Having followed the RfA between Piotrus-Ghirla I think that this is just a continuation of harassment of Piotrus. This "case" shouldn't be accepted by ArbCom. I would like to see Piotrus cleared of the allegations of bad behavior simply to clear his name.-- evrik ^{( talk)} 18:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Beaumont

I do not agree with Irpen who seems to imply that a respectable editor is to be considered with a greater attention to not to 'hurt' him. I do not see why - otherwise great - contributions by Piotrus have anything to do with judging his conduct and why it may narrow possible solutions. If Piotrus deserves a warning, desysoping, a ban or whatever for a reason, let's apply this regardless editcount or FAcount. Please remember that one prolific but problematic editor can make a problem for many other 'simple' contributors. And why shall we not respect the many 'little' ones?

That said, I agree that WP:HARASS and curious bad faith assumption is to be considered on M.K.'s side. Conversely, what he provides against Piotrus, does not look seriously. His interpretations of diffs are sometimes offending reader's abilities to analyze. This is why I hesitate a bit. If it was Piotrus who initiated the case, I'd probably recommend opening the case. I believe that a sincere examination of mutual conduct could be beneficial. But long standing problem is not easy to solve in 5 minutes and it could also be a waste of time. Further, I have impression that more than 50% of M.K.'s accusations are just content disputes, see e.g. what M.K. qualifies as "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". So initiating this case can be viewed as an attempt to eliminate/disturb the "enemy" (initiating a pointless case on this page, does it cost anything?). It makes me recommend rejection of the "mutual examination" up to the time when Piotrus initiates a case too. If this happens one can consider that both of them see no way but to proceed by ArbCom. Now, I did not see any real attempt, as e.g. direct discussion or mediation, to solve the problem before coming here (just content disputes). Perhaps it would be better to dismiss the case and not to waste the time that some productive editors normally devote to content creation.

Statement by Fabartus

I have tangled with Piotr on several occasions in the past (outside the 'European Theatre', save for a fictional series!) on categories, content, references and such, and I while I have at times felt he was a bit too sure of himself, and perhaps a bit brusk now and again (I got the definite sense, if you will, overbusy and rushed), I have yet to have had anything like 'a bad experience' in dealing with him. He won a few. I won a few. We compromised on a few more. NBD. I've had the same experience with many another admin or quality editor.

In each case, he was but polite, responsive, civil, and willing to discuss the merits of the matter, and even a good loser when my arguments swayed him, or a vote in CFD gave a consensus against his desires. Peering through the above links (and from what I recollect of the RFC), I see no reason to involve the members of the ArbCom in what seems to be mostly a clash of personalities leavened with sociological differences in natal training and the memes of different societies, and perhaps a healthy dose of differences in cognative capability and training.

Were the hearing to go forward, might I suggest the committee to just limit the matter (outside of egregious repeated behaviors) by perhaps
A) just ordering all the parties concerned to take a topical break and edit in other parts of the world for 3-6 months,
   concurrent with
B) A blatant request on WP:AN and the VP that some (say six plus) admins or experienced editors volunteer to watch over or involve themselves in the articles during the enforced interregnum.

These kinds of squabbles are going to occur in a world with as diverse in backgrounds as ours is, and historical and cultural biases are not something that can be easily recognized without occasional sparks and in a few cases, alas, flames. I don't see these articles as the disaster some are portraying. A few months enforced break to reflect on such without participation there while providing some much needed expansion, referencing, or copy editing elsewhere, may well be the proof some of these folks need to realize we are all replaceable, and that getting frustrated in any article is a sure sign it's something to leave behind for a while or forever whilst others carry the ball. I just don't see enough smoke to credit bad faith, but certainly see enough grounds to suspect those without the wisdom to not get too involved, have in fact, done exactly that and need to withdraw fort a while and gather perspective. // Fra nkB 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Balcer

As pointed out by others, the accusations made by M.K. do not hold much water. Nevertheless, his action here and the statements by other editors are an excellent illustration of the poisonous and unhealthy relations which have developed over the past two years among some of the most active editors working in the area of Polish-German-Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Russian history. This in turn has led to many excellent editors abandoning work in this area, or at least greatly reducing it (I myself fall in that category), to the detriment of Wikipedia.

From my point of view, the explanation for this state of affairs is relatively simple. This particular subsection of history is relatively obscure and little known, hence the only people writing about it will be Wikipedians from the respective countries. It is also a part of history filled with many controversies and contradictory interpretations of events. In a nutshell, these controversies mostly arise from each country attempting to present (consciously or subconsciously) its own role in history in the best possible light, while at the same time darkening the role of its neighbours. This bias is natural and a number of contributors here have acknowledged it at one time or another. However, its existence makes it altogether too easy to assume that the other editors are acting in bad faith. Once such an assumption is made, things can only go downhill, as the easiest response seems to be declaring war on the "nationalist POV pusher" (or whatever), tracking their every move, and jumping on him any time he makes another "biased" edit. It is also quite common to bundle all the editors from one country into a single group of "POV pushers working in concert", and hence turn discussions over controversial articles into long and drawn out "Polish-Lithuanian", "Polish-German" etc. mini-wars.

What is sorely lacking is involvement by neutral outsiders, ideally people not from any of the affected countries, (but simply people not involved in the ongoing disputes would work almost as well) who would look at the situation impartially and act as honest brokers, so to speak. In this way the cycle of bad faith accusations and assumptions could be broken. In this way, an intervention by ArbCom might be beneficial here, to look at the general picture and suggest possible remedies. Let me say also that it is well worth to invest time and resources of ArbCom in solving this problem, since Wikipedia offers an ideal venue to produce a balanced version of the history of that part of Europe, incorporating the view points of all sides in a neutral way, something which is sorely needed. Sadly, with the current conflicts, that potential is not being realized. Balcer 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by David Gerard

The ArbCom may care to look at this writing by Irpen, showing his startling bad faith in this case. He's been gunning for Piotrus for some time - his edit pattern needs thorough review - David Gerard 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Pmanderson

Wikipedia has Polish, Russian, Lithuanian....nationalists. (The dots include almost all other nations.) It would be much better off with fewer of them. That being said, I would not start with Piotrus, although he is certainly a professional Pole; there are many more obnoxious, and less amenable to compromise, on all sides here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Leo1410

Most of the involved parties probably won't know who I am as I have followed these disputes for a long time but added to the discussion only a few times at Talk:Jogaila. I think the statements by Balcer and Irpen are right on the money. This is a content dispute. I am actually impressed by the level of civility the editors usually maintain given the intensity of the content conflicts. As far as incivility goes, Piotrus is guilty of much of what he has been accused of, but so are pretty much all of the other editors. The biggest problem is assumption of bad faith. Picking through Piotrus' edits or M.K.'s edits will probably only make the incivility worse. The thing that could help the incivility issues the most is if the Eastern European editors would all get together and put the naming (Lviv, Vilnius, Jogaila, etc.) issues to rest once and for all and agree to notify the other camp before creating articles with names like Operation Wilno. That would probably fix about 90% of it. As a native-English speaker with loyalties to both the Polish and Lithuanian narratives of history, I am fascinated by this dispute. The editors in these areas are so skilled and prolific that I haven't had really anything to add, but as I have seen at Talk:Jogaila and other places, there are neutral third-parties out there with some knowledge of these histories who would help in this process. Leo1410 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Yury Tarasievich

Don't make a mistake, this dispute is not about a content, it's about a conduct.

I'm editor from Belarus, involved chiefly in Belarus-related subjects. I'd been in content dispute with both user:M.K and user:Piotrus before. What M.K. tells us here fills the pattern, as much as I was able to learn about both editors.

To M.K's credit, this editor talks and listens, when confronted with information which goes sort of "against editor's beliefs" or "against the national interests" (cf. relatively painlessly solved issue of the language of Lithuanian Metrica in mid. 2006).

In same sort of situations, no such luck with Piotrus. What's worse, Piotrus assumes the right to personally judge and interpret sources, which is of course outright WP:OR.

Taking as example the fairly recent quarrel over the Polonization article, the sources voicing things unpleasant, are dismissed on-the-spot, e.g., on basis of their authors' nationality or their authors' perceived (Lithuanian, Russian, Belarusian, etc.) nationalism. Requests to provide academic material as a basis for contention are ignored.

The specialized academic monography directly relating to the subject, but voicing things unpleasant, would be subjected to the microscopic examination before being found "acceptable". Even then, the personal un-sourced interpretation is added (google search isn't the source).

On the other hand, the page from the "Google Books", coming from the over-generalised review included in the book on the rather unrelated subject, is used up to 5—7 times per section, supporting quite a different types of statements. Requests to justify such rather un-professional use are ignored.

All this is wrapped in any number of "WP:this" and "WP:that".

So, on the whole, enormous volume of effort should be spent by editor to achieve even an elementary change of text.

Easy to see how such behaviour could be ascribed to the quite economic tactics of "delaying and destroying" of the "hostile" information.

Easy to see how such behaviour makes it so much harder for other editors to cooperate in the making of the encyclopedic texts on touchy subjects — and most of the Eastern Europe subjects are touchy.

People finding the "skew against Piotrus" suspicious, should ask themselves — perhaps, the skew is there for a reason, after all?

However, just like other people pointed out here, I don't yet see how such matter could possibly be resolved. Yury Tarasievich 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Zscout370

Along with Yury, I write on Belarusian topics, but from the many years I have dealt with Piotrus, I have never see him act in this behavior towards myself or others on pages where I write on Belarusian topics. In fact, he is my balance to the text that I write, so he has been a good asset for Wikipedia for many years. Yes, editing Eastern European topics is a harsh area, due to the conflicting parties and nations that arise, but I believe Poitrus has done everything he can to be above this mess and is one of the best users we have on Wikipedia. His loss would be our loss. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by LUCPOL

I would like to say something. User:MK accused me recently, that I am sock (meat?) puppet from Piotrus, though I have different style of statement. I have weak acquaintance English (so sometimes I ask Piotrus for translation help but not here to show proof) and own together over 24,000 edition on several projects (mainly on pl.wikipedia). Accusations from User:MK (and his colleagues) is groundless. In en.wikipedia mainly I deal with the edition of articles of Silesia, Poland and Europe, so when I notice some POV (or anty-polish POV) I restore version NPOV. Piotrus is from Silesia and knows area and helps me sometimes. Sometimes I look Polish noticeboard discussions or edits from my collegues such as Piotrus and if I agree I help with edits and reverts bad POV/vandalism/itp. Coming back to subject: how I look at these ArbComm is I see battle about User:Piotrus who is always helpful to me and others I seen but several persons' try to unlocking gate to slander editor they not like and get free hand to introducing anty-polish POV. I think ArbCom should to look on Piotrus enemies' editions very carefully and hope stop them. Finally repeating: if I understand conflicts I see I help - that's ok on Wikipedia right? Called collaboration I think... LUCPOL 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by William M. Connolley

One of the (minor?) issues in this case appears to be a 3RR block of P about a yeaar ago. As the blocker, I thought I'd mention that a 3h block from a year ago appears to me a rather minor matter and shouldn't be help against P now William M. Connolley 08:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Hillock65

I was quite unaware of this arbitration, as I no longer contribute to this encyclopedia, but I happen to know several editors in this arbitration from the time I was writing here. Having read previous comments, I have to agree that most of these accusations are coming from people, who have an ax to grind with Piotrus. Yes, indeed, the atmosphere surrounding Eastern-European topics is intolerable and mainly because people push their nationalist agenda and their view of history over balanced and neutral point of view. Because of users like Ghirlandajo and user Irpen, who unquestionably supports his disruptive behaviour I, among several others, had to abandon this encyclopedia and to retreat to Ukrainian page, where I have been more productive. I do write occasional articles here on Ukrainian history and have received constant constructive support from Piotrus. I can give an example of Bohdan Khmelnytsky article, where we have successfully worked together. If such cooperation with other editors was possible on other topics, it would benefit this community greatly. Granted that I don't contribute here as much as other users, I have not witnessed too many revert wars with Piotrus' participation and have not come across anything that I found objectionable. In fact, I found Piotrus' presence in this encyclopedia a calming counterbalance to Russian nationalist agenda that some have been pushing. Allowing such, seemingly coordinated, attacks on Piotrus will lead to quality of this encyclopedia deteriorate even further. -- Hillock65 13:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Tulkolahten

I would like to comment Piotrus's fault, but I can't see any, all his behavior falls into the normal behavior of common user. In my opinion this case would not be accepted by ArbCom at all. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ^≈talk≈ 21:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by Biophys

Based on my limited experience, it is Piotrus who should be filing an arbitration case against other users. Let's take a look, for example, at his recent article Przyszowice massacre. This is a minor episode of WW II. Piotrus and others created an excellent article, well-sourced and with illustration. So, they must be proud of their work. Suddenly, certain users appear and wrongly claim that this is "blatant original research" and begin a completely unjustified discussion that takes enormous amount of Piotrus time. I think that has nothing to do with productive work. Please see Talk:Przyszowice_massacre. Same thing with Institute of National Remembrance. I simply selected two most recent examples. Biophys 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Statement by DGG

I became involved in responding to an RfC on Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija

When I arrived the question was whether Kazimieras Garšva was notable, given that there was no solid information about his biography, and that his writings were partisan rather than scientific. It was fairly easy to establish that his academic credentials were sound, and that he was notable as a linguist. Piotrus was originally opposed to this position, but accepted the finding. The remaining problems were to find objective sources for the political views of the party, Vilnija, and the man , KG. Needless to say, there are no RSs--every possible source is strongly aligned with a political position and the COI is pervasive. Piotrus showed good will in attempting to find sources, and explain them, in what I consider a reasonably objective way, while the others made no effort to do so. Eventually a compromise wording was achieved, and it has been more or less maintained since I left. My view in political controversy in general is that the parties should be allowed to speak for themselves in quoted statements, and that the role of WP was limited to finding and arranging representative statements. I found Piotrus amenable to this approach, accepting the position that it was worth a certain degree of compromise in order to have a tolerable article. I cannot find anything really blamable about his edits or his statements at the time. He was an admin and I was not, but i never saw him attempting to use his powers to affect the editing.

My own approach, of making two replies and then continuing on another day, does not commend itself to anyone working on these topics. Piotrus could at times have eased things more by disengaging, but he rarely made things worse and did not act provocatively. If he was seen so, it may be because he might be a more highly skilled debater than some of the others. If any one is to be sanctioned in particular, it is not him. On the whole, he's a positive influence. DGG 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Below is the discussion moved from the talk of the RfArb main page as the entries were made when the the case's acceptance was still being considered. -- Irpen 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Piotrus RfArb: On David Gerard's statement and more...

• I certainly don't feel like being even an uninvolved party, but David Gerrard's sudden appearance is queersome and troublesome, both. Declaring a conclusion "he has had it in for Piotrus for some time" and then a link and then a winking "his (Irpen's) editing PATTERN needs examination" is pretty slimy. It's also unwarranted. It's also prejudicial, and designed that way. It's also allocating to himself the Voice of Reason. That's rather a lot of dirty pool to be shooting for one frame.
• Piotrus made his bones, as it were, as the voice of moderation in the various Polish nationalist disputes. He was invaluable there. The allegation is that he is now either nationalist or is tendentious about matters touching Polish nationalism. Only those with expert knowledge of Russo-Polish history can assess any "truth" behind these edits, and therefore all we as outsiders can do is assess behavior. The truth or falsity of this or that "Did you know" article is beyond those of us outside of the region (and possibly those within the region). The "right version" is elusive. Therefore, the only thing we can assess is whether this person plays well with others, where "others" means people with antithetical views (as there seem to be no middle ground views out there). My own sad conclusion is that he has been more and more intolerant of them, when he began and established himself as the primary mediator. This may be a consequence of time (getting worn out) or of subject matter (the early disputes were radically easy to figure, and these are subtle and more affecting). I don't know. However, in the pursuit of the right version, we must never cross the line into disruptive actions. Geogre 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The comment indeed troublesome, but we also have and other example, then contributor,as it looks, just copy paste prepared comment pattern, with small corrections [1]. And that is very sad that case is opened while ago, but sadly only 2 ArbCom members casted their voice. If the case will be ignored we will see continues problems in this field. M.K. 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MK, no matter how troublesome, that statement should have been expected. I am fine with it and welcome the requested scrutiny. As for commenting on other aspects,, I tried first here but than thought better than arguing the obvious and violating the ArbCom page format at the same time. I gave my view in a greater detail at the editor's talk, to avoid violation of the strict ArbCom format.

As for your last observation, Arbs are probalby not clear themselves on what to do with this mess even if they agree that the mess itself is intolerable. You fatalistic observation that "we will see continuous problems in this field" is probably right. Even if ArbCom takes the case, I don't see how they can help solve this. Piotrus feels strongly that he is doing the right thing all the time. And his opponents probably feel the same. How low each side would go in order to score another "victory" in this series of interconnected content disputes is really an issue of personal ethics rather than the issue of policy compliance. Wikipedia is not a battlefield applies but is too general. If the case ends up rejected, we will remain where we are for the last couple of years. IMO, this will happen regardless as even if ArbCom accepts the case and admonishes Piotrus and other parties it chooses to, something needs to change deeper than that. I just don't see a solution. ArbCom or any other Wikipedia mechanism cannot make unethical people ethical. Everything except of ethics (mainly, double standards), is again simply within the disgareement of the frameworks of national historiographies and Wikipedia, being representative of the field's state of art, should ideally reflect the existence of all these conflicts rather than give prevalence to one side in one article and to the other side in another article. Direct policy violations is not the major reason of this mess which makes ArbCom helpless. Only we can solve these problems and the way we are now, we can't. Perhaps when the ratio of saner users to the insaner ones improves we will start making problems. Withing the current setting, the only possible improvement I see is the reduction of sneakyness. But I just can't see how the ArbCom do it. -- Irpen 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Now I am familiarizing with these your points. Am i correctly understand you, can we presume that the birth for this comment gave IRC, because indeed access was granted [2], as well as I did never saw David Gerard in any related dispute? Regarding ArbCom case, I think that it can be very useful and indeed can help (if I thought differently I wouldn't opened it). And for start ArbCom could help to identified facts, for instance does WP:LIVING applies in other articles which touch living persons or not as particular contributor trying to say [3], does continues removal not violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:POINT [4], or unblocking contributors by particular admin (who are closely related with him and supports him) is a good practice. And so on. And identification of such facts could stop various speculations in the future as well as serve as an example for other cases, and doing so we can built (or at least try to built) tools which could help as out. At least ArbCom members should say why this case or its points not valid rather to ignore it. M.K. 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

For the record, I do not share the pessimism that the ArbCom acceptance of this case in question would not significantly help change the climate that many find to be unacceptable. Everyone should work at doing so, and this time I have a strong feeling that many problems will be resolved for all of us, if the case proceeds. It will happen sooner or later, and when it does, Wikipedia will be better for it. Dr. Dan 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

RFAr Piotrus: a question for David Gerard

Hi, David. I'm trying to figure why you say on the RFAr page that this diff shows Irpen's "startling bad faith in this case". [5] I don't suppose you meant it to be an enigma, so could you elaborate? What's wrong with Irpen's messages? They look quite consistent with his own statement on the RFAr page to me. On the page you link to, Irpen has posted general good advice (revert no more than once, etc) in an urgent tone, and also specific advice about specific risks Irpen thinks the other editor (a newbie? I don't know) faces in a conflict with Piotrus. Those aren't very nice things he says about Piotrus: "Remember that Piotrus will try to reduce the content disputes to civility issues and [will] eagerly try to paint you an abusive user every time he gets the chance." I don't know whether they're true, but they're Irpen's opinion, and what's bad faith about that? It's not like Irpen makes a secret of this opinion, he expresses exactly the same thing in his RFAr statement, posted some ways above yours on the page, so no need to bring those coals to Newcastle. In his statement, Irpen claims—and, I presume, intends to add diffs for it—that Piotrus is "Gaming the civility policy in order to prevail in content disputes (I mean invoking WP:CIV in discussions where civility concerns, while possibly existing are clearly minor)". Well... no, you must have meant something else. But what? Please elaborate, I'm willing to be convinced there is some secret dimension to your link that I'm not getting. But I should say, in the interest of full disclosure, that I know Irpen, and have a bias of faith in his good faith and honor. Please consider what you do before you trash them. Bishonen | talk 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC). reply

• It's not really relevant for this editor's supporters to offer their personal testimonials; what's important is how the editor acts when confronted with issues and editors that he disagrees with.

• Is no one going to comment on User:Fabartus's statement on this page characterizing MK and his supporters as lacking in "cognative capability and training"?

• Categories are often useful, but sometimes humans confound them. My objections to PP's behavior arise in part from my disappointment at having his actions represent Poland to the world, since I am the product of a mixed marriage. We have ongoing relations with my Polish cousins, who are gentlemen and scholars. Could we refrain from simplifying the issues by labelling them as stemming from Lithuanian nationalism?

• User:Chris Croy asked for a spork version of the issues. Here is one source from the University of Illinois that addresses recent Polish-Lithuanian problems briefly: [6]. Even more briefly: some Poles feel that Lithuania's capital city, Vilnius, and its surrounding region, are properly part of Poland.

Novickas 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, in addition to Novickas' 1992 source on Polish-Lithuanian relations, may I suggest some more recent publications: Cas Mudde, Racist Extremism in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge, 2005; Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction Of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus : 1569-1999 ( [7]), Yale University Press, 1999 ( [8]); Dovile Budryte, Taming Nationalism?: Political Community Building in the Post-Soviet Baltic State( [9]), Ashgate Publishing, 2003. All three have a much more up-to-date description on how mostly friendly relations between post-communist Poland and Lithuania are occasionally heated on some controversial issues. To ellaborate on on Novickas' comment above: only a small minority of Poles feel that Vilnius should be a part of Poland (and not a single Polish editor on Wikipedia to my knowledge shares that sentiment); and only a a small part of Lithuanians feel that Poles represent a danger to Lithuania, however those two fringe groups of extremists on both sides are doing their best to poison relations between those two countries in real world, and occasionaly this resurfaces on Wikipedia, too :( --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

In 1992, right after the unexpected fall of the Soviet Union, there was a brief period during which some political scientists were concerned that Central Europe is going to go the way of Yugoslavia and become engulfed in violent ethnic conflict. The 1992 article in the link provided by Novickas reflects the uncertainty of that time. Thankfully, those fears were misplaced. The relations between Poland and Lithuania are excellent, and there is no support whatsoever in Poland for any claims to Vilnius. Balcer 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

A paper published online by Stanford University in 2006 offers a more comprehensive discussion of past and ongoing conflicts between the countries [10], for those who are interested; the first 8 pages cover PL-LT issues. With regard to PL claims to LT: In a paper published by Rice University in 2000 [11], the author states that "dreams of the old commonwealth are very much alive among young Polish academics that I met. During the 1998 Vilnius conference, one Lublin professor went on and on about the stupidity of independence and how Lithuania would be much better off back in union with Poland." Yes, we can be thankful that official relations are cordial. Novickas 00:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Stanford paper is good indeed. As for Rice paper, it should be better understood in the light of word from the editor of this entire interesting issue dedicated to Polish-Lithuanian relations.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

How interesting that Lithuania is today back in union with Poland (the European Union, of course). Anyway, I am sure one can find personal anecdotes supporting just about any viewpoint, but the fact remains that no serious organisation or political party in Poland would even dream of advocating taking back Vilnius. More importantly, none of the Wikipedia editors from Poland that I have encountered advocate such a position. Hence Novickas description of what our disagreements are about is grossly inaccurate. Balcer 13:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The references from reputable sources provided above allow interested parties to gain some larger perspectives on the territorial and cultural conflicts between these two countries. Such conflicts do not disappear within a short time frame. After a reader acquires some background, the controversy arising from P.'s use of Wilno, the Polish version of Vilnius (see Battle of Wilno (1939) and Operation Wilno, can be viewed in a larger context.

• Another prong of the spork. Ugly but must be mentioned - Holocaust involvement. Some of the conflicts here involve the extent to which both ethnic groups, within current Lithuanian territory, participated in various events (see talk pages and history at Ponary massacre and Armia Krajowa). MK has cited conduct issues relating to these conflicts. Novickas 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.

1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?

ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.

I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. -- Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:

1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [12] [13] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.-- Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [14], [15], [16]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. -- Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth. Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.-- Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.

Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [17] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.-- Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

When I started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus most of attention was concentrated on Piotrus disruptive conduct practices. However his allies, like user:Lysy, user:Halibutt, behavior in some extend was even worst, this especially include Halibutt conduct. Currently user:Lokyz listed problems traces its roots year back. Uncontrolled and disruptive manner of Halibutt’s edits resulted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt , there community critically evaluated his misconducts towards ethical slurs directed towards Lithuanians, excessive neglect towards WP:POINT, inability to cooperate, attempts to derail article renaming processes etc. In my view after Halibutt’ RfC nothing changed in his behavior. Let me illustrate with some examples. Exactly the same ethnicity driven commentaries were produced and later. Excessive naming various contributors as trolls [18] even those, with whom he never interacted; the most shameful of those was his so called “leaving message” [19] there he accused editor of criminal act. As you may guess Halibutt never proven that such offenses were made, despite was asked. Now his friend Piotrus trying, by picking selective diffs, to show that Halibutt’s received criticism is for nothing. In other hand Halibutt harassed editors with impressive stubbornness [20]. These are “impressive” offensives as contributor Halibutt declared that he left Wikipedia (current status of his involvement is mystery to me) I am personally disappointed that those insults transited to main space, like [21], [22]. These are few examples of Halibutt’s past conducts. After Piotrus’ arbitration case ended in 2007-08-19 general amnesty was declared. In 2007-08-28 Halibutt started move-revert campaign on Stanisław Narutowicz article. When he was advised by several contributors to use proper procedures regarding article naming, Halibutt accused contributor of vandalism [23] . Later, completely ignoring WP:POINT, WP:OWN, started removing parts of article, portraying it like some sort of game [24]. While is not secret that Halibutt’s improved articles has original research, POV foundations I disagree with Hali butt’s neglect towards WP:OWN. Soon afterwards of main space disruption Halibutt turned his sight on administrators Piotrus talk page. Virtually Piotrus talk page was converted to attack page [25], were he attacked various editors and labeled them “ultras”, “blinded ultras”, “idiots”, “bunch of hammers” “people lacking honour” on the most nasty ways. As we can see in the past there were attempts to solved problems regarding Halibutt’s behavior, but those attempts did not prevented future Halibutt disruption. So I would like to receive suggestions from Arbitress how to deal with such Halibutt’s disruption practices. Particularly then contributor thinks, that disrupting Wikipedia is refreshing. M.K. 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) reply

My comment: I would require to be convinced that User:Halibutt is currently a disruptive editor here. Some of what is posted above is far from relevant to that point. The page move story shows that in the end due process was applied. Perhaps it should have been applied sooner, but simply moving a page cannot be classed as disruptive. Charles Matthews 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Charles Matthews, let me point out directly that I see wrong on those edits. Without consensus article was moved for three times. [26] [27] [28]. In my view breach of WP:CONS. What about rationale under page title move “revert vandal” [29], then there was no vandal. What about removing article parts [30] in my view its is classical example of WP:POINT and breach of WP:OWN. How explain such “suggestion” on other article’s page [31] (such Halibutts behavior, during article’s naming procedure, was discussed earlier [32] as well.), another neglect towards WP:POINT. What about his “comments” regarding contributors, there they named as “rolls”, “idiots” etc. [33]. As my earlier presentation above shows, these are not new or isolated incidents. So how to approach these problems, advice is badly needed and soon. Thank you, M.K. 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply

WP:BURO. But I would advise everyone concerned to drop the combative attitudes right now. There is not unlimited patience with these chronic problems. Charles Matthews 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC) reply