Case Opened on 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Case Closed on 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Case Amended by Motion on 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Alden Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alex Bakharev (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Koretek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
M.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
M0RD00R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Novickas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Piotrus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Poeticbent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Relata_refero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stor stark7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tymek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

User:Deacon of Pndapetzim tried to remove his own statement per concerns of historical accuracy, but got reverted.[1]

When this statement was made, the casename was Piotrus 2

Introduction

Piotrus is not a new topic for ArbCom by any means, and neither is he for me. I hate doing this kind of thing, but there are issues here that cannot be solved by anything except ArbCom intervention. Let me first introduce my involvement. About two years ago I had a few minor run-ins with Piotrus related to Jogaila, but it never really got bad, and since I've pretty much stayed away from eastern European stuff save editing a few uncontroversial medieval history articles. Piotrus and I have had a normal working relationship, agreeing on a lot of principles, and haven't been in much conflict at all. I'm not from eastern Europe and don't have any ethnic-issues that involve me in most of the disputes. Still, I've seen the arbcom cases, all the AN/I threads, ArbCom enforcement threads ... like watching a soap opera. So, although in the periphery of my wikivision, he has nonetheless been in (and out) of it.

Chronic WP:Battle problems

Summary:

Continued edit-warring and battling, in particular edit-warring with and provoking Lithuanian editors
Spamming cut-and-paste provocative new articles
Disingenuous blockshopping and ArbEnforcement, Piotrus' secret diff-stack on pl.wiki
Block for 3rr violation, misrepresentation of "opponents" on IRC, and attempted bullying of blocking admin

Recent meatpuppetry as further illustration

Summary:

Tendentious edit-warring on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018
Probable use of recruited meatpuppets

Sumary of concerns

We can't use WP:AGF as an excuse to ignore wikipedia's problems. There's been thread after thread about this user's behaviour. Behavioral patterns that should be behind us are being sustained and replicated because senior users like Piotrus are ~~guiding newer~~using users such as Alden Jones down this path, ~~teaching them it's acceptable~~ and actually encouraging them for their own ends. His behaviour has proved as thoroughly as any wikipedian's behaviour could ever prove that he is committed to conflict, provocation and partizanship. So this arbcom hearing proposal isn't merely about Eastern European edit-warriors, it's about one of them; one who is a singular problem. Most of his regular "enemies" have no other "enemies" but him, something which strangely tends to be ignored. People are entitled to new chances, to have time to adapt to changing peer expectation. But guidelines like WP:BATTLE are not new, and chances have come enough. Though the wikipedian discourse community is fond of stating without believing that adminship is NBD and involves only access to a few bland "mop privileges", that is in reality far from the truth. His admin status confers on him authority and charisma within his own community, and sets a terrible example to the wider community, while at the same time it gives him the gravitas edit-war and battle subject to higher community tolerance. (I say with deep regret, but) It hence needs, in my opinion, to be removed. ArbCom can't control off-wiki activities, but it is not powerless. Of course, if Arbcom sees a better solution that gets somewhere, that would be even better.

Additional notes

A "new" user Koretek has this afternoon began to spread accusations of "Polonophobia" against me, using diffs taken from summer 2006 (when the aforementioned the run-in with Piotrus took place). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about User:Alden Jones began taking place yesteday on AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_sock_farm_through_multiple_wiki-projects. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Per clerk's request, refactored for readability. Full version here: User:Piotrus/Piotrus 2, headings linked.

1. Creating battlegrounds?

I don't believe my actions create a battleground (I am civil, willing to discuss and reach a consensus, withdraw and even apologize when I am proven wrong). I do however think that there are editors out there who edit in bad faith and strive to create a battleground on purpose (see point 3).

2. Alden, the meatpuppet

Alden is not my meatpuppet (I have asked him not to revert, but to create useful encyclopedic content), but 1) it appears somebody did ask him to do reverts to "help" me and 2) I resent the slanderous accusations of meatpuppetry.

I do talk to many editors online and offline about Wikipedia. I resent the slanderous accusations that our talks are damaging to Wikipedia. Such slanderous accusations, based on 1% evidence and 99% bad faith, are what's really creating the battleground and damaging our project.

3. The truth behind all of this

I am a very active user (in Top 50 most active Wikipedians on en-wiki) and I edit in some controversial topics. I believe my contributions (here's an endorsment by Raul654) prove I understand our policies and goals. I have however made enemies, who resent that I write about certain issues and enforce NPOV and similar policies. This has led to a rise of an identifiable group of users who form one or more tag teams, harassing editors, with successful record of wearing them out and making them stop creating/policing certain content and even leaving the project altogether. Due to my high activity (and thus, visibility) I am a common target for those tag teams, and I believe slandering my name by dragging me through yet another ArbCom - none of the past ones have found me guilty of anything - has a goal of wearing me out to the point I'll finally give up and leave the project.

4. A note on evidence

Simply put, to suggest that one has no right to collect evidence for dispute resolution is ridiculous, and a good example of bad faith and battleground creation.

5. Closing words

A simple solution would be to close this ArbCom by reinforcing power of WP:AE, so admins can deal with troublemakers more easily - currently many of them are in fear of tag teams (see statement by Moreschi). If this ArbCom goes through, I hope ArbCom members will not hesitate to issue bans/content and parole restrictions, as well as to declare other users not guilty (so their name will stop being slandered by past accusations, dropped in past ArbComs but brought up again and again by the tag team members).

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)

Accept to look at all involved editors and investigate if users are winning content disputes through organized strategies. FloNight ♥♥♥ 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The "Alden Jones" issue particularly bothers me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to examine the behavior of everyone involved here. Kirill ^(prof) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to consider all involved. I'm wary of this becoming an opportunity to salt old wounds, but leaving it alone is unlikely to be any better. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Many issues need to be addressed here. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. The matters are serious and I don't think they can be handled through individual administrators deciding to implement existing general sanctions. Fairness demands a full hearing on all sides. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per my colleagues' comments. The Clerks will kindly open this case as soon as possible. Given the contentiousness of prior cases and the underlying issues, I urge all participants to make an especial effort to remain civil on the case pages, to focus clearly on the issues under review, and to present concise evidence on the evidence page as well as pragmatic and useful proposals for findings and remedies on the workshop page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct of editors

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Common sense

4) Not every aspect of Wikipedia activity can be exhaustively prescribed by written policy; experienced editors are expected to have a modicum of common sense and understanding, and to act in a constructive manner even if not explicitly forced to do so.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial disputes and "The Wrong Version"

6) Editors—particularly experienced editors—are expected to recognize the onset of an editorial dispute, and to work towards calming it rather than escalating or prolonging it. In particular, once it is clear that a certain revision or passage is disputed, it is unhelpful to revert it to one's preferred version until the dispute is resolved (with certain narrow exceptions). All editors must be willing to allow the article to remain in "The Wrong Version" while dispute resolution is proceeding.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

7) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. This includes accusations concerning off-wiki conduct, such as participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

9) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct on Arbitration pages

10) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Endemic conflict

1) Numerous past cases (including Digwuren, Piotrus [1], Occupation of Latvia, and AndriyK) have dealt with conflicts arising from various disputes related to Eastern Europe and the editors working on the affected articles—notably including several of the parties to the present case.