Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision

message: Firstly, we are basically denied arbitration of our respective grievances, just because the topics appear to be too contentious. This "solution" leaves us no alternative but to maintain status quo, that is, to check each possible noticeboard for fraudulent complaints on the part of one's opponent and to watch as Piotrus removes from the articles those sources which he finds unpleasant. This is rather frustrating, but other "solutions" may be even less palatable.
Secondly, some people still add evidence against Piotrus. We should give them some time to come up with their statements of fact and proposed remedies on the workshop page. 
Thirdly, Piotrus and most other Polish editors have made it clear that they don't consider their country part of Eastern Europe. Does it mean that Kirill's proposal applies to Russia-related articles only? --Ghirla-трёп- 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poland is most certainly part of Eastern Europe for the purposes of this arbitration case. Picaroon (Talk) 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the remedy Kirill proposed says "Eastern Europe, liberally defined." It would be unreasonable to construe that as not including Poland. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I follow your logic. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Ghirla 

message: I second Ghirla and Piotrus on that the proposed "Amnesty and Probation" solution does not really seem satisfactory. It would in fact seem a euphemistic way of admitting that the ArbCom was not able to handle the case because of its scope which, as I understand it, could be vaguely defined as "conduct of various editors active in topics related to Eastern Europe". I'm not surprised that the number of edits combined with the nuances of the related content may seem immense. It does to me. On the other hand, since the case was accepted, it would be good to have at least some indication as to which of the questioned users conduct is found unacceptable. Otherwise, the involved editors will continue to believe that they are doing right, and the only outcome of this RfArb will be the extra bad blood it caused. --Lysytalk 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second, on both points. Revert and civility parole would surely be enough to solve any issues. There is only one user whose continuing actions would merit such a solution (IMHO), and that's Dr. Dan. I hope to see ArbCom comment on whether that user's behaviour is acceptable or not.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Lysy 

message: Ban from a year from Eastern European topics? That's fucking ridicilous. Besides the fact that nobody involved in this arbcom deserves a ban, it's just plain stupid to ban someone from contributing to his favorite topic and sole reason being on Wikipedia. MK has very good contributions to Lithuania-related topics (like castles or FA Act of Independence of Lithuania)... and to abandon all that just for some minor skirmishes were his views clashes with Polish nationalism... And MK's contributions are not even the problem. This arbcom was started because of Piotrus and his behaviour.... P.S. I won't have internet access for about a week. Renata 01:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I don't think there are any major "ongoing problems", I only addressed Dr.Dan in his talk page. We are talking to each other as usual in a friendly manner that I believe both Dr.Dan and myself accept. Maybe I should have been rather using email for this communications. --Lysytalk 18:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lysy, may I suggest that you  tone down your remarks on Dan's talk page because, it looks like your remarks are used by Piotrus to panelized your friend Dr. Dan. Thanks, M.K. 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sent an email to Dan, suggesting to continue our discussion on email, still he has chosen to continue in his talk page, which I respect. Are you suggesting that we should censor our discussion there because of the ongoing RfArb ? Specifically which remarks of mine would you like to see toned down ? --Lysytalk 17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, censor? Arbitration process was started to solve lasting problems and to find ways to avoid them in the future and I am convinced that your  provocative actions like these are not helpful at all, as already noticed by three autonomous contributors. M.K. 10:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I consider his remark that your diff mentioned quite unfriendly towards myself, and representing a pattern that has been visible for over a year now. A pattern that I don't think anything other that an ArbCom ruling could end.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MK as a scapegoat

message: * Banning/blocking editors based on their use of controversial sources (per MK's citation of Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija problems). To be consistent with this proposal, WP would need to apply sanctions to users who cite Ramsey Clark, since he acted as Saddam's defense attorney; users who cite Johnny Cochran, who defended OJ, or Clarence Darrow, since he defended Leopold and Lowe, and so forth. This does not go to the reliability of any particular source - just the proposed judgement here that citing controversial sources, including those who have defended convicted or indicted people, warrants a ban or block. 
* The use of experts to determine the reliablity of sources. How will this be implemented? Are there precedents in any other WP project areas? The more consensus and oversight, the better, seems to be the general philosophy here on WP; but since Eastern European issues are complex and unknown to many English-speaking contributors, fatigue sets in quickly. It's also a problem that many references are in Polish, Russian, Belarussian, Lithuanian, etc.  
* A counter-proposal: actively recruit more editors to these projects. Use some rhetoric to the effect that altho the situation is not as dire as that of the Balkans in the 1990s, we can all understand complex issues if we make the effort, and that it's worth our time and energy. Novickas 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy issues raised by the proposed remedies 

message: I would like to ask Fred Bauder and James F. to clarify several points, primarily the criteria which make the following edits appear so drastically different to them:
*  this is qualified as a disruptive edit as well as "harassment", while the following false accusation of vandalism and threat by a sysop to punish opponent in a content dispute is considered OK.
*this condemnation of ethic slurs is listed as disruptive, but the following accusation of  the holocaust revisionism is considered perfectly acceptable.
*this little remark made in compliance with WP:LIVING; WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR is branded as disruption, whereas Piotr's systematic campaign for removal of those references which don't buttress the Polish POV (see the evidence regarding Piotrus presented by Yury Tarasievich, Ghirlandajo, and myself) entails no criticism whatsoever. 
*My usage of presumably unreliable sources is condemned, but using Polish offensive and nationalistic web pages in mainspace    ref No.3, ref No.6 (already mentioned by another contributor) seem to be OK.
I would be grateful to the Arbitrators if they specified what is so strikingly different between my edits and those of Piotrus, that Polish view edits are either sanctioned or amnestied, while Lithuanian view edits are singled out as disruptive and warranting a year-long ban. Thank you a lot for your attention, M.K. 14:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Judging by lack of response to my request on the workshop talk page, the answer is obvious: because Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard. Or because the Polish POV is inherently correct, while the Lithuanian POV is false. Since no other arguments have been presented, we have to go with this theory. It is a far cry from my idea of arbitrating. Within several days User:Molobo, one of the greatest liabilities of Wikipedia, will be unleashed on the poor Lithuanians, so one feels pity for their plight. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Molobo has been gone for a year, and there is no indication he is ever coming back. Could you please leave this favourite bogeyman of yours be, finally?  Balcer 14:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have irrefutable evidence that he was editing all the time using a variety of IPs. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then those IPs should be blocked and his main account block extended.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will reflect on your suggestion. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd better ask him to explain his mysterious behaviour in this affair. Bishonen's and Geogre's requests did not entail any response. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I am asking you, not him. What David does or doesn't do is his own business, what you accuse me of having (some "free pass" from him) is something I'd like to know more from the person this accusation arose (i.e. you).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop twisting my words. Having a free pass is not a crime, and I've never accused you of that. M.K.'s request and my reply were addressed to the Arbitrators. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Twisting your words? I am simply asking you to explain the phrase "Piotrus has a free pass from David Gerard". It's quite clear from that phrase that you accuse me of having that free pass; since I have no idea what this free pass would be I am asking you to elaborate on that term.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As usual, you readily see accusations where there are none. It's not my problem, is it? --Ghirla-трёп- 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Req for clarification

message: The project of decision includes the following: "Any three uninvolved administrators may ban any editor from any set of such articles...".  Could you please clarify this as follows: "Any three administrators who are not involved in editing any articles on eastern European topics may ban any editor from any set of such articles..."? Only then such administrators may be uninvolved.Biophys 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninvolved administrators?

message: This has been my main problem with Piotrus, and the proposed remedies make things so much worse. This is a loaded gun aimed randomly, and all it takes is the first person on AN/I when a complaint comes in to fail to know the full history and the full context. Given that the problem is that outsiders have trouble keeping up with the duplicity and smoothness of some of the warriors, the answer must not be to license less investigation. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course when anybody dares to complain about Ghirlandajo, we are forum shopping. See for more details. Anyway, I agree with Ghirla that a remedy that would delay and delegate the responsibility for future action is rather pointless, not only because I doubt the effectiveness of ANI decisions, which will indeed be taken by administrators unfamiliar with that matter, but also because this ArbCom has all the evidence and tools needed to end this right here, right now. I have asked before and I am asking again: we (all sides...) have listed in evidence and workshop issues that concern us (a relatively small number of editors); ArbCom should rule if they are true or not. Have I been forum shopping, baiting, stalking, fueling revert wars, and so on or not? Have M.K., Dr. Dan or Ghirlandajo been disruptive or has their behavior been within acceptable norms? Should any editor in particular be warned or placed on civility or revert parole? Those are simple questions, concerning several editors, with ample evidence presented and workshop ideas built around them, for ArbCom to address them and solve this NOW.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proposed remedy will encourage forum shopping on AN/I and IRC 

message: I see three arbitrators support the "Parties reminded" remedy, which reads:
:All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately.
Since the above text states that all the involved parties have been acting inappropriately ("continue to") and I've been mentioned by M.K as one of the parties in this case, I would appreciate if the arbitrators could explicitly show my inappropriate behaviour so that I could improve. Thanks in advance. --Lysytalk 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second this request, asking the Arbitrators to show how I've behaved inappropriately for the same reasons. I'd also like to improve and I would very much like to know which of the accusations levied against me have been deemed correct by the ArbCom. On a related note, I'd also add that since the reminder has been proposed, incourteous behaviour has been continuing, as noted in the workshop (ex. , ).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not the first time that you derail discussions of mind-boggling POV that is present in your edits by attempting to cast Wikipedia as a contest in wikilove. Since you, Balcer, Lysy and other Polish editors prefer to discuss "article content" via instant messaging agents, I have no say in the matter, do I? Instant messaging may be very convenient when you need an extra-revert or to have your opinion seconded, so the only thing I can do is to offer my input on talk pages, as I did on Talk:Plan Wschód. If you qualify any open on-wiki discussion of your tendentious or provocative edits as "incourteous behaviour", I can't help you here.  --Ghirla-трёп- 09:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirla, your claim that I prefer to discuss article content via instant messaging agents is simply not true. Please take that back or support with evidence. --Lysytalk 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder if accusing other editors of "derailing discussions of mind-boggling POV" and "provocative edits" (plus other accusations in this post, and its general tone) is in line with our policies (WP:CIV, etc.)? If the ArbCom will not react to this, I am assuming that flinging of such accusations, and posts with such a tone, are perfectly ok on this project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Piotrus, you still expect people to stop discussing your edits and applaud as you insert POV into articles? Wikipedia is not about that. The concept of civility refers to discussions of personalities rather than content, while the epithets like "provocative edits" and "mind-boggling POV" refer to content rather than personalities. Your attempts to dismiss every content dispute questioning the validity of your edits as "incivil" are stale news, really. Please don't game the system. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. So you are saying that if I were to say 'Editor X is disruptive', that's incivil, but 'Editor X's edits are disruptive' is perfectly ok? I am afraid this sounds like gaming the system to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If Arbcom members do not have the energy or the time to make effective rulings in this case, it would be better if they openly said so, instead of issuing such boilerplate warnings which satisfy no one. Balcer 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties reminded

message: Amnesty assumes guilt. I insist that I'm punished for my guilts. --Lysytalk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to confuse amnesty with clemency. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that ? To quote the article: [Amnesty] includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence.--Lysytalk 09:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be amnestied even before the verdict and the hearing. Amnesty does not imply the assumption of guilt. "Amnesty means forgetting past deeds, consigning them to oblivion so that they may not become an issue in the future. Amnesty has often been used as a means of healing animosities and divisions caused by war". --Ghirla-трёп- 12:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. It would be nice to at least know what guilts are we guilty off, so we can try not to repeat them in the future. Diffs to specific posts by specific editors, of course, are needed - generalities are useless.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Piotrus, please familiarize yourself with the title of this page: it is "proposed decision", not "evidence". If you need evidence, go to the appropriate page, where your practice of wheel-warring was discussed at length, as well as many other controversial edits.               --Ghirla-трёп- 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I'd very much like to know if ArbCom recognized any of those diffs or not. Also, I wonder, if you consider any of your behavior discussed in this ArbCom as violating any of our policies, or would you say you are innocent of all claims presented by others (like myself)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that every involved editor has occasionally crossed the line, but in most cases transgressions have been motivated by the controversial nature of the subject, rather than by malice aforethought. Given these circumstances, I would like to see the present case result in prevention rather than punishment. My hope is that the situation will be defused rather than escalated, although one of the proposed remedies seems to pursue a different aim. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider this: several editors here (myself included, and see Lysy's and Balcer's comments above) don't believe we can change our behavior until a neutral party (i.e. ArbCom) clearly tells us what we have done wrong. In lack of such explanation, we are free to assume we have done nothing wrong (or at least, nothing specific) and without that knowledge we will continue our wrongdoing. I further believe that the same applies to all other editors, including you (unless you can clearly state when you have 'crossed the line' and promise you will not do so in the future). Thus, the 'amnesty' will not change the behavior of a single editor involved in this case, and we will end up exactly where we started (particularly as recent diffs in workshop shows, both sides are unhappy with continuing behavior of the other sides up to and including the most recent days). PS. I agree that prevention is better then punishment, and this is why I have repeatedly asked for a civility parole to be placed on editors who have been shown to be incivil. Such users will be shown diffs of their past incivil behavior and warned that future repetition will be penalized. Or do you believe this would not work and would like to suggest a better solution?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that incivility is the issue that engendered this case. POV-pushing, tendentious editing, forum shopping, routine removal of references - these are the issues that induced M.K. to launch the request. I can readily see your interest in deflecting the discussion, but that is not going to solve our problems. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interestingly, ArbCom's current proposals don't mention those issues at all - but I'd gladly support your request for an ArbCom to clearly state if any users (and if so, who in particular) have been guilty of such actions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ghirla, you are right about the connection. Below are my thoughts that I compiled. It took me a lot of thinking. --Irpen 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amnesty 

message: Replying to this Lysy’s comment. What do you mean with exactly?  You referencing to P.P’s “finding” that Okinčic‘s opinion should not be taken seriously, or yet better – trust unknown Bolshevist newspapers readers letter (or as Piotrus calls it - the “review”) instead? Clarify this, if you can.  Going back to note that “he's been also criticized for aggressive actions against another Polish newspaper “Kurier Wileński”, I do not know which actions of Okinčic were “aggressive”, but he is not the only one with critical opinion regarding these Polish nationalistic newspapers, for instance autonomous watchdog established that Kurier Wileński was promoting ethnic hatred. So Okinčic criticism regarding these newspapers is concurred.  
Regarding you question about person name, why I use his name as Okinčic. Because having polish ethnicity elements, not makes your name as Polish by default and because such name is written in this official LRS biography, and because such name is used in his advocacy data, and because such name is in his Lithuanian passport, and yes,  because he personally use it. So you suggesting that I should neglect WP:LIVING?  However this situation reminds me user:Halibutt’s behavior, who deliberately continues to mock Lithuanian names.  M.K. 11:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What "autonomous watchdog"?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Žurnalistų ir leidėjų etikos komisija. M.K. 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? When? Publication or external link, please. Based on the title it's at the very least a "Lithuanian autonomous watchdog"... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Piotrus, obscure nationalist sources of newspaper quality, especially in foreign languages, are not acceptable in Wikipedia, even if they buttress your own POV. It is sad to see that editors have to seek to counter the pro-Polish POV on arbitration pages, rather than on WP:RSN, which has been monopolized by one of the parties to the dispute since its inception back in May. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Polish nationalistic newspapers

message: ===The root cause of this mess===
To start with I would like to reiterate what I have been saying on multiple occasions, most recently in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus#Statement by Irpen (which I ask you to re-read if you have an extra minute) but also here, here and elsewhere that we should be able to see through and distinguish the true reason of these wikidrama. That nations in conflict, with tangled histories and historical animosity, would generate content disputes at Wikipedia is not news and Eastern European editors are hardly to blame for this.  However, these content conflicts overall have been handled in what could hardly have been a worse manner. By emphasizing the wrong priorities, using the wrong tools and wrong solutions often by force, nothing has been advanced, and neither peace nor quiet has been achieved. When what is, at its core, a historical, ethnic, educational, and political disagreement is presented instead as an issue of "civility" and "personal attacks," we get no closer to achieving harmonious editing. Earlier, I was equally critical towards some of the Piotrus' opponents for using a somewhat similar trick (presenting the irreconcilable content disputes as civility issues) that time against Piotrus best friend, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt#Outside view by Irpen (Piotrus conveniently agreed with me at that time, of course.)
===Methods and solutions that make the matters worse===
Such content disagreements have to be solved by a robust debate and by inviting more sides (preferably non-involved ones) and considering more sources. Instead we are getting Piotrus' favored secretive off-wiki discussions and more troops are always there when an extra revert, extra vote or extra voice  at ANI is requested while real issues are sidetracked and the real problems at the heart of the matter are skipped as the onlookers are mislead by frivolous arguments of the parties that try to accuse the opponents in violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:WHATNOT. 'All this is wrapped in any number of "WP:this" and "WP:that",' as Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus#Statement by Yury Tarasievich puts it very well.
Off-line prepared campaigns and forum shopping sprees are another favored method that seems to often work and will work even better, should ArbCom defer the future resolution of this disputes to the "ANI court". By buying into this hypocritical replacement of the issues of content with issues of WP:THISandTHAT and looking the other way or even directly encouraging forum shopping, all we do is praise the greater hypocrite or the more skilled warrior with the biggest smile on his face. I don't support personal attacks or incivility but I urge the arbcom to not confuse the very few cases where the incivility in itself is indeed the core problem with the majority of these conflict which are the content disputes aggravated by the wrong methods of resolution and, especially, by  the campaigns being run both openly on- and secretly off-wiki. The civility issues, if any, have nothing to do either with the true problem or with the solution that would actually help end it. ArbCom have seen plenty of the hypocritical arguments and will hopefully not buy into this one.
 
This case should not end up rewarding any side that is not the most correct, or the most compliant with Wikipedia's policies, but merely the most devious, and Piotrus certainly appears to be devious when he seeks the destruction of his opponents both openly and secretly, by himself or instigating fellow editors to call for heads wanted by Piotrus. 
That all (not one or even two or three but ALL) sides were POV-pushing, at least to some degree, is something ArbCom seem to agree here. Trying to push questionable sources that support one's own POV and attack the sources that support the opposite POV has become commonplace. This and other similar practices are to be expected, will recur and this has to be addressed not by the ArbCom decision (see the proposal below.) I applaud the general amnesty proposal for the POV-pushing that seems to be getting the support votes. But one side of this conflict seems to have been unique in one respect. We now have a rare case of direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence that one side has organized a whole underground system aimed at winning the content disputes by playing low (please see FoF's 4.2.25 and 4.2.26 at the workshop as well as some context at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#A little background .
Piotrus has created and meticulously maintained for months a page outside of the Wikipedia where he collected diffs and links to be used not as sources for the articles but in support of the future actions aimed at destruction of his opponent editors. While this arbitration case started only in the end of April, Piotrus' collection of diffs aimed to present his opponents merely as trouble makers, should the need arise, dates way earlier than that. While he kept giving me occasionally some sweet talk on-wiki, he has secretly added me to his hit list in March, way before the onset of this ArbCom or the statement that I posted to it.
Many Polish editors soon after joining the WP or at some later point, received a talk page message from Piotrus (usually in Polish) requesting for the IM information.,,, ,, We don't know how many more received such messages over email. When caught at the workshop with that, Piotrus claimed to have done so "to discuss articles." How believable is that IM is good to use for articles' discussion rather than requesting a hand in reverting, a "vote" in RfD, FAC, RM or RfAdm when needed is left to others to decide. At least we saw on many occasions how new (and familiar) forces joined the revert wars fueled by Piotrus exactly when needed, voices of editors never active at ANI, XfD, WP:RM or RfAdm conveniently appeared at the boards when needed, etc.
I believe, this mere fact of one side's playing particularly low needs to be acknowledged in the ArbCom's final finding of fact section. But if ArbCom is uncomfortable about giving a ruling that deals purely with ethics  matters, no matter how strong the evidence is and despite the evidence is onwiki right in front of it,  maybe ArbCom cas still try some novel remedies. I believe we ought to find a better solution than hanging most everyone or handing down a loaded gun to whoever happens to be at ANI when one party crafts a new complaint aimed at winning a content dispute through an opponent's block.
We cannot really do anything about Piotrus' or anyone else's ethics but we can and must design a solution to address the future conflicts that would actually work and this must reduce the randomness of the future remedies (conflicts are bound to persist) and eliminate the effects of forum shopping. We saw time and again what will be happening with this left to ANI court and this will continue if the ArbCom gives a ruling that would give advantage to a party that is more crafty in forum shopping and more unscrupulous in how low one is allowed to act. Users who help solve these conflicts need to be familiar with their context, the participants, preferably have their trust and know exactly what is going on rather than be clueless, eager and loving to use the block button and be presented with only one side of the story conveniently concocted by the forum shoppers while the other side does not have a chance to respond. And even if given a chance, how would another series of hurtful blocks help? 
Remember, we are dealing with the real people here. Editors, who love their countries, know their histories and are immensely committed to the Wikipedia. You are not dealing with trolls or problem editors here at least for the most part. Letting the heads roll may be tempting but what will be achieved by that? Editors would get even more aggravated and radicalized and we would be actually in a worse place. Banning many people altogether? That would make it quiet and may seem appealing, especially if nice and quiet is more important than the encyclopedia itself. Fine, let's not care about live people. Forget Fred Bauder's "feelings matter" principle he recently brought to a different workshop. Screw the people, encyclopedia is all that matters. Good! But who will then write it, may I ask? Please note the amount of the amazing content we, the East Europeans are creating. And note who writes most of it? The ones most hated by their opponents are among the best content writers: Ghirla, Halibutt, M.K., Piotrus...  The "there are no irreplaceable editors" argument, while correct, does not apply either. The community of WP editors is very representative of the RL community, from what I can tell. If we manage to radicalize the current editors further, ban them or drive them away, the new editors that will (hopefully) come would not be much different. And we are not talking about the bad seeds here. We are talking about the best authors of this encyclopedia. There are some bad seeds, but clearly not the main figures of this case, don't forget that.
===A novel solution for ArbCom to consider===
Why not try a truly novel solution since nothing else worked so far in this segment of Wikipedia except banning a few exceptional trolls, which are rather a rarity? I propose instead creating a dedicated tool, let's call it Eastern European Work Group composed from the Eastern European editors themselves. 
Not everyone of the EE editing community has a cool enough head and the community trust (or at least a lack of mistrust) to be able to help steer the future conflicts towards resolution but all, except few, want them resolved. All, except few, want to write articles, seriously and without undue obstruction, without bitter conflicts and what we all already wrote is the best proof of it. I am sure there is an editor or two in most every EE nation that has the respect of their compatriot community and would, at the same time, not be too much opposed by the members of other EE communities (perhaps even supported but this may be too much to ask for too many.) There are also some non-EE editors who are interested and familiar with the context. Their participation would be most welcome as well. We can work out the specifics together but we need a Work Group composed of respected editors  who are familiar with the problems, their history and the main players. 
Lets work out (preferably together with the ArbCom) such group and have it develop its procedures, see how its first solutions would work out, see how it all works. I'd emphasize that this is not an iron-clad proposal but rather an ad-hoc solution, but it may actually work. I could name the candidates from most every involved EE community for such group but this is a secondary issue for now. If ArbCom can see that this is something that may actually work, let's give it a try, get the ball rolling and see how it goes. In case of failure, we would end up right where we are but, judging from the current state of affairs of the proposed decision page and the comments above, no better solution is in sight. So, it cannot make things worse.  This is as far as the remedies are concerned.
===ArbCom's attention and participation in the workshop would help===
As for the finding of fact, that the discussion and the proposed decision pages are being stalled and nothing is happening is unacceptable. That only one or two ArbCom members tops participate in the workshop does not help matter either. This is not what we expected from our Arbcom members when we  were electing them. "We are busy and backlogged" does not really help matters. You are busy, I am busy, Jimbo is busy, everyone is busy. Please get back to the workshop and comment, propose, discuss. We need to have meaningful and congruent FoF and principles sections in the final decision of this case.
===Conclusion===
To summarize, my lengthy post address four issues at hand. 
#The crux of this conflict lies in nothing but a host of interconnected content disputes. Seeing this as anything else does not help the matters but steers us further away from the solution. 
#Certain underground tricks are unacceptable and there seems to be the case that a particular party showed a particular taste to playing them. If Arbcom agrees that this is indeed what's happening, it would help if it acknowledges so. 
#The creation of the dedicated workgroup is proposed as an ad-hoc solution as other remedies have been either ineffective in the past or apply to resolve issues that are not really the ones in front of this ArbCom. 
#Since the case seems stalled wrt to the currently proposed FoF's and proposed principles, the workshop discussions need to be jumpstarted and continue with the participation of the ArbCom members.
Thanks for reading this, --Irpen 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing a novel solution that may actually work

message: To summarize, my lengthy post address four issues at hand. 
#The crux of this conflict lies in nothing but a host of interconnected content disputes. Seeing this as anything else does not help the matters but steers us further away from the solution. 
#Certain underground tricks are unacceptable and there seems to be the case that a particular party showed a particular taste to playing them. If Arbcom agrees that this is indeed what's happening, it would help if it acknowledges so. 
#The creation of the dedicated workgroup is proposed as an ad-hoc solution as other remedies have been either ineffective in the past or apply to resolve issues that are not really the ones in front of this ArbCom. 
#Since the case seems stalled wrt to the currently proposed FoF's and proposed principles, the workshop discussions need to be jumpstarted and continue with the participation of the ArbCom members.
Thanks for reading this, --Irpen 04:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: *Ghirlandajo wrote "massacre talk" in his comment on my edit in Chervyen. I find his comment uncivil. The death of hundreds of prisoners deserves one line and shouldn't be mocked.   
*Ghirlandajo admits he investigates Polish editors in the Polish Wikipedia, even if he doesn't understand Polish. I understand he wants to control his Polish opponents.   
*Ghirlandajo attacked me when I asked about basic facts not mentioned in Fire of Moscow (1812). Everyone has the right to edit the article and to discuss its content, now the article is much better than it used to be before my comments, it's also connected with several other articles.
*Ghirlandajo accused me of being anti-Russian, because I describe Soviet crimes. Is Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn anti-Russian? Xx236 15:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Xx236

message: Off-line prepared campaigns and forum shopping sprees are another favored method that seems to often work and will work even better, should ArbCom defer the future resolution of this disputes to the "ANI court". By buying into this hypocritical replacement of the issues of content with issues of WP:THISandTHAT and looking the other way or even directly encouraging forum shopping, all we do is praise the greater hypocrite or the more skilled warrior with the biggest smile on his face.
: This is indeed the problem as I see it. As I said above, the solution to this problem is not to escalate every content dispute by involving a number of biased bigmouths to divert the attention of one's opponents from productive mainspace editing. Once folks are unable to substantiate their nationalist POV with reliable sources, they start running from WP:ANI to WP:AN to WP:AN3 to WP:PAIN submitting fraudulent reports of incivility, "vandal encouragement", and whatnot to have their opponents eliminated. Wikipedia should develop a mechanism to deal with this sort of disruption. I don't believe that a teenage admin monitoring WP:ANI may instantly investigate and offer a ready solution to problems that go back several years. Troll farms of one-purpose nationalist warriors only aggravate the situation.
: It's a pity that Piotrus has failed to address any of these issues. Although the request for this arbitration was not based on WP:CIVIL, Piotrus recently took up this policy as a shield to fend off any implication that his behaviour has been less than appropriate. Not that I really mind this approach, given that the policy expressedly identifies "taunting", "racial slurs", and "calling for bans or blocks" as disruptive. There is plenty of evidence on Workshop that Piotrus is the only person driving contributors from Wikipedia in connection with this case. While these issues are real and deplorable, the core problems are POV-pushing, tendentious editing, forum shopping, and  routine removal of references. 
: Irpen's proposal to set up an above-the-battle body for investigation of these claims - the Eastern European Working Group - deserves some consideration. If sanctioned by the ArbCom decision, the group may comprise trusted members of each national community and opine on the propriety of accusations leveled against Piotrus, myself, or other long-standing contributors before they are passed to administrators' noticeboards. I'm sure that Alex Bakharev, Balcer, Dahn, DDima, Yury Tarasevich, Olessi, Duja etc. know more about the background for these conflicts than an average ANI admin. As I can see it, there is no connection whatsoever between the proposed working group and the EEnoticeboard or any other national noticeboard abused by ethnic cliques as a tool for canvassing and astroturfing. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Ghirlandajo

message: Thanks Irpen for your thoughtful remarks. I believe they contain many relevant insights. I agree that the root cause of the problems here is content disputes not incivility. This explains ArbCom's inability to be of much help in resolving these issues — ArbCom does not have (nor should it have) the authority to resolve content disputes. The proposal for the creation of an Eastern European Working Group, seems like an interesting idea. But I have some questions. What is actually being proposed here? And what exactly does such a group have to do with the ArbCom? Paul August ☎ 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, let me suggest a somewhat different focus. True, content disputes are a root of the problem - but they are not the problem itself. Content disputes are common on Wikipedia and by themselves don't lead to ArbCom - it is incivility, revert warring, and other types of disruptive behavior, rampant during certain content disputes involving certain editors that augment the problem and, apparently unsolvable by lower level DRs lead to ArbCom(s). A very good and recent case study of this situation involving parties from this ArbCom would be the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). The article was Featured only days ago, but during the FAC some editors - like myself - were subject to uncivil comments and accusations (see link above). Despite that we were able to improve the article and get community consensus for the Featured status, but the uncivil remarks, which were the sole contribution of several editors, were not helping. As an author of 20 FAs, I can assure you we can deal with content - providing reliable refs and copyeditng the articles for NPOV is not a problem. The problem is having to face a near-constant torrent of bad faith accusations, by editors who try to insert POVed fragments, fail to provide reliable sources, and resort to personal attacks in attempt to vent frustration or perhaps even aiming to chase their opponents away from certain articles (or from the project itself). A simple civility parole, imposed on certain editors (or all, personally I believe all editors on Wikipedia should be subject to civility parole, but that's a topic for another day) would solve the problem immediately. As for the Eastern European Working Group, as I wrote above, such an idea has been tried before, and apparently failed to do much good.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Piotrus, I believe that the working group implies something fundamentally different from a trivial noticeboard. Hopefully Irpen will flesh out his proposal. As to the page linked above, it is instructive in a sense, becase it spotlights what I have to go through on a daily basis from your yes-men and some other ethnic cliques: Are you afraid of the truth? Your beloved Red Army and NKVD commited several atrocities in Polish Kresy in 1939 and then, in the period 1939-1941 and 1944-1945. This article does not even mention them, to appease such individuals as you I guess. Anyway, personal slandering will not change history and truth will prevail etc, etc. Since nobody cared to react to the torrent of personal attacks, I assume that civility is in the eye of the beholder. I suppose I made my point about the disruptiveness of ethnic cliques clear when I said that "Unlike many others, I'm not followed by a crowd of Russians defending my opinions. The only way that you *won't* be alone is by being a nationalist yourself. That's the irony". --Ghirla-трёп- 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tymek, unfortunately, seems - in my opinion - to use the same uncivil language and style as you do (I don't see much difference between "beloved NKVD" and "Polish yes-men and their propaganda"). I have recently seconded a warning he got with relation to another uncivil message, telling him that such comments are not acceptable. I was not aware of this one - I didn't read it, as it was not addressed to me; anyway it dates before the commend he was warned about and I hope he will change his behavior. That said, please note that his incivility was only an emulation of what you started on the relevant pages. As the proverb goes: "You reap what you saw". If you'd not have accused various editors, him including, of conspiracy and such, he would have no need to reply in kind to you, now, would he? So please: be more civil with your future posts, and I am sure you will find that much fewer people have complains about your behavior.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the above applies in equal measure to you. Tymek, infortunately, seems - in my opinion - to use the same uncivil language and style as you do, Piotrus. He is not the only Polish editor who emulates your objectionable editing techniques. It seems that, by your example, discussing our articles in Polish has become a regular fixture on user talk pages. There is a gulf of civility between the incontrovertible fact that there are many accounts ready to second your opinions and Tymek's facile allegation associating me with murderous thugs such as NKVD (have I ever edited an article on the subject?) You have been requested to stop comparing me to Molobo, Halibutt, Tymek, and other Polish accounts. Frankly, I'm unimpressed by your failure to do so. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a diff (from this year, please) where I accuse you of representing "beloved NKVD or Red Army", or anything similar in tone and style. My evidence of your recent incivility is presented at the evidence section and related workshop proposals; your evidence, which consists of diffs by other editors of diffs to edits I have failed to prevent fails to show I have been uncivil to you since our mediation last December. For the record, your above statement that you are offended by comparison to "Polish accounts" is a perfect example of the claims which create unfriendly editing atmosphere.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You effectively endorsed Tymek's revolting allegation by the comment "I don't see much difference between "beloved NKVD" and "Polish yes-men and their propaganda", which is apples and oranges, so to speak. I have nothing in common with such editors as Molobo or Tymek, and I don't want to be compared to them. Such comparisons qualify as baiting. Both "taunting" and "baiting" are overtly forbidden by WP:CIVIL. Please check the appropriate policy. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  2005 diff? Oh well. The ArbCom really should have a rule on the age of permissible diffs. But in any case, as I told you on your talk page, pointing fingers here will do neither of us any good. Since you do seem to share some of my sentiments about this argument being pointless, let me suggest we end this particular discussion here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment and questions from Paul August 

message: Piotrus' reply above sadly demonstrates the problem that is one of the main reasons why we are all here. Piotrus' sees blocking his content opponents as means to solve content disputes. We need the group not to evaluate civility. There has been enough of this frivolous civility talk as explained in a great detail in my message above. This talk is the problem rather than the solution as invoking it without reason allows Piotrus, who is himself not a civility model, btw, to circumvent real issues. When the civility problems amount to disruption, there are means already to solve these problems. The civility does not consist only of selecting the nice words to say nasty things, btw. --Irpen 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brief response by Irpen

message: On further thought I removed this thread between Balcer and myself initiated by me. It is available in history. Arbitrators who vote know the parties opinion anyway. Why bother. --Irpen 23:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the thread above.  I do not believe it is proper to just erase long discussions at will. Balcer 23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure!