Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Evidence

message: Otto ter Haar is a quite infrequent contributor to Wikipedia.  His involvement with Estonia-related articles is confined to less than two days, to June 2 and June 3.  Yet, after five quite problematic edits to Jüri Uluots, he went on to  and .  After that, Petri Krohn has left him "friendly notifications" such as  and , invariably followed by Otto ter Haar's presence.  One might almost think there's an off-Wikipedia relationship translating to on-Wikipedia unquestioning support at play here. Digwuren 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly had the impression that Otto's reaction was way overblown for the alleged offence of having his view on Estonian history called "quaint", but then opening the discussion by branding the article "Estonian nationalistic" POV is not really a civil way to start a discussion either. Odd that such an infrequent editor would choose the Jüri Uluots to edit, hardly a well known person. Perhaps he was fishing for a reaction. I'm kind of reminded of a soccer player taking a dive and writhing in affectated agony to get the referee to send off the opponent player. Martintg 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Otto ter Haar|Otto ter Haar]]'s involvement 

message: An interesting exchange has taken place in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user. Digwuren 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for providing the link. --Irpen 12:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Irpen|Irpen]] hard at work on the [[User:M.V.E.i.|M.V.E.i.]] front 

message: I would put my comment into context.  Specifically, RJ CG had (most recently in  but also elsewhere) attempted to pretend that the issues were a matter of POV, and that accordingly, WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to be blind about his side's assertions' faults.  My comment was intended to remind him, within the narrow confines of an edit summary, that WP:NPOV operates (in structural sense, not in its meaning) differently in matters of fact and in matters of opinion.
As for RJ CG's behaviour towards Deskana, it has a reason.  But since Irpen was so unnice towards me the last time I presented something usable to his side of the battlefield (and, in fact, exploited by Ghirlandajo on WP:AN to tar ProhibitOnions already), I do not see any value in expressing it. Digwuren 10:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]]'s involvement in [[Rein Lang]] 

message: tarbija24.ee is not an individual publication, but a special "portal" of Postimees.  Articles that appear in this domain are usually printed in a separate "informed consumer" section of the paper edition.  Furthermore, because postimees.ee and tarbija24.ee are ran off a same (slightly inconsistent) engine, articles published in one of them are available in the other, too -- and sometimes even so linked.  (Similarly, when Eesti Ekspress, who normally uses ekspress.ee as its domain, links to articles of Eesti Päevaleht, another newspaper operated by the same concern, normally in domain epl.ee, they use epl.ekspress.ee for the domain.)
Thus, when referring to an article found in tarbija24.ee, the proper attribution is to Postimees. Digwuren 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've changed it. --Deskana (talky) 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of tarbija24.ee 

message: :Clerk note: Moved from main evidence page. Cbrown1023 talk 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is clearly cultural, it is not ethnic.  Google finds 1920 matches for the complete phrase "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts", and many more thousands for various paraphrases and commentary.  Apparently, its most notable use concerns discussions regarding pseudoscience. Digwuren 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are correct. I've changed my statement to reflect the proper origin of the phrase. Martintg 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As for confrontational, I find that it's rather late to refrain from confrontation after having been confronted with bogus accusations. Digwuren 13:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is never too late to refrain from confrontation. DrKiernan 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying means that once you meet a bully your best and only option is leaving the project.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Stooping down to the level of a bully accomplishes nothing, especially on Wikipedia. Rise above it, don't fall to the bait. --Deskana (talky) 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lampooning anyone isn't acceptable. And please stop replying to people's evidence on the Evidence page. If you want to submit your own evidence arguing your point, then do it. So far you've provided little other than a link to an RFC. --Deskana (talky) 11:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I haven't had the foggiest idea on what the case will be about.  How could I know which evidence is relevant before the scope was clarified? Digwuren 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In regard to [[User:Deskana|Deskana]]'s evidence

message: Now that I know what the scope will be, I can prepare my case.  Please allow until September 20, at least, as the case is not an simple one.
Furthermore, I note that although FayssalF's accusations are not explicitly included in the declaration of scope, the ArbCom appears to intend them to be within this case's scope. Digwuren 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Digwuren 

message: I thought for long time whether I post any evidence myself. Or take part of the case at all. I don't think there is any need. I could list hundreds of diffs of Ghirlas incivility and disrespect towards other editors but will it make any difference? He has faced several different cases with much more respected editors before and never any damage to his reputation was done. So why would I make any difference? Only thing I want to say is that it doesn't matter how many contributions one has done to wikipedia, he should still respect other editors.
As of me. I feel regret for one instance when I was blocked when I said "Why is biggest troll still throwing fæces around." That was bit incivil. It's mostly cultural difference it's common term in estonian. In english it would probably "throwing mud" or whatever. Trying to picture someone worse as he is. And I probably was quite upset in May when the incidents took place and I was personally unbalanced because my home town was being destroyed. Bar where my friends work was destroyed and some of my friends life was in real danger. And at the same time some people saying that Estonians are Nazis. Sorry I got emotional, and probably made some attacks.
As of any later edits. I don't feel any regret. Most of the diffs provided have important context which quite much changes their meaning if anyone bothers to investigate the issues. If they don't, feel free to indef block me. Maybe only way to get rid of harassment and stalking for me is to create another account. Not interested about the case any more. Bye. Suva Чего? 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence by Suva 

message: Irpen claims only me and Diwurgen share this view. I'd ask interested parties to comment in workshop (Systematic harassment of opposed editors and Harassment parole, which is more likely to be read by ArbCom members.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, just do some emailing around (I assume that you would, as usually, prefer behind the curtain communication). You know who are the editors who hold the grudge against me and will be eager to join in. You can start from Hillock. He would be eager to join the party. I very much hope that this idea will be actually voted by the Arbitrators. --Irpen 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite unlike you and Ghirla, who just "happen" to work as a pair all the time - such as here, posting "evidence" within hours, not duplicating each others "evidence" - or ProhibitOnion's case when you promised "to write something up" and previously uninvolved Ghirla posts to AN. I am quite sure they are just coincidental and you have never heard of user Ghirlandajo before. -- Sander Säde 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I regularly check the contributions of Ghirla as I do to some editors I respect. I assume he checks my contributions too. Do you want a list of editors whose contributions I try to follow? I don't make a secret of it and none of these editors include my frequent opponents. For one, I never check Piotrus' contributions (as explained here) despite I see him commenting on most every issue I am getting involved finding pages where he could not possibly get to otherwise than by following me.I mean, fine. He already demonstrated that he  logs my edits carefully and methodically. I can't prevent him from doing so similarly to how Suva and Digwuren stalk Petri. This is purely an ethical conduct issue and ethics is unfortunately never considered by the ArbCom. --Irpen 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you "never" follow contributions of your "frequent opponents", perhaps the Arbitration Committee would like to hear your version of the circumstances under which you arrived at Denial of Soviet occupation, only to commence sterile editwarring over the WP:GA tags.  To me, this article is special because it's my first WP:GA.  Why would it matter to you? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is very easy to explain, Digwuren. After a long ago incident explained here I watchlisted the DYK announcement page. It is easy to check that Martin's DYK proposal of this historiographic masterpiece was posted at 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Alas, Petri hunting for articles in which to push his Holocaust denial theories is upstanding editing while editors who check on his edits (given his past accusations of Holocaust denial) are sinister stalkers. Your contention that the latter are behaving unethically and your bemoaning that ArbCom does nothing about them are a prime examples of what can only be described as the very lack of ethics you ascribe to others. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only welcome if the ArbCom would finally stop limiting its scope to the blalant violation of 3-4 Wikipedia policies and addressed the ethical conduct as well. If it starts doing so from this case, I hope it would set an important precedent. A large part of the Piotrus' case rested on the ethics of his conduct. Arbcom in the end threw its hands up and issued the most non-decision decision in its history seeing this "too complex" to get involved. I see this case much narrower one. Two editors were trolling Wikipedia since early May and violated every policy there exists. If, however, ArbCom is willing to widen the scope of this case and address some more general issues that it hesitated to address at Piotrus case, I would only welcome such development. --Irpen 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you are correct, but unfortunately the community failed to deal with these distruptive editors, who really have no excuse for incivility and edit warring by virtue of their long experience. The first by having his RFC/U prematurely deleted, the secong having his RfA case dismissed by going offline for the month the case was open. Note that Ghirla's case was temporarily dismissed without prejudice to a request by any party to reopen it in the future if necessary, so if you are unsatisfied with the way ArbCom handled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, you ought to request Arbcom reopen Ghirla's case. Martintg 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Backpedalling sooo fast?  You've only had, what, a month, from when you declared the case "crystal clear", and after this brief 42-day glance at the evidence, you want to widen the scope?  My, my, you should at least give a chance to the evidence there is before you wander off to kill some more. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What backpedaling? The disruptiveness of your and Suva's activity is crystal clear from the onset and nothing changed in your conduct even in view of the ongoing arbcom. All I am saying is that if the arbitrators find it necessary to broaden the scope and issue the region-wide remedies, something they were unwilling to do back then in Piotrus' case, I would happily accept their decision. This does not in any way makes your own conduct less grievous. --Irpen 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on a moment, since when did Suva become a part of your focus, the original case was against "Digwuren and the Tartu based accounts", being those parties in Digwuren's checkuser case. Suva was never in that checkuser case and besides, he lives in Tallinn. What did he do that had promoted him from obscurity to beyond the rank and file of the accused, into the stratosphere of "grievous" misdeeds that you have accused Digwuren of? Martintg 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may read my evidence statement and see for yourself. The scope of the case always gets more precise (or widens) as the case is being investigated. The number of accounts that popped up or got activated in end-April early-May originally confused me. Now that I was paying more attention to the particular names, I stated myself that, eg. Alexia's account is relatively benign while Suva is a trouble-maker of Digwuren's scale. If you want to rename the case retroactively to Digwuren and Suva, I would have no objections. You may even call for renaming it to Irpen-Digwuren for what I care. Names of the cases and the initial parties that take part in it do not limit the scope of the arbitration cases. Arbitrators frequently adjust the scope of the case as they see fit and apply remedies to the parties not originally listed. Some people here resorted to the same old, calls to crucify Ghirla. Piotrus suddenly showed up with his grudge against myself. I won't be surprised to see Hillock showing up after Piotrus calling for a head of Kuban kazak. In the end of the day, arbitrators will determine how wide or narrow the scope of this case is going to become. --Irpen 02:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irpen, it is no news that Piotrus has been more than eager to forge an alliance with everyone whose agenda includes an unhealthy dose of Russophobia, no matter the amount of incivility and disruption associated with such an "ally". I don't give a hoot as to why he decided to bring his grievances to the case whose scope has been limited by the ArbCom to the "Estonian-Russian ethnic dispute", but this decision goes some way towards characterizing his wider editing practices. Of late, I see his name primarily in connection with Digwuren's peculiar views, which he rushes to second and endorse, whatever the context. This campaign culminated in his ready endorsement of the "paranoid loon" characterization of myself with a barnstar. I urge the ArbCom to look closely at Piotr's regular pontification about civility in light of this revelatory incident. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I urge the ArbCom to look closely on whether we wish to see such hostile attitude as demonstrated in post above on this project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Since I decided to report Ghirlas hijacking and retasking of article to administrators which lead to effective enforcement, thus making some people really angry. BTW Irpen, did you know that your conduct is not working anymore? :) Suva Чего? 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you refresh your memory by following the diffs, you will easily discover that you referred to me as one of "the biggest trolls" "still throwing fæces around" several months before I registered such IRC feats as the wild accusations of sockpuppetry leveled by you against Dmcdevit, among others. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a systematic harassment of editors?

message: I have a compelling set of evidence of Irpen making baseless accusations towards me and another editor, who is not a party in this arbitration case, and refusing to back down even after having been given a generous opportunity to do so.  I believe this evidence demonstrates gross violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:CIV and WP:NPA on behalf of Irpen, and the conduct demonstrated therein is a part of a larger campaign of harassment -- also, in violation of Wikipedia policy.
However, this set of evidence contains clips of logs from Wikipedia's IRC channels, which are not to be logged publically.  Accordingly, I'm not sure how to proceed.  Is there a standard procedure I could use? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Related discussions I've found indicate you can't use what is said on an IRC channel as evidence in ArbCom cases as it is unofficial. #wikipedia-en, for example, is not the official IRC channel for en.wikipedia--no official IRC channel exists for any Wikimedia Foundation project. Perhaps someone with more expertise can comment? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The good thing is that I don't need to rely on things said on this channel.  At issue is that Irpen has claimed that a specific thing happened on the channel, and by presenting a log, I can conclusively demonstrate it never happened.  Thus, unofficiality shouldn't be a problem. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Arbitrators can accept such items via email or other private channel. I'd suggest you inquire on clerk's talk page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  The problem with clerks, though, is there are so many to choose from ...  Why can't there be just Wikipedia talk:Arbitration clerks? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So many? I think they are too few, just like ArbComers. Poor guys are overloaded, hence their apparent lack of replies to discussions in ArbCom cases :( And I am afraid a 'clerk talk' would get swamped just like other discussion pages...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseless accusations: a case study