Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Initiated by Nyttend (talk) at 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

ChildofMidnight arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only. In all cases he is forbidden from discussing the behavior of other editors, real or perceived, outside of his own user talk page. ChildofMidnight may apply to the Committee for exemptions to this restriction for the purposes of good faith dispute resolution on a case-by-case basis. This remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• CoM

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight
• Permit CoM to edit filespace and file talkspace, and permit him to discuss Nyttend at discussion pages other than his own talk page.

Before CoM was banned, we were working rather productively together on issues totally unrelated to the reasons that he was banned, primarily historic architecture in Ohio. If he ever stops socking, reaches the end of his ban, and decides to return and be productive, I'd like to ask that he be allowed to edit filespace and file talkspace, and that he be allowed to discuss me on any discussion page; it would be more convenient if he wanted to discuss edits that I had recently performed or ask that I perform others, and before he was banned, he had uploaded plenty of useful free images of historic Ohio architecture. None of his interactions contained anything for which he was banned/warned/etc., except for the occasional comment about other editors' behavior, and I do not ask for any lifting of his restrictions on discussing other users. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally oppose for the meanwhile, as his last violation of the arbcom remedies was only six weeks ago. I reckon he should wait until around Christmas to appeal. In any case, mentorship lasting three to six months (up until the expiry of the original ban) may be a good idea on top of this. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he's not appealing; I am. Are you suggesting that I'm another sock? Nyttend (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; I assumed this was an appeal posted on behalf of him, as appeals with no input from the banned user on Arb/Amendment are/were rather rare, and they tend not to pass even when they happen. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The last time that I heard anything from him at all was when he was socking in April, and I didn't realise that it was he until quite a while later. I've not heard anything that I knew to be from CoM or done anything on his behalf since the ban was enacted. I made this request because the restrictions will make my work a little less convenient if he ever stops socking and comes to the end of his ban, since his comments on my edits were very helpful. I thought that this proposal would be acceptable simply because the I, as the one making the request, would be the only one directly affected by it, other than him. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saddened to see CoM banned, but I accept it was inevitable. My own interactions with him – when he first started editing – were never anything short of courteous and often productive (despite our diametrically opposed political views), so I know he has the potential to be a useful contributor. I believe Nyttend hopes that CoM could be persuaded to concentrate on his productive abilities, and I understand this request in the spirit of encouraging that and discouraging further socking. I'd ask the Arbs to consider that if CoM were to see that there are editors here who would like to work with him again (and this request is a clear indication of that), then it is possible he may give up whatever pleasure he derives from socking and resolve to wait out his ban. Surely, it is worth offering to relax this particular sanction in the way that Nyttend requests, if only because it sends the right signals to someone whom we believe could be a useful contributor again? --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I'd be willing to offer the Standard Offer, but that requires six months away. Right now, we're at six WEEKS. It's not going to happen, at least now. SirFozzie (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive my inexperience with arbitration and bans and that kind of thing, but how is Wikipedia:Standard offer relevant here? I read that page as something for the banned user, not for other people like me, and as guidance for making a request for removing the ban altogether. Since I'm not asking for the ban to be lifted or shortened or anything like that, and since the behavior I'd like to see permitted was totally unrelated to the behavior that led to the ban, I can't understand why you reference that page. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This may well be a reasonable relaxation of the secondary restrictions, but I don't think there's any need for us to make a decision while ChildofMidnight is still banned (and likely to be for the foreseeable future). Please make this request if or when he actually returns from his ban; we'll be in a better position to evaluate the situation at that point. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for taking everyone's time; I didn't know that permanent elements of bans weren't discussed when the subjects were serving temporary sitebans. If he ever reaches the end of the ban, I'll try to remember to re-propose this relaxation of remedies. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this is probably not the best time to discuss the suggestion Nyttend has raised, but I appreciate Nyttend's thoughts about how, in due course, we might best gain the benefits of this editor's productive aspects while minimizing the problematic ones. Ultimately, however, what will be required (apart from the passage of some time) for ChildofMidnight to become a productive editor will be sincere and successful efforts by him to change the behavior that led to his being banned in the first place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ at 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Koavf arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
2. Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

• Suggestion: Repeal all.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Other user templates:

Koavf (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

Amendment 1

• Initial RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf; details of community sanction: User:Koavf/Community sanction

Statement by Koavf

I am under a community sanction editing restriction with three clauses. I am:

1. Limited to editing with a single account.
2. Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
3. Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had further blocks (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g List of states with limited recognition.) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made many edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my request for rollback re-institution, I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:

1. I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
2. I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. List of United Nations member states, where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
3. This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

This seems to be an appeal of User:Koavf/Community sanction and not of any arbitral sanctions; the sanction imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf has expired. I believe that community sanctions should be appealed, at least in the first instance, in a community forum and not to the Arbitration Committee: WP:GS provides that community sanctions "may be revoked at the same venue by the community when the community believes that they are no longer necessary." Consequently, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee do not act on this request.  Sandstein  20:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Per (the historical) Wikipedia:Community_sanction#Appealing_community_sanctions:

"Community sanctions may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee may accept or decline the request. If they accept, they may reduce or change the sanctions, or may even enlarge upon them."

I will go to AN if you still think that is the best venue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

As stated by Sandstein, the community restrictions are for the community to handle. As for the 2007 case, whether to consider the issue expired due to the later community sanctions or whether to lift it now is up to them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slrubenstein

Why are there no links to th discussion leading to the community ban?

I think the community should handle this. I think ArbCom should agree to har this ONLY if the person can demonstrate a clear abuse of WP procedures (e.g. wheel warring bullying and COI in the community ban case). Unless the person can demonstrate the the original ban was an abuse of power, I do not think ArbCom shouuld override thre community decision. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure by Koavf

Thank you I have moved this to WP:AN per the above input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting community input. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the community can adequately handle the appeal in this case; I don't see any reason why we need to be involved at this time. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Koavf has indicated that his request to lift the sanctions is now pending on the administrators' noticeboard, so I believe this request here can be closed. I agree that an appeal from a community sanction can be taken to this Committee in appropriate circumstances, though as I have noted in the past, we would only be likely to intervene in specific circumstances (e.g., there was serious procedural unfairness in the discussion, the sanction imposed as a result of the discussion appeared grossly disproportionate, the outcome should be affected by material non-public information that we are privy to but the community cannot be, or the like). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Koavf has taken the appeal to the community, so this can likely be closed now. Shell ^babelfish 10:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request to amend prior case: EEML (3)

Initiated by Skäpperöd (talk) at 09:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 9.1) Jacurek (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for six months. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Jacurek

Amendment 1

• Remedy 9.1) is extended indefinitely.

Statement by Skäpperöd

Jacurek has not adhered to their topic ban and instead used multiple socks to circumvent it. Arbcom is aware and should reset and extend the topic ban accordingly, especially as sockpuppetry was employed habitually in the past [1] [2]. Arbcom may consider this fact in their decision of how much of the evidence shall be discussed publicly, and what part if not all should be treated confidential to prevent jacurek from further perfecting their sockpuppets.

This is filed in the context of the request concerning Radeksz below [3]. The EEML case did not resolve the disruption caused by EEML members. Jacurek was recently subject to yet another EE-related sanction independent of their socking. Martintg was recently blocked for avoiding his topic ban [4]. Radeksz was blocked after his topic ban was lifted. Biophys was subject to another arbcom case. Loosmark is subject to an EE topic ban. Etc.

I was subject to heavy attacks by that group in 2009, after a positive SPI initiated by me led to the long-term block of Molobo. I expected the EEML remedies to quiet the attacks from the Piotrus-Radeksz-Molobo-Loosmark-Jacurek-Tymek-Tylman group, yet attacks by Jacurek's socks started against me as soon as their topic ban was enacted, and were followed by Molobo's and Radeksz's attacks during the summer. Others experienced similar probems. A tremendeous amount of volunteer editor/sysop time needed to be invested to deal with disputes and disruption that would not have taken place if the arbcom-enacted topic bans and decorum were consequently adhered to.

Re-occupation of EEML trenches is taking place while most of the group is still sanctioned, and it is obvious where this is leading once further sanctions expire. I have a profound knowledge in the fields I contribute to, and my block log is clean. The same can not be said of the group I have to put up with since 2009. I am annoyed by repeatedly being forced into arguments which are started not for improving the encyclopedia, but for the sake of picking on me, by members of the ever same very small group, all of whom have evidently disrupted the encyclopedia several times and have a respective log of blocks and sanctions. I respect that sysops and arbcom have granted them last chances repeatedly, but now it is time to put an end to that.

Re arbs

(as of 2010-10-12)

I did not engage in any battle, I withdrew and reported here instead, as it is your remedies that need adjustment to ease the situation. I am not on any "side" - in contrast to the EEML, there is no organized counterpart, just several very different editors with very different backgrounds and editing practice experiencing the same trouble with the same small group, which the EEML remedies failed to solve. If you don't want to hear of the trouble, go to the root of the problem, not at the reports about it. Me and others who create valueable content playing by the rules must be given the chance to do so without being subject to harassment by a small group who does not play by the rules, and you are the ultimate body elected to ensure just that. If you impose a topic ban, and it is circumvented by sockpuppets, deal with the socks and the sockpuppeteer and reset/extend the topic ban. If you put editors on parole and they become disruptive again to the point that they are blocked, revise the parole. That is what I would expect.

Statement by User:Novickas

I don't understand why two arbs are speaking of 'tactical nukes' here. Is there some reason why these requests can't be addressed by 'Decline. This issue could be handled at other dispute resolution venues, recommend that it be remanded there'? Novickas (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Comment on Coren's statement, which includes the following sentence: "I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML participants from requesting enforcement against one another." This seems to me, to be in accordance with Piotrus' proposal on the talk page.

My comment to Piotrus' proposal was: "This proposal, to put the direct responsibility in EE cases away from ArbCom to a "body other than the ArbCom" sounds a bit strange. Given the strong presence and activities of EEML members on the English Wikipedia, I have a suspicion, this could easily entail a de facto censorship of EE topics by an EEML related superiority. --Henrig (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)"

In my opinion, completely independant from this case, ArbCom should punish disruptive editors (and be willing to do it) and not their critics! --Henrig (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposal by Coren: I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML [arbitration case ?!] participants from requesting enforcement against one another.
I object to the oversimplifying approach of encompassing each person who once subscribed to that particular list under some mysterious 'former EEML members' umbrella. The EEML cabal is long dead and buried, with users of different nationalities and POVs each having gone their own way. Some have indeed re-aligned along the national lines (I specifically mean the users whom the recent amendment requests concern). But this shouldn't concern others, who have long since departed the way with the core of the ex-list, and I'm not referring to Estonian members at this point here, who weren't the most populous sub-group there.
For example, it may be that I need to file some amendment request in the future, and I don't think my participation in a mailing list more than a year ago should automatically disqualify me from this option. A user not overtly sypathetic towards me noted that the reason I was sanctioned last year remained a puzzle in the first place. No problem, I was busy in real life back then, so the (enforced) wikibreak was actually of benefit for me.
I also find Skäpperöd's suggestion that Piotrus' group is subject to a permanent topic ban from EE articles concerning shared histories, naming disputes, or shared/disputed nationality issues in the current wording at least unacceptable. We ban individual users on the basis of evidence of their disputed behaviour, not based on presumed affiliations. ´´Piotrus's group´´ as I understand it has many valuable users who act in moderation and thus deserve no such ban. It's more than a year since the arbitration case was initiated, and suggesting remedies solely based on the previous misbehaviour that has already been sanctioned would equal flogging a dead horse. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposal by Coren: Skäpperöd's report here demonstrates that EE disputes have become irrationally personal, far removed from the actual content that makes up this encyclopaedia. Unfortunately to some degree ArbCom's broad remedies have incentivised and thus somewhat perpetuated this battleground behaviour. More targeted remedies like 1RR/week restrictions, bans on participating AfD discussions and the like would have been more constructive. Former EEML members are trying to move on, but their self declared opponents appear to be left behind in the battleground head space of 2009.

Coren's suggestion of an interaction ban on EEML participants (which I think he means the wider group of participants in the WP:EEML case) has great merit. Interaction bans like this have worked remarkably well in allowing people to get on with content creation without being stalked by the "opposition" looking for the slightest infraction to block shop with.

Any interaction ban should be imposed on a case by case basis, a broad ban would be unfair to many participants in the WP:EEML case. Looking through AE cases in the past few months it would be quite easy to determine preliminary list of those to be subjected to an indefinite mutual interaction ban with the EEML members, I can think of a couple.

The aim here is to get people to disengage, make people focus and discuss the content in a reasonable fashion, not encourage stalking behaviours that perpetuate the battleground. --Martin (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Coren by Miacek: If you mean the case i.e. all those named as participants/involved parties, one asks why e.g. A. Bakharev should be banned or, say, Hiberniantears who have (like the majority of users whom the case affected) no connexion whatsoever with present disputes other than having been involved once. Perhaps think first and act thereafter? If Arbs can't think of any workable remedies, then don't propose anything at all. In fact, starting to find working methods to cope with daily IP vandalism directed against particular users would be a thing for the whole Wikipedia officialdom to begin with. The idea of handing out some kind of sanctions for bunches of relatively experienced users just because they work in a disputed topics strikes me as completely out of balance. When really monitoring the now notorious EEML area, please begin with treating the users who are clearly disruptive (e.g. sock puppeteering, endless nationalist POV pushing), instead of lumping all EE users together. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused. But for goodness sake, could you please reformulate your request to remove the attacks and general battleground tone? Coming here to present a request against someone else and using such emotional language is not a good sign. Shell ^babelfish 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy decline per Shell. There may be an actual problem here to look at, but before we can do that, the battleground tone, personal attacks, and emotional language needs to be dropped. SirFozzie (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject; as SirFozzie points out, there may well be a real issue underlying but the belligerent tendency for editors on one "side" to hunt fault and report is only poisoning the area even more than it is. I would suggest proposing a motion barring any of the EEML participants from requesting enforcement against one another. These people need to disengage before we have to intervene. And just so that we are very, very clear: a new ArbCom intervention in the topic area would be drastic at the "tactical nuke" level. — Coren ^(talk) 02:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I mean the case and not the mailing list. — Coren ^(talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance

Initiated by Per Honor et Gloria ✍ at 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Motion 1 "PHG's topic ban is renewed" [5]

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Angusmclellan
• Srnec
• Elonka

Amendment 1

• [6]
• Lifting of editorial restrictions

Statement by Per Honor et Gloria

• Continued contributions

Since February 2008, when my editorial restrictions started (on the Mongols and the Indo-Greeks...) I have been contributing as many as 800 new articles on a variety of subjects (see Created articles), through about 20,000 additional edits, for a total of 50,000 edits to date, without major issues. I have received 6 Barnstars and Awards in the meantime (see here). I have also completed about 100 DYKs in the same period (see User talk:Per Honor et Gloria for a sampling).

• Existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance

Since all started in 2007 with a dispute about the way the Franco-Mongol alliance is described in the historical literature, I have reviewed about 70 authors, and found that many authors, probably most, acutally do write about the actual occurence of an alliance, which was based on written epistolary agreements, with military cooperation, lasting years at a time, although authors generally differ about its precise nature and timing. I found however that it is inexact to describe it generally as "only attempts at an alliance". For a precise analysis of the sources wih online references, see Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance.

I believe a balanced presentation of the variety of views on the subject would be best. Clearly, it cannot be said that there was a full-scale, overarching alliance with a major, continuous military commitments. It was much more however than just "failed attempts at an alliance". What occured was something in between, a series of epistolary and diplomatic agreements resulting in a fleeting Franco-Mongol alliance, leading to attempts at large military combinations, but ending with rather small scale, ineffective, military operations. I would have no issue with the usage of qualifiers such as "A fleeting Franco-Mongol alliance", as often used in the literature, and am open to discussions about how to qualify it. Overall, I wish to be cleared of the accusations that I would have made up the existence of an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols: "alliance" is indeed the way it is described by most historians, the question is more the degree and the limited results of this alliance (Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance).

• Mongol occupation of Jerusalem

A major point of contention was also whether the Mongols occupied or not Jerusalem in 1299-1300. It was claimed that this did not happen, that I had made it up, that it was a hoax etc... (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem: I was copiously attacked for describing this event!!). I again researched the sources, and it is clear that this event indeed happened and that the historical concensus confirms it. See sandbox article with online sources for the details: Mongol occupation of Jerusalem. In the meantime, an independent contributor of high standing User:Srnec has also researched the subject, and explained that basically all historians agree that Jerusalem was occupied by the Mongols in 1299-1300, explaining that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem": see Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. To quote Srnec's own words, I am requesting that we stop "inventing a dispute where there isn't one" [7]. For my sake, and for the sake of historical truth on Wikipedia, I wish to be cleared of the accusations that I would have made up the story of the Mongols occupying Jerusalem in 1299-1300.

• Sources

Since it was claimed I misrepresented sources to describe the above subjects, I made a detailed analysis and response to a quite faulty and partial "Report on the use of sources" that was apparently used as a basis for my restrictions: see Response to report on the use of sources. I believe that my usage of sources, although it may not be perfect, is generally correct. It is always my intention at least to be as exact as possible.

Hopefully things are being clarified with time. I am again bringing up this point because I believe it is a disservice to Wikipedia and to history fans in general to hide or dismiss these historical events, and attack those who describe them. I am requesting that my reputation be cleared, and that my normal editorial status be returned. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Questions are being raised regarding my "acknowledgement" of "past behavioural issues". The latest case in date (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG) invoked the two following issues with my editing: "Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations" and "Continued likelihood of POV-pushing".

1) I do not believe documenting Mongol operations in the Levant between 1260-1303 to be "damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations". I may certainly have been over-enthusiastic on the subject as I researched it for Wikipedia (I created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and most of its content...), and may for sure have over-mentioned it in some peripheral articles (for example one or several paragraphs, where a sentence might have been enough). It was always done with good intentions, but I understand it may be viewed as giving too much weight to these events, depending on the context. That's a pitfall I am clearly willing to avoid in future contributions.

2) I do not believe that writing about these events and describing the various views of historians on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance to be "POV-pushing". The variety of views is evident when looking at the sources (Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance). On the contrary, I believe it is very POV to limit the interpretion of these events to simply "attempts at an alliance" as Elonka has been doing. I am only asking that all major views be given their fair share of representation, and that the description of these events be balanced. It is also downright false to claim that the Mongols did not occupy Jerusalem (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem) when the vast majority of historians declare that they did (Mongol occupation of Jerusalem). I believe it is our responsibility to make sure historical facts are properly represented on Wikipedia. I am willing to do so in collaboration with others, as I gladly do in my other contributions on Wikipedia. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 14:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Elonka: Looking up on Google for references to the "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" might not be the best solution... Scholarly references can rather be found on Google Books. See Mongol+occupation+of+Jerusalem or Mongol+Jerusalem+1299: it is indeed a subject of scholarly inquiry, certainly not a "non-topic" as you claim. For more references see Occupation of Jerusalem in 1299-1300. May I remind that User:Srnec has also researched the subject extensively and disputed your version of the events, as he determined that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem": see Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. Noted historian, and specialist of the matter, Reuven Amitai concludes the subject in 2007: "The Mongol forces rode as far as Gaza, looting and killing as they went, and they entered several towns, including Jerusalem" [8]. "Finally, it is quite clear that the Mongols did enter, and terrorize, Jerusalem" [9]. Let's just be truthful to what historians say, please. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I asked Arbitrator Coren for clarification about what he meant "the problem is" that I would be "unwilling or unable to understand"[10], as it was indeed quite unclear and cryptic to me [11]? He answered that the problem was that I "fail to accept consensus", and that on Wikipedia editorial consensus has to be followed, "even if you are correct" [12]. Well, thank you, this is much clearer. But I must say I am OK to follow the rule of editorial consensus, even if it is not always a garantee of "truth". But if I remember well, "consensus is not immutable": it is also perfectly accepted on Wikipedia that Consensus can change. This means, I think, that I can, from time to time, bring new evidence to the subject to check if the consensus is still the same or not. Regarding the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem etc..., the situation is much clearer and much more documented than it was 3 years ago, and I think it would be worthwhile to consider the matter anew between editors interested by the subject. If it can help, I can formally promiss I will follow editorial consensus. If I don't, it would be easy to restrict my editing again. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

PHG - you are addressing issues of historical research and completely bypassing findings regarding your behavior, which is what actually led to the topic ban being renewed six months ago.

What do you believe is different regarding your behavior and attitude compared to six months ago? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shell Kinney

This seems to be the perennial request and looks no different than the last time it is declined. Rather than provide evidence that he recognized the problems and has moved on, PHG once again tries to justify his behavior because he's "right". Same silly content claims aside, he doesn't seem to understand that it's not about content, it's about behavior. Sadly, until he's able to understand the issue, I won't be able to support lifting the restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHG's responses were somewhat as expected; no understanding of the actual problems here and minimalization of serious issues as "overzealousness". Elonka makes a good point, rather than have to reinstate the restrictions when they run out again shortly, perhaps they should be made indefinite so that we don't have to keep revisiting the same dispute and they can of course be lifted if PHG demonstrates an understanding of the problems. Shell ^babelfish 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Groomtech: It's important to read the case and to understand the context here; the major problem is the "sources" PHG provides don't support his conclusion and he has repeatedly misrepresented those sources even to the point of claiming the exact opposite of what a source really says. Despite many editors pointing out these problems, to date he continues to misrepresent those same sources and mislead other editors, like yourself, who are unfamiliar with the source material. This is the failure to respect consensus that everyone is referring to; it's not about the article content, it's about that exact list of sources and the way he understands them. Shell ^babelfish 08:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elonka

I have seen nothing from Per Honor et Gloria (talk · contribs) (PHG) to indicate that he understands the reason for his topic ban. Indeed, he appears to be continuing to collect grossly biased information in his userspace (See his sandbox article "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem" which cherrypicks a few footnotes here and there to rewrite history that in no way adapts to mainstream historical consensus). So it is obvious that if his ban were to be lifted, he would immediately resume his previous practice of creating biased WP:COATRACK articles pushing his pet POVs in the Mongol topic area. I strongly encourage the Arbitration Committee to not only deny PHG's request for amendment, but even to extend the ban indefinitely. Right now his ban is set to simply expire at the end of one year's time, meaning in March 2011. Considering that the problems with PHG's editing have been continuing since 2007 (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance), I do not believe that it is reasonable to assume that by March of next year, PHG's editing will have magically improved. Better, I think, would be for ArbCom to authorize an indefinite ban, that can only be lifted once PHG demonstrates that he understands the community's prior concerns and is willing to modify his behavior in the future. Ideally this could be done in concert with a mentor, though I am unclear if PHG even still has a mentor (his last one was User:Angusmclellan). At the very least though, I would say that a request to have PHG's ban lifted should come from some other editor than PHG himself. --Elonka 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning PHG's sandbox article "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem", I feel that this could be considered a violation of his topic ban. As an FYI to those who are unfamiliar with the subject matter, the fact that the page is POV is pretty clearly proven by simply going to Google and searching on the concept of "Mongol occupation of Jerusalem". It's a non-topic, and, of additional concern, the few links that are there are mostly traceable back to PHG's userspace.[13] We as Wikipedians know that a userpage is not in main article space, but to those outside of the project, seeing the "wikipedia.org" domain is often all they recognize. Or in other words, the draft page should be deleted, and PHG should be instructed not to use his userspace as a way to get around his topic ban and continue to push his pet theories. --Elonka 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I requested the original case. When an editor cites for the sake of historical truth as a reason for doing something, there is a strong possibility of tendentious editing. If the Mongols were in Jerusalem, somebody else will discover this fact and add it to our articles in due course. There is no need for PHG to make that particular edit. Please leave the topic ban in place. Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe User:Groomtech's assertions of objectivity. That account is somehow related to User:The Wiki House, User:A.K.Nole, and at least one other account. For the cryptographically challenged, A.K.Nole is "Elonka" backwards. Something is amiss. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations, Groomtech. I am going to blank User:The Wiki House and put up a {{retired}} template. That should help resolve any future concerns, Groomtech. The fact that you seem to agree with Shell's careful analysis is good sign. I don't think we ever got an explanation to resolve the concerns about the username of User:A.K.Nole. Is that just a weird coincidence? Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Groomtech

I have never been involved in this case, so thought it might be interesting to give an outsider's and a newcomer's view. It seems to me that PHG has a point of view about a certain historical event and can bring forward sources to support it. Presumably there is another POV and sources to support that, and this is perfectly normal for Wikipedia. Since PHG has agreed to abide by consensus, there seems no reason not to allow him to demonstrate that he is willing and able to do so. Confident predictions that he will be certain not to seem unduly pessimistic and there is no obvious foundation for them. Groomtech (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney has explained the matter clearly and I withdraw my comment. Jehochman should do the same. Groomtech (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
• Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Waiting for any further statements, but I am not currently inclined to lift and or/loosen the sanctions. SirFozzie (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to entertain a motion to make the sanctions indefinite, if my fellow Arbs have no issues with it. SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason, a priori, to believe that the behavioral problems that have let to the ban being renewed have been addressed. PHG, do you have something to say on that matter (as opposed to the content issues)? — Coren ^(talk) 20:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that PHG is unwilling or unable to understand what the problem even is, I see little that can be done except extend the restriction indefinitely to prevent the issue from resurfacing repeatedly to the detriment of all (including PHG's). — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request to amend prior case: EEML (2)

Initiated by _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} at 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

Amendment 1

• Piotrus topic banned
• This is a request to amend EEML Remedy 3 to end the topic ban that applies to Piotrus and allow him to edit articles related to Eastern Europe.

Statement by Piotrus

The amendment proposed last June concerning my person was described as "premature" and the Committee members suggested it should be revisited in one to three months time. As three months have passed, I would like to ask the Committee to consider it now (the topic ban is now in its mid-length, with six months passed, and six months to go).

I would like to repeat what I said three months ago (update: which I could summarize as "I apologize for becoming radicalized and violating WP:CANVASS and I promise not to repeat those mistakes") and to confirm that three months later I have still not been involved in any controversy or dispute resolution and that I am still actively contributing to English Wikipedia and other WMF projects. Notably, there have been not a single complain about my WikiProject Poland related activity, allowed by the amendment from May. I would like to resume carrying out clean up work on articles myself (instead of having to report all issues, even obvious vandalism, and burdening other editors with carrying out the tasks I can do myself). Further, I would like to resume regular new content creation (see how much content I created before and after the topic ban). I was the author of many uncontroversial Poland-related Featured Articles; in fact I have had a draft of a now-defeatured Poland-related article ready for transfer to en wiki for several months now (the article even passed a mock GA review a while ago)... is the project really benefiting from me not being able to fix this article and others...?

I would like to stress that content I created was never an issue of concern, the EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing. If the Committee has any lingering doubts, I can promise to voluntarily abstain from casting votes in Eastern European related discussions (moves, deletions, etc.) for the remainder of the topic ban original duration.

To the expected peanut gallery, I have this to say: I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I invite you to join me in good faith in this collaborative effort. To the "Piotrus is EVIL" chorus, I have this to add: I forgive you (you should try it, it does wonders for one's wikistress). To those who have supported me in the past and will do so in the future, I want to say thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ghirla

"The absence of Piotrus from the Eastern Europian minefield made it a much safer and pleasant place than it used to be". Really? Given this, the numerous AE threads and even the discussions here, including some recent Arbitrator comments below, sadly, I am not seeing this. The dramu continues, without the dreaded EEML members. I wonder why... weren't we the root of all evil after all? :>

Anyway, here's a piece of ancient history: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla and User:Durova/Mediation. I stood by and still stand by your request and my promise - I have never commented on you since that mediation. It saddens me to see that you are not returning this favor, even through you made a clear promise: "I promise not to mention his [Piotrus] name in similar circumstances" (the similar circumstances being "to stop discussing [the other editor] on public noticeboards".

I was disappointed when you withdrew from that mediation, but till now, we have not interacted, and I considered our ancient disagreements a thing of the past, and the hatchet well and deep buried. I appreciate your uncontroversial content contribution to the EE topic, and your lack of involvement in the surrounding dramu; till your present comment on my person I thought you were the model reformed, deradicalized editor we could all learn from (create content, avoid conflict and dramu). I'd really appreciate it if you could reconsider your involvement, and rebury the hatchet. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Offliner

You ask for some valid statements/links, and I am happy to provide them.

1. "a real admission of all transgressions (not just a single one like "EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing", which is even in the passive voice) & a real apology": if you'd prefer an active voice statement, here you go: "I was involved in violations of WP:CANVASS during the EEML period, for which I apologize." Please also see here;
2. "a real promise that nothing similar to the transgressions will recur": repeating from three months ago: "I plan on ensuring that errors of the past will not repeat themselves in the future";
3. "perhaps proposing measures that will discourage relapse". In addition to the links above, please see here, here and here. Sadly, those proposals were not met with much discussion, amid calls for blood and such. I wonder, were this not the case, would the EE arena today be still as battleground-ish as it is now? Blocks and bans are simple, but not that effective, as experience shows. What is needed is a desire for participants to bury the hatchet and talk things over. Nothing less will fix the situation, I am afraid. Anyway, this is not the best forum for discussion, but I invite you to read my thoughts on this issue here and comment on the talk page.

In exchange, could you point me out to the apology you have made for the events that led to your block on January 15, a promise not to repeat the actions that led to it and any proposals to discourage relapse you have made? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "4+1+40 Offenses": I did and do acknowledge, apologize and promise never to repeat all items that the arbitrators listed in the findings of the case (what you refer to as "4 Offenses", which includes canvassing; I refer to the other items as "radicalization" and I mentioned that in my recognition&apology&promise above). I have never seen this bizarre "40 Offenses" list; it was certainly never a part of any proposed (or passed) finding. It looks to me like your own version of the official findings, in many instances differing substantively from them (and as such not something relevant to this amendment). In fact, some of your claims directly contradict the Committee findings (to start with your first claim - I will not discuss others for reasons of space and relevance - is that I was the list founder and organizer - the Committee found otherwise). Let me remind you that that this is not the place to re-litigate the case by bringing concerns from that time that were not taken up by the Committee, but in any case I do agree that the behaviors you describe should be avoided (by me and others). Once again, I did and do apologize for the relevant ("4") offenses and plan never to repeat them again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skäpperöd

This is ridiculous, or bad faithed, or both... sigh. Regarding the note to Jusdafax, I found some anon vandalism, and I reported it to an admin that already reverted part of it. Months ago Coren has already confirmed I can report vandalism to administrators; the topic ban prevents me from undoing it myself but certainly does not mean that I should keep mum when I see it (oh, and during the period I was banned, I emailed info on vandalism I spotted to several arbitrators regularly, too). Sigh. This "evidence" gets even more ridiculous. Forced labor in Germany during World War II to which I made just a single mostly automated c/e edit concerns multiple nationalities, not to mention Germany is not in Eastern Europe the last time I checked; see also article's talk page and categories which do not contain any EE projects nor categories, just German ones. The only edit to Second Northern War I made was adding an uncontroversial talk MILHIST assessment template; in any case, just like the previous article, this article deals only marginally with Poland, probably as much as generic World War II article (for example); further the MILHIST template when assessed by another editor did not merit inclusion of a Poland-taskforce.

In fact, to make Skäpperöd's job easier, let me report myself for many similar edits. In the past few weeks I have made edits to pages like Wikimania (2010 edition of which was held in Poland), Revolution (I am sure some occurred in Poland), Pax Mongolica (Mongols invaded Poland at one time, you know), and multiple articles on generic concepts from the fields of science and literature, which are variously connected to Poland (galaxy for example contains the planet Earth which contains Poland, or space opera, which is a genre that Polish writers write in and some are probably mentioned on that page, too). I have also added assessment templates to scores of articles, and while I tried avoiding those obviously connected with Eastern Europe, I might have missed the fact that some of them mention something EE-related in the main body (which I usually don't read). I have also use AutoEd on the main body of many articles; again, it is likely that some of them may mention something EE-related (hmmm, come to think to it, I was working on the world-systems article, and IIRC somewhere in it is an example that mentions Poland in one sentence... I could go on :>

More seriously, I strongly believe I have upheld the topic ban quite well, and I think Skäpperöd's evidence proves it - in fact, thanks for bringing it up, I couldn't make a better argument myself :)

As I said above, I strongly believe that the EE area is not going to improve without editors following WP:FORGIVE. I am afraid, however, that if some editors will keep bad faith attacks on others, aiming to forum shop blocks or bans on anything that can be stretched and called "evidence", the battleground atmosphere will persist, and the Committee may need to step in again :( Perhaps some kind of restriction on bringing spurious evidence and requests is in order? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kotniski

Again, I support Piotrus's request. There are no and never have been any serious complaints about Piotrus's actions as an editor of articles; and so, considering what a productive editor he is capable of being, any continued restrictions on this editing serve only to harm the encyclopedia.--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

As someone who knows Piotrus, I can tell: he is very much capable of learning and acting rationally. He is also highly dedicated to the project and cares a lot about his reputation, which is now in a poor condition. Therefore, if anyone is going to behave well in EE area, that is Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Heimstern. Piotrus passed the test. If you are not sure, give him another one: allow editing in the area for a few months, with a subsequent review of his work by an uninvolved administrator who had no prior interactions with Piotrus (for example, Jeepday). Biophys (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

The absence of Piotrus from the Eastern Europian minefield made it a much safer and pleasant place than it used to be, prompting even Ghirla to resume editing activity, albeit on a limited scale. What a hell of an atmosphere it used to be when Piotrus and Co conspired behind the curtain how to oust from the project the editors like Ghirla, with more than 165,000 edits under his belt. It sends shivers down his spine even now. Poor Irpen, where he is now. Let's pardon the participants of the infamous mailing list, and you will have more drama, witch-hunts and persecution, leaving the Russia-related topics what they had been for quite some time: barren of authors. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below remind me that I was declared a "hate/propaganda monger" (June 23) on what they call the "Russian front" or "taking the fight to the enemy" (June 21). I don't think I've ever commented on the case; only a prospect of full impunity for everyone involved in the long-term pattern of personal attacks and wikistalking prompts me to comment here. Those guys have succeeded in ousting every reasonably productive contributor from Russia-related topics. Just think about it. P.S. Mr Vecrumba is an EEML member and seems to be actively violating his topic ban. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

As I did three months ago, I once again support Piotrus' proposed amendment. I agree with other editors who have mentioned how prolific a contributor Piotrus is. I believe he has learned from the EEML debacle and will work toward the improvement of the project.

Currently, Piotrus is allowed to comment on Poland-related matters at WT:POLAND. Every week, he reviews new articles and posts notes about them (e.g., which ones should be nominated for DYK, whether articles should be nominated for speedy deletion, etc.). Then I evaluate Piotrus' suggestions and act upon them as I see fit, a task in which we are sometimes assisted by other editors. I think it would be easier for all concerned if Piotrus were able to perform this Wiki-gnoming directly, rather than by proxy.

In summary, I think Piotrus is an asset to the project and his inability to edit articles in the area of his expertise is a detriment to all of us. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for SirFozzie

Could you elaborate on your comment a little, please? It isn't clear how your comments with respect to Skäpperöd's proposed amendment relate to the this proposed amendment. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Offliner

I cannot speak for what others or even Arbcom will want to see but this would be what I'd personally hope for. If any of this has happened before, it will have escaped my attention and some diffs will do to rectify me.

• a real admission of all transgressions (not just a single one like "EEML case was about inappropriate canvassing", which is even in the passive voice)
• a real apology
• a real promise that nothing similar to the transgressions will recur
• perhaps proposing measures that will discourage relapse. Offliner (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 Offences known from the official findings of facts

1. Canvassing
2. Piotrus was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.
3. Piotrus has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list were involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view.
4. Piotrus has participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring and encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies.

The 1 Offence Piotrus has acknowledged and promised to avoid

1. Violations of Canvassing

• • Canvassing is most easy to game for Piotrus. In this recent on-wiki message (everyone knows that Piotrus usually prefers off-wiki contacts), Piotrus refers someone to his amendment, reminds that he supported him last time and implies support for an adminship application. He just obfuscates the meaning by using a pretext that he was interested in why that person had forgiven him unlike the others. Piotrus didn't write a message to those who had opposed his amendment last time, although it would make much more sense to ask them for forgiveness and ask why they had opposed him.

Statement by nihil novi

Not having been a participant in the East European Mailing List, I may not have a full understanding of some of its activities, which I gather were involved in sanctions now under review. I personally do not recall ever having been contacted in an inappropriate way by Piotr Konieczny. I have seen him as a most competent, dedicated and productive contributor to Wikipedia on a broad range of topics, including the history of Poland and Europe. His contributions to the overarching project have been of inestimable value, both in the production of content and in the coordination of an appreciable portion of the efforts of other productive authors. Wikipedia can, I think, ill afford to exclude such a capable individual from full participation in the community's efforts to build a comprehensive, honest, reliable online encyclopedia. Nihil novi (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jacurek

Piotrus's contribution to the Wikipedia especially Project Poland [14] is outstanding. His dedication and knowledge are way above the average contributor. Keeping him banned from the topic area of Eastern Europe any longer only hurts the project itself. Ridiculous and bad faith comments from well known opponents of Piotrus such as this one for example[15] of user Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sad examples of aggressive block shopping that should be punished.--Jacurek (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jniech

I consider myself a Polish editor (but British with a Polish father) hence I declare any bias.

First I find it difficult to really understand the view “that Piotrus and Co conspired behind the curtain how to oust from the project”. It easy enough to set-up a Wikipedia account and use a different IP address. If editing is easier then it is because those involved have accepted their punishment.

Further I understand that based on the decision, that Piotrus was found guilty.

I support this proposal that Piotrus be allowed to edit articles related to Eastern Europe. Having said that if it is rejected I would hope he would be allowed to write new articles and allowed to interact on talk pages (e.g. add quality, importance and take part in debates). Jniech (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lysy

I support the request, for the same reason as before. As for my bias, yes, I am Polish and I admit that I am interested in the quality of Poland-related articles as well as unrelated articles. While Polish, I remained unaware of the illegal mailing list existence, so the conspiracy might have not been that wide and powerful, after all. This said I'm still surprised that mailing lists are considered illegal on wikipedia. Anyway, in my opinion the topic ban is irrelevant to the offence, serves no useful purpose and in fact is only destructive for wikipedia. --Lysy^talk 17:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Artem Karimov

As an outsider, I would like to voice my opinion as well. It appears to me that Piotrus' behaviour has got no better since the EEML case. Such an obfuscated payoff pointed out by Offliner made me completely convinced that lifting the block is NOTNOW. If Piotrus' behavioural pattern does not change in the future, then, quite possibly, NOTEVER. Retracting my previous statement. There is always enough rope anyway. And Piotrus sounds sincere so probably we could give him a chance to redeem himself. Therefore support. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 16:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ezhiki

As long as Piotrus can stay out of trouble and edit peacefully, I see very little point in Wikipedia loosing a valuable contributor in a severely undermanned area. I support the remedy, although I would also support re-instating the topic ban immediately should Piotrus find himself in an (accepted) Eastern Europe-related ArbComm case ever again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2010; 15:18 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Skäpperöd

Looking at Piotrus' talk page, one finds a recent note of Jusdafax, in which he confirmed making this EE edit on "request" by Piotrus (otherwise not knowing about the issue, see edit summary). What makes this even more worrying is that the "request" was apparently made off-wiki. Piotrus also violated his topic ban last month when he came to this article after his associate Molobo had edited there. I further remember Piotrus' interest an article I wrote, Second Northern War, which also is within the scope of his topic ban. The article was up for GAC review when Piotrus and encouraged another user to make critical comments during the review [16] and tagged its talk page.

In the request below I provided evidence that Radeksz is back at his old targets after the return from his topic ban, he even got blocked for his post-topic ban disruption, and we are just talking about this summer. Molobo's post-block behaviour is also in part mentioned in that request. Jacurek evaded his topic ban by sockpuppetry. The group's associate Loosmark was recently EE topic banned. Biophys was subject to another Arbcom case after the EEML. The remedies of the EEML arbcom should have quieted the EE are for about a year, but they have not succeeded in doing so.

Until Piotrus2, Arbcom had decided in dubio pro Piotro, then gained access to the EEML archive, and responded with moderate remedies. This approach has failed. It is unlikely that Arbcom will every now and then be provided with a random archive of Piotrus' group's off-wiki collaboration, nor will Radeksz copy his inbox to mainspace again as he did while proxying for Molobo. That doesn't mean that it has stopped.

I suggest that Piotrus' group is subject to a permanent topic ban from EE articles concerning shared histories, naming disputes, or shared/disputed nationality issues.

Statement by DonaldDuck

For Piotrus, topic ban was deserved remedy. And this remedy worked. After Piotrus was topic banned, Eastern European topic area became much safer place. Editors can work without fear of being targeted by Piotrus and his group. EEML remedy should not be amended now. DonaldDuck (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heim talketh

Apparently I'm now going to join the scorned "Piotrus is evil" crowd. So be it.

I'm quite concerned that Piotrus still seems to show no sign of remorse or even much concern about what he did. Indeed, his comment seems to almost be telling us that we need to absolve him. Forgiveness is not something to be demanded, it is to be humbly requested, and I'm not seeing this. Of course, this shouldn't be about personal disputes (and I don't believe I ever have disputed with Piotrus, myself), but the approach he's taking leaves me really skeptical that he's really learnt anything. He holds up his spotless record since his return from his siteban. Well, yeah, that's because he's been mandatorily away from the area where the problems happened. I can't see that this record proves much. (True, this can be said in the case of any topic ban.) I acknowledge that he's been a hard working contributor at Wikipedia for a long time, but the abuse he perpetrated with EEML can't be mitigated solely by that, and the committee has to weigh if he's really likely to be a net positive here. OK, still some concerns, but I did miss that there was an apology. Striking this much.

If the committee decides to lift, even in part, this topic ban, which I really think is probably not in Wikipedia's best interest, I strongly urge an oversight mechanism to be in place so that any relapse into previous behaviour will result in the reinstatement of the sanctions. Eastern Europe articles are already the biggest, most festering national/ethnic-related stinkhole on Wikipedia, despite the joys of Israel/Palestine and Ireland/the British Isles. I ask the arbitration committee to do whatever it can to be sure it festers and stinks less. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note: Piotrus has raised concerns about statement that suggests I may have missed things. I intend to look later and make amendments as necessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken some of my comments that I believe were inaccurate. I acknowledge that Piotrus has, contrary to my original understanding, apologized, which I reckon is a start, at least. I continue to reiterate that, given the severity of previous lapses, if the committee chooses to lighten this restriction, there should be proper oversight to stop this situation if there's any relapse. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for Newyorkbrad

Concerning your suggestion, I'm going to have to be one of those people who raises questions about line-drawing. In this volatile area, ethnic disputes pop up in unexpected areas. For example, Nicolaus Copernicus would seem like it ought to be just another science article, but no, it's also a been a point of ethnic disputes over the scientist's nationality. I have no real ideas about how the lines would be drawn, and I honestly question whether this idea is feasible. Completely understand the want to do this, but is it realistic? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• See below for my response and thoughts in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further: I reiterate what I think down below, that the fact that people in this area cannot or will not get along with each other bodes very ill for the consequences.. as for the narrowing, I agree with Brad, and will at least be willing to narrow the topic ban, with the caveat that it's going to be very quickly reapplied if there are future issues. SirFozzie (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The current topic-ban provides that Piotrus is currently "topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed." I do not think that in view of the entire situation and history, a consensus to lift the topic-ban in its entirety is likely to emerge. However, consistent with what I have suggested on other occasions, I am considering a motion to narrow the topic ban to apply only to "articles concerning nationalist or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe" and related pages, as opposed to all articles about Eastern Europe. This would allow Piotrus to edit many articles in his areas of interest without, hopefully, stoking disputes about the most contentious ones. I understand that there may be concerns about line-drawing, but I think they are solvable. Comments on this possibility would be appreciated; please submit them by Saturday so that, for once, we can potentially have a timetable for resolving this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. Shell ^babelfish 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree in principle with a narrowing of the topic ban, but that would be accompanied with a stern warning that trying to toe the line and argue about where it lies is the swiftest way to have it return. I'll propose an amendment in a few day unless one of my colleagues does so first in order to give more time for other arbs to chime in (we have had, regrettably but predictably, our attention mostly taken by an ongoing case rather than this page). — Coren ^(talk) 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Request to amend prior case: EEML

Initiated by Skäpperöd (talk) at 09:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 10: Radeksz (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This topic ban is consecutive with any editing ban. Rescinded by motion on 21 June 2010.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [17]

Amendment 1

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Wikipedia:EEML#Radeksz topic banned
• Details of desired modification: Motion 3 is rescinded, the original topic ban is reinstated and/or extended.

Statement by Skäpperöd

In his request to have his topic ban lifted 1, Radeksz said that he planned to edit non-controversially, primarily in areas of Polish economics, Poland-related unreferenced BLPs and current events. He listed several articles he planned to work on (all but one are still redlinks), and said: "I don't anticipate that any of them should prove controversial - of course, if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct"[18]. I advised against lifting the ban [19].

Some two months have passed. The evidence provided below confirms that Radeksz has not kept the promises made and instead returned to aggressive editing and battleground behaviour, including

• incivility
• move warring and disregard for BRD
• attacking his former targets, including disruption of DYK noms

...to the point where he got blocked.

Example 1 - Johann Dzierzon

On 25 April, Mamalala, a sockpuppet of topic-ban evading EEML-member Jacurek complained about the article's name [20]. Discussion died down on the same day, but two months later, Radeksz re-activated the section [21], a discussion emerged that was joined by EEML-member Molobo aka Mymoloboaccount [22] and resulted in an unsuccessful RM. During the RM,

• Radeksz attacked former EEML-target Varsovian [23] and former EEML-target Dr. Dan [24], and put their comments into a "bickering section" [25] (all 24 July). Dan responded calmly [26] only to be again mocked by Radeksz [27] until another editor intervened [28].
• I joined the discussion on 31 July [29]. Radeksz called me "stubborn", my request to redact that [30] was to no avail.
• When I moved a bunch of Communist era sources, added to the article by Molobo, to the talk page for discussion on 3 August (section link), Radeksz attacked me again: "shenanigans", "against-policy-removal of sourced material", "disruptive forum shopping by Skapperod, combined with insinuations that amount to personal attacks", "based on his IDONTLIKEIT", "bully" etc. The "against-policy removal of sourced material" was actually my strict adherence to WP:BRD - move controversial material to talk for discussion. The "disruptive forum shopping" allegation relates to this RS/N thread I started in May 2009.

Example 2 - Jewish Community of Danzig

Jewish Community of Danzig was created by former EEML target HerkusMonte on 3 August, and subsequently nominated for DYK [31]. As shown by the diff, the article was ticked, then the tick was retracted due to a "move war", and the discussion was taken over by Radeksz and Molobo until Rlevse put an end to it.

• Radeksz moved the article [32] (no e/s).
• HerkusMonte moved the article back [33] (e/s: "rv undiscussed move")
• by then at the latest, Radeksz should have started a RM or otherwise seek consensus. Instead, he moved the article again [34] (no e/s)
• after discussion, the article was moved back by another user [35]

Example 3 - Johannes von Baysen

The article Johannes von Baysen was stable at this title since its creation four years ago.

• Radeksz moved it on 16 August [36]
• I moved it back on 17 August at 9:00 [37] , providing the rationale in the e/s
• by then at the latest, Radeksz should have started a RM or otherwise seek consensus. Instead, he again moved it to his preferred title on 9:40 [38]

Despite numerous pleas to move it back and start an RM, Radeksz insisted on his title. After five days of discussion, I moved the article back according to consensus [39].

Example 4 - Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

On 7 September, I created the article Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg about the treaties of Merseburg (1002, 1013 and 1033) and Bautzen (1018 and 1031) [40], which I had finished and nominated for DYK in this version of 8 September. Note that every single sentence has a quality source. Radeksz tagged the article as violating NPOV and SYNTH and with a split-tag and rewrote the lead [41], before he turned the article into a dab page [42] and copied the part about Bautzen (1029) and Merseburg (1033) to Treaty of Merseburg [43], and merged the part about Merseburg (1002 and 1013) and Bautzen (1018) with about 50 consecutive edits into a re-created unsourced stub at Peace of Bautzen which I previously redirected [44].

• I undid the removal of all of the content from Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg [45], e/s: "rv bold split and move of the article, no discussion"
• By then at the latest, Radeksz should have started to seek consensus. Instead, he reverted within minutes [46], e/s: "there was no discussion when Peace of Bautzen was "deleted" either" - referring to the unsourced stub, tagged since 2009, that I redirected (not "deleted") [47].
• I restored the article [48], provided my rationale on talk and started an RfC on whether the article should be split.
• I then redirected Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg to the mother article from which Radeksz had created them, linking the RfC in the edit summaries [49] [50].
• Radeksz reverted [51] [52] in disregard of the RfC, and creating two content forks.

Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, Radeksz proved to be unable to follow BRD and instead uses the revert button. He also torpedoed the DYK nomination by enormeously enlarging the article's entry with his views [53], despite me having linked the RfC there prominently already. Just one week before, something similar happened to a previous DYK nom of mine, which was torpedoed by Molobo [54] / (talk).

• Radeksz then created a third, unsourced content fork, where he again reverted me in disregard of BRD and called me “disruptive” for redirecting it pointing to the ongoing RfC [55]

All this could have been avoided if Radeksz had just placed a split proposal on the talk page, instead of making an article that is up for DYK vanish overnight. When the split was undone and the RfC started on the merits of a split, he should have waited for its outcome instead of creating content forks by reverting. He further failed to attribute the material he moved to the content forks.

Other examples

• On a sysop's talk page, Radeksz made an unfounded block request against Varsovian, and was told that he himself would get blocked if he continued that way [56]
• This outburst/PA in defense of EEML-member Biophys (warning [57])
• Radeksz tried to get EEML target Dr. Dan sanctioned, just 5 days after his topic ban was lifted [58]
• Radeksz attacks a sysop for sanctioning his associate Loosmark [59]
• With a revert [60], Radeksz joins a Czech/German naming dispute [61]
• Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor as nationalist [62] and during a naming dispute commets on the Lithuanian government as if it were an apartheid regime [63]
• With an unsuccessful 3RR report [64] and an attack against Dr. Dan [65], Radeksz joins a naming dispute where he, in contrast to Loosmark, was not involved before [66] [67]
• Radeksz on his user page attacks Varsovian with this "parody" [68] on this 7 March comment of Varsovian [69].
• Radeksz joined a discussion unrelated to him on my talk page with a comment making me look like Gollum [70]
• Radeksz also followed me to an SPI I opened [71]
• Radeksz accused me of doing OR [72] [73] [74], and linked that last post as a “compliment” on my talk [75].
• On 10 August, Radeksz violated his interaction ban with EEML target Russavia with an unfounded AE request and was blocked accordingly [76]

Response to Radeksz

Re "warning"

Radeksz's opening comment: "Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned rather than working on resolving the dispute. He has been warned about using AE before to that effect (give me a sec to dig out the diff)."

The warning I got resulted from this AE report I filed against Radeksz on 11 July 2009. This report resulted from the Kołobrzeg dispute, which was revealed as a concerted attack on me by Radeksz and others during the EEML arbitration. Radeksz's disruption in that particlular case has even been presented in his EEML FoFs as an example for Radeksz's "abuse of dispute resolution processes ([20090606-1316] [diffs])" [77].

But Sandstein could not know that when he closed that AE and issued me the warning. EEML member Radeksz on the other hand knew it all the time, naturally, as he participated in planning and exercising the attack on me. It is absolutely ridiculous that Radeksz is opening his defense by presenting that warning as if it really was an indication of an unfounded request. And even repeats that below!

Re "content dispute" and "block shopping"

No. The long list of diffs above, all from the last two months, are not about content disputes, but about the handling of those, and other behavioural evidence. And I will not go into re-opening any discussion here that belongs to article talk pages.

Throwing in the MAGIC_WORD "content dispute" may usually work to scare sysops away, but I hope that the arbs are above that and analyze the behavioural evidence I provided. The sentence "Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned" and the repeated "block shopping" allegation are the core of Radeksz's defense.

It is of course unsubstantiated by evidence, as it is just not true.

Re allegations of "ownership" and actions against consensus

Radeksz says below that these two edits [78] [79] of mine violate WP:OWN. In fact, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, one is required to do so. The dummy edits were a consequence of Radeksz's unattributed copy/paste-split and the reverts he made after the split was undone and the RfC at the original article started [80] [81], violating WP:BRD and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Content forking: "The acceptable solution to disagreement on the development of an article is to seek consensus through dispute resolution." This is exactly what I have done when I started the RfC. Radeksz could not possibly have missed the ongoing RfC since it was linked in the edit summaries of the edits he reverted [82] [83], but he nevertheless chose reverting over DR.

Radeksz also cherry-picked quotes to suggests that I had acted against consensus. E.g. for the Baysen dispute, he picked only part of a quote of a user who provided a 3O, the whole 3O thread is here and others commented, too. Another example is the ongoing Bautzen and Merseburg RfC, where he provided only one user's oppinion here. Completely irrelevant, the diffs deal with Radeksz's disruption that already happened, no matter how the RfC goes.

Re - MalikShabazz/mediation

I don't know how neutral MalikShabazz, who is introduced as "uninvolved" by Radeksz, is with respect to Radeksz and me, given their EEML-related run-in with me [84] [85] and their extensive clerking of Piotrus' topic-ban-inhibited tasks at the PLNB.

A mediation will not address Radeksz's immediate return to battleground behaviour on multiple articles and his attacks against multiple users, and Radeksz's attempt to jump that train is nothing but distraction. He wants to bury this as a content dispute, see above.

Re "Last Chances Saloon"

Radeksz had his first 'last' chance when a limited topic ban was applied to him after the EEML case instead of a harsh sanction. He had another last chance when the topic ban was lifted, first in part, then altogether. He had another last chance when he was only sanctioned with a short-time block after returning to disruptive behavior afterwards. Radeksz is not a young boy, he knows what he is doing and should finally face consequences instead of getting another last chance.

That Radeksz and Jacurek, during this request, are frivolous enough to attack me with that "Skäpperöd-received-a-warning-for unfounded-requests"-story illustrates that point. I outlined above (see Re "warning") how this "warning" was the result of a coordinated EEML attack against me, involving Radeksz, which had been revealed during the EEML case. The admin who judged my request to be "unfounded" could not know about the attack by the time he issued me the warning, but Radeksz and Jacurek naturally knew and know very well, and Arbcom does now know, too, from the EEML archive's evidence. I am sick and tired of having to put up with that kind of malice.

Statement by Radeksz

Short version

Skapperod, regularly, when he finds himself in a content dispute with others resorts to attempts to have those who disagree with him banned rather than working on resolving the dispute. He has been warned about using AE before to that effect ([86]). This is just another instance of this mentality of trying to get people blocked by slandering them rather than working on dispute resolution and achieving consensus.

The basis for this request is the disagreement over at Treaties_of_Bautzen_and_Merseburg. There was an article on Peace of Bautzen which Skapperod "deleted" by making it into a redirect. He then created the "Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg" article which violates WP:SYNTH. After some discussion he made a RfC request, [87]. So far so good and that was commendable. Unfortunately for him, the response by an outside uninvolved editor to his RfC has been that indeed, the article violated SYNTH and should be split into two [88]. At that point Skapperod began badgering the outside commentator which provoked an irked response by him [89].

Additionally, I would very much like for Skapperod to explain why he is redirecting an article ABOUT a conflict to an article about the treaty which ENDED the conflict [90]. It's as if someone redirected the article on World War I to the article on Treaty of Versailles. This kind of edit goes beyond any kind of BRD notion of being "bold" to simply being a vindictive "I'm gonna get you" kind of edit; it just doesn't make sense otherwise.

So the RfC is not going as he had hoped, he is determined to ignore outside opinion and the result is that he is trying to get me banned to get his way. To do this he distorts and misrepresents my actions.

I have not done anything against Wikipedia policy and nothing that Skapperod writes above shows that. In fact, if I had broken Wikipedia policy, then why is this request not at Arbitration Enforcement? The obvious answer is that you can get in serious trouble (including blocks) for filing spurious reports and Skapperod knows this (as he's almost been blocked for this in the past). But you can't get blocked for presenting spurious cases to the Arb Com (at least I don't think so). So this is the "safer" venue for block-shopping.

I have in fact worked on uncontroversial material on Poland related current events ([91]), sourced Poland related unreferenced BLPs ([92]), Bund related topics ([93]), economics ([94], [95]) and fielding requests at WikiProject Poland [96]). This too would be uncontroversial if Skapperod didn't make controversy where none should exist, apparently out of some kind of a belief that any kind of criticism of his actions is somehow against Wikipedia policy.

Long version addressing individual attacks

Example 1 - Johann Dzierzon

I made a comment at the article after which an outside, uninvolved editor opened a Request Move proposal [97] [98] because there were some questions of misuse of Google books searches in the preceding discussion. Nota bene, the previous RM had only two support votes, both by users who have since been topic banned from Eastern European topics. There was bickering at the RM, typical of this topic area and in fact the designation of such behavior as "bickering" is not mine but rather User:Sandstein's. It's quite appropriate too. Anyway, the RM was closed by Future Perfect at Sunrise with the statement ""no consensus, hence no move". There are some reasonable arguments on both sides" which at very least indicates that requesting an RM was not an unreasonable thing to do. So... what kind of policy was exactly broken here?

As an aside I have no idea who User:Mamalala is, and I've never seen a SPI on the user and I don't think there ever was one.

Hence this is an example where Skapperod is trying to get somebody who simply disagrees with him in regard to content banned.

Example 2 - Jewish Community of Danzig

The article very clearly violated the Gdansk/Danzig vote, but nm that. In this example by Skapperod he is actually being blatantly dishonest. He characterizes my actions as follows: Radeksz moved the article [16] (no e/s). - meaning that I did not use an edit summary and Radeksz moved the article again [18] (no e/s) - again trying to make me look bad because I did not use an edit summary.

Basically Skapperod is trying to portray my actions here as if I moved the article without any kind of discussion. This is completely false. In the first instance, I actually DID use an edit summary as can be clearly seen here [99] (hence this part of his statement is straight up false). And then I explained the edit on the talk page [100], as a quick click on the talk of the article clearly shows (hence this is an attempt at a sneaky misrepresentation).

The only comment by an uninvolved user, Malik Shabazz stated: It seems to me the name should be Jewish community of Gdańsk because the article covers a period that spans the Danzig period. Similar to History of Gdańsk. . So the only outside person participating in the discussion actually agreed with me.

The article still violates the Gdansk/Danzig vote. It still should be moved back to Jewish Community of Gdansk, but frankly, faced with this kind of tendentious nationalist editing and battleground mentality I basically said "screw it", let them have it, and left it where it was. I did nothing wrong here and I resent Skapperod's slander.

Example 3 - Johannes von Baysen

The article was under "Johannes von Baysen", originally created by a user (Matthead) now banned from Eastern European topics. There are ZERO English language sources which use that name [101] (there actually is one, but it's to a self-published novel of "alternate history"). There are a number of English language sources which use "Jan Bazynski" [102]. So I moved it to the title that is actually used by English language sources. This prompted belligerent bullying demands that I move the article back by Skapperod, and attempts by him to try to portray German language sources as being "English" [103].

There was some discussion and it was brought up that in fact "Hans" is sometimes used in English language sources (essentially, there are two of these). I indicated my willingness to consider it. But rather than discussing the matter further, Skapperod continued with his ultimatums. In the meantime Herkus asked for a third opinion [104], which was commendable. The third opinion arrived and it said:

You'll notice that I have not dismissed your (i.e. mine; the recommendation was basically for more discussion - Radeksz) edit out-of-hand. Are your sources more indicative of the name you changed the article to? Also, are they reliable sources? If the answer to both is yes, then in my opinion it is up to the opposing debaters (i.e. Skapperod) to offer evidence in support of their own position. If there is no such evidence, a simple personal disagreement is not sufficient grounds to reverse the change. (i.e. to move back the article to the name not used in sources)

and

If there is still ambiguity, you should ask for more input from more editors (through perhaps, WP:RFC), but I do encourage you to reach a compromise - I notice you have already started discussing this.

I want to request that Skapperod provide a diff of the statement from the 3O outside uninvolved commentator where s/he says something like "what Radeksz was wrong" or "that was against policy" or even just "the move should be reverted" - he can't because there was nothing of the kind. So basically, the 3O indicated that there was nothing wrong with the original move but that editors should work to achieve consensus. There WAS in fact ongoing discussion at the article, between myself, Herkus and Henrig (who I may disagree with, but whom I consider to be good faithed editors) and compromise solutions were floated (for example to use the hyphenated form Baysen-Bazynski that apparently the guy's descendants now use). Skapperod CHOSE not to participate in that discussion but just kept making bullying demands for a self-revert. He then moved the article back without any kind of discussion on his part.

Please note that I've asked Skapperod why he moved the article back to the one particular name which is used by ZERO sources but he has refused to reply [105]. He has also refused to provide any kind of quotation from non-English language sources which he is using in the article [106].

This is another example where I just gave up hope on any kind of reasonable discussion and left the article alone, particularly since Skapperod seemed intent on completely ignoring the Third Opinion that had been provided and even refused to participate in the discussion. So much for his adherence to DR. Again, I did not in any way break any Wikipedia policies, in letter or in spirit and there is simply no basis for a complaint here except bad faith.

Example 4 - Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg

This is basically the heart of the matter and the real reason for Skapperod's block-shopping. There used to be an article on Peace of Bautzen. Skapperod "deleted" it by making it into a redirect. He then created a POV SYNTH article on Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg. The SYNTHed article covers two different topics but Skapperod combined them into two, basically for nationalistic reasons (to end a series of treaties with one that made Germany look GREAT!). No reliable sources, by German historians included (or even, especially by German historians, who are generally a lot less radical than some Wikipedia users), do this.

I created separate articles for the two different topics and initiated discussion on talk page. Discussion ensued. I asked for outside help at WikiProject Military History. Skapperod asked for an RfC. That in itself was commendable. What was NOT commendable however, was completely ignoring the comments that were provided as a result of this request by uninvolved User:Variable [107] and then badgering him on his talk page about his opinion [108], which provoked a response from him [109].

In the meantime I also created an article on the military conflict that one of these treaties ended. Skapperod tried to "delete" this article as well through the use of redirects [110] (the article was a unsourced stub because it was newly created work in progress, as I clearly indicated here. This prompted an inquiry by myself at WP:Deletion policy [111] where discussion is still ongoing.

So basically, Skapperod asked for an RfC. The comments provided by uninvolved editor disagreed with his synthesis and agreed with my proposal to split the article into two. So the RfC is not going the way Skapperod would like, so he is determined to ignore it (after himself requesting the comment!) and the only way he can do that is to block shop a ban for me.

This is a textbook example of how NOT to behave on Wikipedia. It is a textbook example of how Wikipedia dispute resolution processes are abused and gamed (Ask for RfC. If it agrees with you great! If it disagrees with you ignore it and get the person you disagree with banned!) and it is a clear cut evidence for Skapperod's own battleground mentality.

Other examples - really quickly

• On Talk:Zemuzil, Duke of Pomerania, Radeksz repeatedly referred to my talk page posts as OR - they were OR. Skapperod seems to be under the impression that any kind of criticism of his actions is against Wikipedia policies. As far as I'm aware no such Wikipedia policy exists yet.

• He then linked that post as a “compliment” on my talk. - Here's the whole discussion [112]. Yes, I made the mistake of trying to thank Skapperod and say something nice to him. He quickly began making personal attacks against me. Ok. Now WHO has the battleground mentality here?

• This outburst/PA in defense of EEML-member [[User:Biophys|Biophys] (warning [43]) - yeah I admit it, I get upset when I see somebody bully and badger others. I think I have pretty thick skin when it comes to personal attacks directed at myself, and I routinely ignore them. But I DO get upset when I see somebody try to publicly humiliate another person. I hate bullies, have zero tolerance for them, and very strongly believe they have no place on Wikipedia. When I see it happen, yeah, ok, some of the usual civility gets put aside. Note that this supposed "warning" says that the other user's comments were "unjustifiable"

• Radeksz tried to get EEML target Dr. Dan sanctioned, just 5 days after his topic ban was lifted - Dr. Dan an EEML target? Don't be ridiculous. The only way he was a "target" was that people mentioned was that it was best to "just ignore him". Anyway, Sandstein's comment here was the reference may well have been intentional, but it's too indirect to be sanctionable in my opinion

• Radeksz attacks a sysop for sanctioning his associate Loosmark [45] - Loosmark is not my "associate" (whatever that is), though he is an occasional chess partner on Wiki. Anyway - that's a wrong diff I think.

• Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor as nationalist [48] - this is a self-revert I made after once again giving up in the face of tendentious editing. Apparently it was appreciated by the user involved (Lokyz) [113]. I responded back in similar friendly vein [114] and it actually began to look like real progress on resolving long standing disputes could be made [115]. Lokyz appears not to have the same problem as Skapperod with receiving compliments and thanks and hopefully this dialogue will continue..... but I forgot, what exactly is Skapperod alleging I did wrong here? Self-revert? Initiate friendly conversation?

• With an unsuccessful 3RR report - false, the report was successful. The page was protected which prevented edit warring (which I was not involved in) from continuing. Actually, this phrasing by Skapperod is quite revealing of the mindset here. For him, a report is not a "success" unless it results in someone getting blocked or banned. For myself, I'm quite happy if disputes are resolved and edit warring ceases.

• Radeksz joined a discussion unrelated to him on my talk page with a comment making me look like Gollum - I'll leave that one without comment, except to say that Skapperod appears to be completely misinterpreting (intentionally or not) my remark.

• Radeksz also followed me to an SPI I opened - nope, I saw the SPI after I noticed that Skapperod has managed to harass a productive editor into leaving Wikipedia [116]. This editor had just made several changes to a number of articles on my watchlist. Unfortunately, Skapperod is employing the exact same tactics here. The scary thing is, these tactics may be working.

As to my AE block [117] - apparently, in reporting an interaction ban violation, I made the mistake of taking this statement by Shell Kinney [118] seriously; Sandstein saw it differently. Shrug.

Battleground language by Skapperod

Battleground language is used by Skapperod through out this request. It is designed to misrepresent my actions and it is indicative of how he approaches disagreements on article talk pages.

Here are a few examples: "Radeksz attacked"

"Radeksz attacked me again"

"Radeksz attacks a sysop"

"Radeksz attacks a Lithuanian editor"

"Radeksz on his user page attacks Varsovian"

"Radeksz accused me"

I have not "attacked" anyone. This is Skapperod's typical tactic of bullying his opponents, of trying to make them look bad when in fact they have done nothing wrong and it illustrative of the battleground mentality that he has.

Making constructive criticisms of other people's actions - like pointing out that an editor is in fact doing OR - or disagreeing with administrative action (we're still allowed to do that on Wikipedia, right?) or - most ironically of all - engaging in discussion aimed at resolving long standing disputes (as was the case with the "Lithuanian editor") is not "attacking" anyone.

Skapperod is leaving out the word "personal" from before the word "attack" in the above but the insinuation is clear. This kind of behavior (and this report in general, really) is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL which states:

"This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." [119].

I have asked Skapperod in the past to avoid using such inflammatory battleground language [120] (gimme a minute to find other examples of such unnecessary rhetoric) but he removed it without responding with an edit summary in which he called me a "nationalist" [121] (an accusation which I very much strongly object to and which is about as far from my personal philosophy as can be. If anything accusing me of being a "rootless cosmopolitan" would be more apt).

Problems with asserting "ownership" of articles by Skapperod

Wikipedia policy (NOT guideline, NOT an essay) on WP:Ownership: All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article. (my emphasis)

These two "dummy edits" (i.e. they did not change anything in the article itself) on Peace of Bautzen and Treaty of Merseburg are about as clear indication as can be had that Skapperod does not accept this policy and considers himself to be both author and owner of the articles on the subject matter. His edit summary states: dummy edit: This article is largely a copy of sections from Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg id 383623077, authored by User:Skäpperöd, copied here by User:Radeksz

As an aside, the edit summary is misleading. I didn't just copy the articles but also did extensive clean up and expended the articles [122], [123], and added additional sources.

This is another illustration of the basic problem here; Skapperod feels he "owns" articles on these topics and other editors are not allowed to disagree with him (even if supported by third opinions and comments from RfCs).

Add

Skapperod states: The dummy edits were a consequence of Radeksz's unattributed copy/paste-split and the reverts he made after the split was undone and the RfC at the original article started [64] [65], violating WP:BRD and WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Content forking: "The acceptable solution to disagreement on the development of an article is to seek consensus through dispute resolution." This is exactly what I have done when I started the RfC. Radeksz could not possibly have missed the ongoing RfC since it was linked in the edit summaries of the edits he reverted [66] [67], but he nevertheless chose reverting over DR.

There was nothing which prevented Skapperod from first opening an RfC rather then first reverting my split of the SYNTHed article. In fact, the proper thing to have done would've been starting discussion on the original Peace of Bautzen article which he "deleted" by turning it into a redirect. RfC should not serve as a cover for "protecting" the one's preferred version of an article - i.e. choosing reverting and trying to abuse DR to cover one's tracks.

Yes, Skapperod started the RfC - as I said before, that in itself was commendable. The problem is that he ignored (and is still ignoring) results of RfCs and 3O when these are provided. He's creating a typical "heads I win, tails you loose" situation and exploiting the DR process for his own ends.

Skapperod states: Radeksz also cherry-picked quotes to suggests that I had acted against consensus. E.g. for the Baysen dispute, he picked only part of a quote of a user who provided a 3O, the whole 3O thread is here and others commented, too

I didn't cherry pick anything, I provided the portion of the quote which directly addressed Skapperod's false allegation that I did something wrong here. Others commented, too - sure, but ῤerspeκὖlὖm was the only uninvolved, outside user.

Skapperod states: Another example is the ongoing Bautzen and Merseburg RfC, where he provided only one user's oppinion here. - again, I provided the opinion of the only uninvolved, outside user who arrived as a result of the RfC.

Skapperod states: the diffs deal with Radeksz's disruption that already happened - this is more slander since no disruption has happened, no evidence to that effect has been provided and such a conclusion has not been reached. This is typical Skapperod - pretending that something has already found to be true when in fact nothing of the sort has happened and using strong language to that effect to actually bring about the effect. It's simply false and the tactic is a plain dishonest rhetorical trick.

Skapperod states: no matter how the RfC goes. - the RfC was requested. An uninvolved editor provided an opinion. Skapperod immediately began arguing with the uninvolved outside editor. The uninvolved editor replied again (apparently annoyed at Skapperod, but that's just my reading of the situation). The RfC is pretty much done. What Skapperod is doing here is pretending that the requested for comment hasn't arrived because it didn't agree with him, and is trying to keep the RfC open for "as long as it takes" for someone who agrees with him to show up. This is clearly an attempt at gaming DR and RfC processes. And somehow he has the chutzpah to allege that I did something wrong!

Skapperod states, in regard to my allegation of his block-shopping as a means of "solving" his content disputes: It is of course unsubstantiated by evidence, as it is just not true. - no, I've already substantiated it above. I've pointed to user Schwyz who left Wikipedia because of harassment from Skapperod. And I've shown the strong warning Skapperod received from Sandstein previously for this kind of behavior. This is also the second (third, if you count the little smear campaign he launched at me during my appeal) time he has done this to me. There are also others, and, I will provide additional evidence shortly.radek (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line

Basically what we have here is a series of content disputes. And Skapperod, rather than working to resolve content disputes, tries to "solve" them by having those he disagrees with banned. If that's how Wikipedia dispute resolution works... why stick around anyway?

As an aside, I've mostly worked on non controversial material since July, have had several articles DYKed ([124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]), and have tried to avoid controversy. But with editors like Skapperod around - controversy is created, even where there should be none.radek (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Skapperod 2

The AE case didn't have anything to do with some "concerned attack". It had to do with the fact that I said Skapperod was engaging in disruptive forum shopping (he was - he was asking for a discussion on the same topic for the fourth time, despite three previous occasions of consensus by uninvolved editors going against him [136]). Since Skapperod appears to believe that any kind of criticism of his actions is against Wikipedia policy he filed a spurious AE report against me. Here's what Sandstein had to say on the occasion [137]:

This looks like a misuse of WP:AE in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests.

This is exactly what's going on here as well

None of my edits Skapperod links to are objectionable. They are all routine disagreement about content. It is not disruptive to state one's opinion that Skapperod is engaging in OR, or making SYNTH, or to ask him for sources, or even to call him "stubborn". Hence this whole request by Skapperod is a misuse of Wikipedia dispute resolution process, in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute.

Skapperod, Arbitration Enforcement is over here. If you really had evidence that any of those edits you link to were objectionable or violated Wikipedia guidelines, why don't you/didn't you, file a proper AE Request for them? Of course, if you don't have any evidence and such reports are judged to be spurious, you risk getting blocked yourself. So put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.radek (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skapperod's mischaracterization of BRD

Skapperod has a very peculiar understanding of the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy. If he makes a controversial edit or reverts you, that's being "bold". If someone else makes an edit Skapperod disagrees with or reverts him that's... well, gosh darn it! That's just bad!

Despite Skapperod's notion this essay (neither policy nor guideline) does not say that "Skapperod is allowed to revert others but others may not revert or even criticize Skapperod". Rather what the essay says is:

• BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. - in particular it is not a justification for ignoring third opinions and RfC comments after these have been provided.
• BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. - in particular, it is not a process which makes it ok for one editor to revert but not for others to respond to such reverts.
• BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. - this goes to the heart of the matter. BRD is no justification for reverting editors simply because you don't like them. It is even less of a justification for trying to get them blocked.
• Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work...provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense' - Skapperod repeatedly cites BRD as an excuse for reverting others [138]

And that's just on this one article.

Response to Malik and mediation

Despite the fact that I have some reservations about mediation, particularly since previous forms of dispute resolution have not worked due to Skapperod's ignoring of outside opinion, I've read up on the process and I think that it might work here.

As a result I've filed a motion for mediation here: [139].

Further discussion

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I agree with Radeksz that this is at bottom a series of content disputes, and I don't see any behavior that warrants a restoration of his topic ban.

I would like to recommend, however, that he and Skäpperöd consider mediation to resolve some of the difficulties they are having working together. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn

It is interesting that my name is brought up here, but not at all surprising considering the fascination EEML participants have with my name.

Update: Radeksz removed the following text from his statement: "In the ensuing discussion Petri Krohn all of sudden became involved, in a situation which the Arb Com probably already knows more about than I want to go into here. While Petri has behaved himself somewhat better as of late, he is/was clearly not an uninvolved user here."

Radeksz is making accusations against me trough innuendo. The arbitrators have seen the EEML evidence. If they have, they should be fully aware that a large part of the activity of the EE mailing list was targeted at my user account and someone in real life they thought was me.

As to the mystical meaning of whatever “Arb Com probably already knows more about” I can only guess. I would not be surprised, if some kind of secret email campaign against me was going on at this very moment conducted by former EEML members, as I have already seen some alarming signs of hanky-panky. All this has hardly anything to do with my edits on Wikipedia, but are more related to real world politics.

Jewish Community of Danzig

In this case of Jewish Community of Danzig Radeksz's actions were most distractive, as they almost prevented a high-quality article from appearing in the DYK section.

I was first alerted to a related issue when an interwiki bot made this strange edit to an article on the Finnish Wikipedia which I had created two years ago. Entering the English language Wikipedia I discovered a major controversy surrounding the undiscussed moves of articles on historical provinces. I then commented on the issue here, here, here, here, here, and even here.

In preparing my argument I went looking for the most irrational move, I checked this log of reverted page moves and came across the "Jewish Community of Gdańsk". I was surprised to see that the move was unrelated to the provinces dispute and was in fact done by Radecsz. Knowing how willingly EEML participants make accusations against me, I entered the talk page referring to the dispute that had brought me there. I was responded to by hostile accusations of stalking.

A week later I reverted a controversial naming change in Prince-Bishop citing the Gdańsk (Danzig) vote in my edit summary. I had first edited the article in February 2006 while Radeksz has never edited it before. Ten minutes later he reverts my edits, sparking this long discussion on the article talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jacurek

Mamalala was not my sockpuppet. Skäpperöd, please remove this slander from your evidence page.--Jacurek (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Skäpperöd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also known for misuse of other boards in order to win the upper hand in content disputes. In addition to the already mentioned warning he received for filing unfounded request here [140] he was also put on notice here[141] after filing different unfounded request to win the upper hand in other content dispute [142] Here is the comment from the reviewing administrator [143].

I could provide many other examples of sanction able behavior of user Skäpperöd. Here is one from my latest interaction with him:

- After unfounded revert here [144] and my request [145] Skäpperöd ignoring all WP:CIVILITY rules [146] responds with this derision and name calling [147] and advises me to go away and enjoy the summer[148]--Jacurek (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Varsovian

While I can/will not comment on Raseksz's article edits or this request, it is interesting that despite writing more than three and a half thousand words, he can't come up with a single word to defend his behaviour towards me. In fact the only mention he makes of me is that he "opened a RM for the article, because the previous RM had only two support votes, both by users who have since been topic banned" Very interesting that he uses a future topic ban as justification for opening an RM. Also interesting that Radeksz repeatedly uses a precise legal term (slander) and Jacurek then uses the precise same term in his 13 word note. What are the chances of that happening?! Varsovian (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tropical wind

This request is hardly surprising. It was also my intention to file something after my encounter with Mr Radeksz at Talk:Johann Dzierzon. Daring to vote on the other side, of a user with the enunciation and behavior "raid X", the next moment I immediately found myself on the receiving end of an attack [149][150] Looking at Mr Skäpperöd's presentation, I now see that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern, where Radeksz always tries to intimidate anyone who dares to oppose his POV.[151][152] It is my view that Radeksz is here only to promote his national agenda, which implies promoting the "Polishness" of every possible famous person who possesses a WP article.

If I understand correctly the content of the debate linked to, Radeksz' previous sanction was removed because he said he just wanted to edit all Economics article freely and only to make gnomish edits and avoid all controversy; yet, the presentation by Skäpperöd proves that quite the opposite happened and Radeksz never took his word seriously and immediately exploited the trust and good will to return to his previous state.

Statement by Dr. Dan

I wish to clarify a few thing here. Regarding the question whether or not Skäpperöd is correct that I was indeed a target of the EEML versus Radeksz's statement that I was not..."Dr. Dan an EEML target? Don't be ridiculous. The only way he was a "target" was that people mentioned was that it was best to "just ignore him". Here are a few emails, concerning the subject, for those who are authorized have the capability to read them (members of ArbCom?). They should peruse them in order to determine who is correct regarding that question.

20090816-2332 20090407-0501 20090614-1938 20090715-0839 20090816-1851 20090819-2328 20090819-2341 20090821-0039 20090908-1819 20090819-2300 20090825-2011

Frankly, I wish Radeksz took his own advice and ignored me, something he has not been able to do since his ban was rescinded. It all boils down to this, the evidence presented by Skäpperöd is not about content disputes, it is about Radeksz's behavior since his ban was lifted. At this point recapitulating that evidence here would be a waste of time. It has been succinctly presented already. Those familiar with his case know that Radeksz was involved in a group that seriously undermined the spirit of the Wikipedia project. As a consequence, he and fellow EEML members were sanctioned (and not with a slap on the wrist). In a magnanimous gesture of good will his ban was lifted, primarily due to promises that he would change his ways, and others believing he would do so. He has stated [153] that he is "reformed". The question is simply whether or not his recent behavior has shown that to be true. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret needing to violate my self-imposed Wiki-break for this week. No one is "authorized" to read EEML correspondence. That my personal Emails and those of others are readily available for such reading is a different matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martintg

I wasn't going to comment but I'm not sure how proper it is for Dr. Dan to continue to refer to private correspondence making claims that others may not be in a position to verify, but my recollection was that the consensus formed on the EEML back in 2009 was that Dr. Dan was a troll and the best thing to do was to ignore him (see 20090819-2328).

In fact, Dr. Dan's claims that he was "targeted" is at odds with his own acknowledgement during the EEML case: "I think one of the major tactics was to "ignore" Dr. Dan", unless of course he is claiming he was "targeted" to be ignored.

Loosemark's riposte: "Have they really planned to "ignore" Dr.Dan? Man that's a really diabolical plan, I hope the ArbCom advises them to stop ignoring you at once!" was subsequently the source of much mirth amongst the EEML members.

In my view:

1. WP:EEML was primarily about improper co-ordination, there doesn't appear to be any suggestion of that re-occurring in this amendment request, which seems to be more of a description of a series of content disputes.
2. There are discretionary sanctions available in WP:DIGWUREN if behaviour is an issue and WP:AE is the appropriate venue to address that.

--Martin (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.K.

I am a bit confused. Particular contributor, user:Radeksz during arbitration showed that he have no desire to abandon his counter-productive behavior (bets example - his accidentally publicized an off-wiki communications at end of arbitration), however it was rather ignored. Then Radeksz topic ban was in full force, he systematically breach it. Again Committee reached out to him and lifted the topic ban. Now, we have more then enough examples, there Radeksz's newest "contributions" exceeded granted trust. But now community witnessing only that Arbiters are rather tired of this situation. But let me ask, what should the good faith editors, who working in the same area, have to do, then they are again provoked, harassed in old style of his? Ignoring such behavior only encourage offender as we know from the past. M.K. (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• After thinking about this whole area for a while. I remain convinced that there are disputes in this area that will not be solved (and by solved, I mean preventing future acrimonious disputes from arising), without drastic action. MOST drastic action. Folks, let me make it clear here. There are some users in this area, who are in their own personal Last Chance Saloon. We've tried alternate sanctions. We've tried normalization. Think about where that leaves us. SirFozzie (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo SirFozzie. There is a growing tiredness within the Arbitration Committee for all things EEML related. If this area does not start to improve quickly I foresee another case (whether raised sua sponte or otherwise) with remedies that will not make anyone happy. Please be civil and remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. KnightLago (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone should read and consider SirFozzie's and KnightLago's comments before perpetuating any unnecessary disputes or engaging in unseemly conduct in this topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused. But seriously folks, take these comments to heart - you're painting yourselves into corners. Shell ^babelfish 19:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like Fozzie and some other arbs, why is it the East Europe editors seem completely incapable of getting along with one another. I'm beginning to think we should open another case and use wiki-tactical nuke level measures. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]