Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Proposed decision

message: Why are arbitrators signing up to a decision that has issues raised about in the workshop witch have not been addressed? At least agreeing Arbitrators should leave a note why they are being disregarded...--Alexia Death the Grey 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Workshop exists to post comments and to propose solution (and other items), but the final say rests with the arbitrators.  Rest assured that they have taken into account what people have commented, but still feel the motion should pass. Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, I would still expect at least a note in workshop or next to their vote why they have disregarded those questions even if just to signify that they have at least seen them.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope problem. 

message: No comment on the rest so far, but I like this remedy very much. It will send a strong message about what isn't tolerated here. But could you please consider extending it to all accusations of national or ethnic groups holding fascist sympathies and all accusations of genocide denial, too? The latter seems appropriate especially in regards to conflicts in the ongoing Armenia-Azerbaijan issue.
Also, would adding an "any three administrators" clause as an alternative to forwarding the issue to the committee be appropriate, or do you consider this sort of sanction to need tighter control on its implementation? Picaroon (t) 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second. Enforceable remedies are nice. It's high time to show we enforce our policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy 8 

message: While no one has proposed bans as a remedy in the workshop, and ofcourse this is entirely up to the arbitrators to decide, and no doubt will undergo many revisions, having Estonian editors carry the greater burden of the penalties in a case where the locus is Estonian history, may do more harm to Wikipedia than good. A better remedy, if bans are required, could be to ban certain editors like Petri Krohn from editing Estonia related articles, for example, rather than a blanket one year ban. Given the tiny demographic of university educated english speaking Estonians, it would be a great loss to Wikipedia if Digwuren and Suva were banned from Wikipedia, and thus editing Estonia related articles for which they have already made great contributions, such as fascinating articles on Estophilia and Estonian National Awakening, or articles related to the Soviet Union with interesting well sourced articles such as Soviet historiography. Martintg 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, which is why I'd suggest editing restrictions instead. Although a topical ban on Soviet Union subjects for certain editors may be worth considering, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I propose such a restriction for you Piotrus. After all you're interested in Polish history above all, so I don't think it will damage anything (yes, this is sarcasm). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I already said on the Occupation of Latvia case, editors like that Wikipedia can do without (I would rather call them "POV-pushers" but that's beside the point). -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remedies

message: Guys, the proposed remedies are too harsh, they involve many very productive editors, there long bans should be the weapons of the last resort:
# I have been in a number of conflicts with Digwuren and I find many of his edits to be quite disruptive. On the other hand, he certainly is very enthusiastic editor who creates significant non-controversial content. Taking into the account the particular situation around the network configuration in Tartu as found by the checkuser the only way to enforce the bans is to ban all the new accounts from Tartu that show vaguely pro-Estonian government POV. It would certainly generate a lot of collateral damage. Can we instead put him on a sort of disruption parole, there any uninvolved admin (that is basically any admin but me) could block him for up to a week for any editing appearing disruptive? We could add 1RR restriction or something. I think we can find a way for him to make productive editing while limiting the disruption and soapboxing.
# The same goes for Suva
# Petri's main area of interests lays outside the Estonian-Soviet-Russian relations, while all the problems found lay inside. Petri also a very productive editor who generate a lot of good content. He also voluntarily stays off the Estonia-related themes for weeks. At the most banning him from Estonia-related articles would solve the problem. It would actually be a pity as  he is one of a few of editors independent from the pro Estonian government POV, who is able to check Estonian-language sources. Maybe we can only restrict his editing as per Alexia Death?
# The conflict between Piotrus and Irpen (or widely between "Russian and Ukrainian mafia" and "Polish Cabal") lays outside the topic of this case. Irpen's main interest is Ukrainian history, Piorus's one is Polish history. As both topics are tightly intersected the editors are bound to communicate with each other. Stopping their communication would hinder the development of many articles.  
#Finally I agree with R8, but can it also include accusations of supporting Stalinism? It can also be quite offensive 
Alex Bakharev 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with Alex that the penalties are too harsh, Petri's attitude as exemplified by his soapboxing here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_venue_for_promoting_inflammatory_views should earn him a permanent topic ban on articles covered by Wikiproject Estonia. For whatever disruption Digwuren (or Suva) may be guilty of, it can never be said that they have engaged in the kind of ethnically vilifying soapboxing that Petri (or Ghirla for that matter) have done. Martintg 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, In this section I can see only see in the section the materials related to User:Roobit, the only connection to Petri is that he removed a long inflammatory declaration from an article to the Roobit's talk page. I do not see how the diff can justify any action against Petri unless you assume he is Petri's sockpuppet. Anyway I am glad you agree with me Alex Bakharev 10:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only one part of a bigger picture presented here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Behaviour_of_experienced_editors_as_model, but it does illustrate the level of Petri's political activism. The Bronze Soldier issue has understandibly stirred up passions, but it seems that Digwuren has become a lightning rod for those who disagree with the policies of the Estonian government. Martintg 10:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that the remedies are too harsh.  I understand the principle of symmetry, but it is a false god and, frankly, an abrogation of an arbitrator's duty.  If you are judges, then you must judge, and that means not taking the position of, "I don't care who started it! Everyone in the time out corner!"  It means you must distinguish the instigation and the response, the piling on and the campaign.  In fact, Irpen seems to me to have gone well above and beyond to not get into spitball exchanges.  That's just me, though.  The point is that throwing enormous, blind blows at the entire group is effectively no arbitration at all.  Geogre 10:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the most thoughtful comment on this page, succinct and to the point. "Off with their heads!" - this is the sort of attitude that we came to expect from ArbCom and that prevented us from bringing the grievances to ArbCom for four months. Many of us know from experience that ArbCom is either reluctant or lacks time to look into the diffs and so has to operate with awfully vague statements about "general incivility" and "general disruption". For several months, I have been subjected to mind-boggling insults (some are listed on the Workshop) and, instead of equitable solution to the problem, I find my opponents remedy-shopping, so to speak, with general comments that "something needs to be done with Ghirla" because he stands in the way of their POV-pushing. It is sad that the proposed decision makes no distinction between civil and incivil editors, well-established contributors and one-purpose tendentious accounts, those who started the fight and those who attempted to defend their good name as well as they could. What's the point of sticking to civility, if this comment is equated with this and equal measures are proposed for both sorts of "disruption"? It makes no difference if you stick to WP:NPA or accuse your opponents of "throwing faeces around", as long as equal punishments would be meted out to you both. As long as editors are treated arbitrarily rather than equitably, I can't be reasonably expected to continue my involvement with this particular wikipedia.  --Ghirla-трёп- 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirla, do you happen to remember this proposal? I do believe it applies here. -- Sander Säde 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Alex that revert and civility paroles would be preferable to outright bans. I do strongly support the idea that such paroles are preferable to non-enforceable remedies (as where implemented in the "Piotrus" case, and haven't solved anything, obviously). But I would abstain on the restrictions on Irpen-myself interaction, and support Irpen's civility parole. Yes, sometimes something good comes out of those discussions - but the cost is simply too great. Much of my wikistress - sometimes reaching the point when I thought about leaving this project - have been caused by his comments. Bad faith assumptions on both sides run too deep for the discussions to be nice and friendly anymore. And the worst thing is that valuable editors (like Balcer) have left because they couldn't stand such atmosphere and accusations levied at them. Hence, the civility restrictions to stop bad faith accusations are a must. And please, let's not talk about technicalities like 'scope'. ArbCom can redefine scope as they please, to solve problems they find as they go along.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I strongly feel that all bans here should be lifted. Civility paroles and restrictions are different matter.Biophys 05:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedies are too harsh 

message: Why is he still an admin if you find him sufficiently problematic for this to be the second arbcom involving him, and one which includes restrictions on his editing behaviour? 86.137.25.192 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please log in and say whatever you have under your username. Personally, I think that admins should set examples by their conduct but adminship is rarely revoked for conduct where the admin buttons were not used. Right or wrong, this is how it works. --Irpen 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus 

message: 20:02, 1 May 2007 I joined this project. It was almost exactly five months ago. I joined unaware of the rules governing this project. On my second day I saw this , equating three whole nations to Nazis. As someone new to the project I learned by examples and tended to react rather than act.Please see the diffs of my incivility and attacks. On July 15 Ghirla said to me: "You have been told a dozen times that the trolling of administrators' noticeboards by Korps! Estonia is not welcome." And nobody bit him for that. On 16th I had a revelation to his tactics of upsetting people and getting reaction rather than action and so I reacted for the last time, following his example form previous day with "Troll ignored." referring to the statement not the editor... I do apologize if it was seen as an attack. Also, I would like to point out that these diffs are from July, from my 3rd month on Wikipedia. I am much wiser today, than I was then and appeal to amnesty of Piotrus ArbCom to be extended to us as well if it is extended to Ghirla.
I fail to see how the diffs listed show sustained revert waring in cases of Erna Raid, where we worked out an attributed and sourced sentence finally incorporated into the lead, or in case of a diff from Monument of Lihula that I myself reverted in 2 minutes . I acknowledge guilt in other cases, but if you take a look at the dates on diffs, they are from June and July, and for me represent lessons already learned.  
The restrictions... Well all in all I did try to start a discussion when ever I reverted and firmly believe too much reverting and too little dispute resolution goes on, tho I am aware I myself have erred against that occasionally. Please see my essay on the matter . Civility however is subjective. I cannot control how people read into my statements, so I propose that if hurting someones feelings its flowed by a sincere apology and an explanation it does not count as incivility. Does not matter to me since I am not going to participate in this project any longer, but in the interest of retaining the right to communicate without fear of block over misspelled name on misunderstood word I urge the arbitrators to consider this.
If measures of restriction on Wikipedia are used only preventively and not punitively then why do the governing forces hold back on admonishing and using them long time editors who should know better and only apply them to newbies? When this ArbCom was requested I supported it, because I wanted all sides of this conflict measured with the same stick. This is not happening as evidenced per the Proposed decision page. If this is not happening, nothing will change. And I can no longer contribute to this project.
--Alexia Death the Grey 07:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexia's Statement 

message: Sander Sade today accused me in racism . Probably this may deserve some sanctions as Sander Sade is the most uncivil user here in my mind (even more incivil than Digwuren). He does not respect any Wikipedia's rules.--Dojarca 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the evidence page to post individual complaints. And I don't think anyone should be sanctioned for an isolated incident. Warned perhaps. --Irpen 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the first time: . Added to evidence.--Dojarca 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know, who "Sander Sade" is, sorry. But care to explain why have you in your third deletion nomination badmouthed Estonians, a totally irrelevant subject to nomination? From the article Racism, "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.". I do believe it covers your actions very well. -- Sander Säde 09:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not bad mounted Estonians. I only made clear that all the accounts in question are based in one place.--Dojarca 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And exactly how is the nationality of the editors - or, in that matter, editors at all - relevant to the deletion? What is relevant is the content of the article, not who created those. You keep presenting those checkuser cases - forgetting to mention that one of them was rejected by checkuser clerk and the other is about Digwuren and me - and I don't think that even you can think that I and Digwuren are a same person. Not to mention, in all three cases only Digwuren has been active editor - and yet to try representing them as a group effort by evil Estonians. In my viewpoint such behavior is racist, pure and simple. -- Sander Säde 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is relevant is that the accounts come to the Net from one place. I could say that they all come here from Tartu. Would it be racism or maybe anti-Tartuism?--Dojarca 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another time. Sigh. Most of them are not from Tartu. Read Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. Martintg is from Australia. Colchicum 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that what he said is I don't think you've grasped what are reasons for deletion - and that personal attacks, your grudges against one ethnic group (I do believe it is called "racism") do not belong to deletion nominations or Wikipedia in general, and this was said in response to three XfD nominations filed by you during the last month where you (rather than some of your ancestors or compatriots) summarily attacked your fellow wikipedians insead of providing a rationale for deletion , , , , . While the wording is questionable, I'd rather agree with this claim. As you seem unwilling to assume responsibility for your actions and repeat your bogus claims for the fifth time or so, I am disappointed. BTW, a and ä are two different letters. Furthermore, you couldn't make clear that all the accounts in question are based in one place (it would be a grave privacy violation anyway). You are not a checkuser clerk. As to the checkuser cases of Digwuren and DLX yo refer to, you may wish to re-read them: 1, 2. Colchicum 10:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the topic belongs here. The material should go to Evidence or Workshop. At any rate I would recommend everybody to take a deep breath and count to ten before typing anything there. It seems that the logic is going from the talk page. Even Colchium, who is one of the best editors on the post-Soviet topic somehow imply that Doijarca's complains on a behavior of a small group of editors (not their compatriots or ancestors) somehow justifies calling him racist. I guess it is either me or him or both of us who are loosing or cool Alex Bakharev 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure about racism accusations but Dojarcas conduct and repetive usage of infamous RFCU's should be put to stop. We should create some sort of remedy on that. If someone starts AFD again with rationale: "This user is probably a sockpuppet of whoever and has been a party in arbcase, thus this article must be deleted", the user is blocked at sight for a week and AFD discarded. Suva Чего? 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't imply that Dojarca's wording of the XfD nominations (the article is bad because it was created by...) is motivated by racism (probably it isn't, but I wouldn't care anyway), they are inappropriate, even more so as they are recurrent. Colchicum 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a rationale for the AFDs in question. All the nominated articles are either POV forks, very poorly written, had inherent POV issues or all that in the same time. In fact we now have to deal with Digwuren's campaign for creating a series of "Soviet occupation"-related POV forks with similar content intended only for inflammatory purposes.--Dojarca 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why was these checkuser cases evoked? How is it relevant? No, don't reply. That's enough. In fact we now have to deal with Digwuren's campaign for creating a series of "Soviet occupation"-related POV forks with similar content intended only for inflammatory purposes -- Assume good faith. Colchicum 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. May be it was POV-pushing purpose. Is POV-pushing a good faith? Probably. But that the creations (and multiple re-creations after deletion) of all those articles and templates is interrelated is a fact that should not be hidden from those who vote on deletion. But this is not of course the only reason for deletion. The main concern here is the low quality, high POV and not necessity of such a large number of repeating each other articles on the same topic. I don't understand your concerns here as I saw that you yourself voted for deletion.--Dojarca 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything to hide? AGF. User:ChrisO, closing admin: It is not, however, a recreation of the deleted Soviet occupation denialism. But you continue to testify here that it was a re-creation of the deleted article, that the participants are all from Tartu, etc. Here are my concerns. Colchicum 16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin who closed the previous AFD had another opinion . The article has been re-created second time by Vucumba and it has been protected against re-cretion  by User:ChrisO. Digwuren also has been blocked for re-creation of Estophobia.--Dojarca 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bye. Colchicum 17:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of racism by Sander Sade 

message: Brad, I believe the community has screwed up with this case all the way from its inception back in May. Given the unprecedented level of incivility involved, they had every opportunity for nipping it in the bud when it started to spill onto ANI. It was Piotr's and Colchicum's unsolicited involvement and encouragment of Digwuren and his ways that gave this farrago of harassment and incivilities the appearance of a legitimate content dispute. As a result, the incivil campaign escalated to the point where ArbCom admits its helplessness to remedy the situation, except formulaically banning one editor from each side and "restricting" everyone else whose name happened to be mentioned during the case, even if they have no interest in Estonia and its disputes with Russia (as is the case with myself). 
Since we can't ban the entire Tartu university, with its firewall issues, it does not appear likely that Digwuren will be impeded from editing Wikipedia (or at least having some fun on #wikipedia, as he used to). The only outcome will be the mass departure of reasonable and versatile editors tainted "by association". I will personally advise those who would have remained to never go to ArbCom, lest they risk being sanctioned for unrelated matters. Better put up with accusations of paranoia, slander and lies on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps I should post some warning to this effect on my user page:  
::::::::::::: as Digwuren presciently advised me before the case. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sad to see that your only contribution here is to engage in further polemic. Martintg 22:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirla, could you please stop reiterating this fantasy about Tartu University. Digwuren has nothing to do with it - and attempts to show it otherwise does not change that. -- Sander Säde 05:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My sad thoughts, too 

message: Petri Krohn issued a statemet regarding proposed decision against him in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Motion_to_postpone_by_User:Petri_Krohn. I place this notice here because of concerns expressed by Newyorkbrad that that page may not be read closely.--Dojarca 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is commendable that Petri has abstained from editing Estonia related topics and moderated his behaviour for the last couple of months, the problem is that lasting damage has been sustained to Wikipedia with his actions during the time of the Bronze Soldier event and afterwards, in claims of hate groups, posting messages on talk pages of Russophones,  inciting action against these "hostile Estonian POV pushers", nasty edit comments, initiating checkuser cases against these Estonians knowing full well they were distinct personalities, etc, etc. All this activity has unfairly damaged the standing of a whole group of enthusiastic newbies which is still reverberating today, as evidenced by Dojorca's attitude here, the belief of Alex that Digwuren holds pro-Estonian government POV, the view by Mikkalai that Estonians are his "eternal enemy"  and Ghirla's continuing polemic. But not only these people, but any new Estonian now coming on board is stigmatised by this as well. What needs to be done is for Petri to expain clearly to all the Russophone editors here, Irpen, Mikkalai, Ghirla, Alex, Dojorca, Grafikm, CG RJ, and others, that he was wrong in characterising these Estonians as Holocaust denying neo-Nazis, he was wrong in inciting them against the Estonians here. He should explain to them than the ethnicity of individual editors should not be a factor and that individual editors should not be held personally and collectively responsible for the policies of the government of the country they reside in. In other words he must call an end to this campaign against this group of editors. Martintg 22:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Petri Krohn 

message: Given his stridency in this case and his agreement with the view above that some editors here form a hate group, continued inappropriate invocation of the past checkuser cases and the nationality of the article creator in AfDs, he ought to be subject to a restrictive remedy for obvious reasons. Martintg 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies to you, even to a greater degree. Is this a new variety of block shopping - "remedy shopping"? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dojarca and Martin 

message: It seems that the current decision proposal as well as the decision on the previous case both are based on the principle of symmetry between the sides and maintaining balance and status quo. Do we really need such a false neutrality and appraisal policy in face of real threat to Wikipedia's process? In fact we face here a certain POV-pushing and mobbing group of editors who arent inclined to constructive discussion with their political opponents. While supporting unlimited descussions on talk pages they stricly revert any edits in main namespace by their opponents on sight dispite the nature of arguments and changes they made. The group also strictly supports each other in any discussions and votings showing no respect to neutrality and any other rules of Wikipedia. The other group is the editors of different political views who try to maintain neutrality and at least basic rules and principles established by community or fouders of Wikipedia. How arbcom can equate these two groups and try to trade any restriction against one group on similar restriction on another regardless real behavor of the users. This looks like equating attacker with those who united to stop violence. I call the arbiters to think once again do we really need such false justice when we face real attempt to pervert Wikipedia's process.--Dojarca 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty obvious, as I pointed out above, that all participants, irrespective of their background, contributions, revert-warring, or level of incivility, are about to be subjected to the same set of "restrictions". We came here to be judged on our merits, and instead we get the same irate "off with their heads" approach. And Digwuren and Petri Krohn are about to be eliminated as two sacrificial cows, one from each side, to maintain some phony semblance of neutrality. What does it matter that their level of incivility, revert-warring, and WP:POINTing is not really comparable? I am disappointed if that is the ArbCom's idea of justice. Furthermore, this indiscriminate application of the same remedies to entirely different wikipedians stems from the the practice of remedy-shopping instigated by Sander and Colchicum above. What I did not expect is that an arbitrator would fall so easily into the trap. They seem to be intent on treating all participants equally rather than equitably, and this is the most frustrating thing about the draft. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom shouldn't judge on merits, it should judge faults. It is not clear why you consider the proposed editing restrictions (no incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith) enormous, blind blows. After all, these restrictions should ideally apply to all Wikipedians, however different they may be, though the policy is not always enforced, and the ArbCom is intended to fix this if necessary. Colchicum 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Judging by the diffs supplied to shore up Kirill's statement, my every comment qualifies as "incivil" by his measure. That's what Piotrus has been arguing about and demanding for two years: basically, everything that I say on any subject is incivil and deserves to be sanctioned. Most regulars know that I have had to counter intermittent outbursts of dramatic block shopping on ANI and IRC. If the "restrictions" are adopted, the ANI abuse will become a routine activity, preventing me from being active elsewhere. That is not a big deal for a person used to dealing with one stretch of articles or segment of Wikipedia (as yourself), but it is a big deal for a person who normally edits diverse articles and may be engaged in multiple totally unrelated disputes (like myself). I don't know anyone whose block log has been linked to as often and as unjustly as mine. Now all my opponents, be they from China, Ukraine, Armenia, or Finland, will get a powerful tool to poke me with whenever they feel like it. It's not like I and Kirill know each other for the first year, so he probably knows some of that background. As far as I can recollect, we have never agreed on any subject. I am mildly surprised that he did not recuse when proposing a remedy touching upon myself but, since he feels that he can assess my activity in a detached manner, I am prepared to trust his good judgement in this regard. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm probably missing something obvious here, but I don't recall us ever having interacted all that much.  (Going back through my talk page archives for the last year, all I could find was this, this, this,this, none of which look particularly like having "never agreed on any subject".)  Could you please be a bit more specific as to why you think I should recuse myself? Kirill 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have I voted for you in the Military Project? Who I hold responsible for making talk pages useless with annoying never-ending assessment drives? Let's set all this history of contention aside. It does not lead us anywhere. My opinion about the proposed draconian measures may be found here. What I want to see is the remedies commensurate with the offenses.  After spending the first half of the year in Russian Wikipedia, I was trying to rehabilitate and to resume productive activity here when I ran into Digwuren's activities which nobody bothered to censure (well, at least until Fayssal's block in July, but that was for revert-warring rather than incivility). For several months, I have been subjected to mind-boggling insults (some are listed on the Workshop) and, instead of an equitable solution to the problem, I find my opponents remedy-shopping, so to speak, with general complaints that "something needs to be done with Ghirla" because he stands in the way of their POV-pushing. It's amazing how easily one's name may be smeared by the head-hunters. There appears to be some truth in the old saying that, once you start hurling dirt at your opponents, some will stick anyway. The regulars know that I have been much more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, so one thing that I don't understand is why people want to have me ousted from English Wikipedia for good, considering that I am hardly active on Eastern Europe-related topics at all and that my appearances here grow increasingly far and few between. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Symmetry doesn't matter here. Could you please clarify who are the members of the groups you are talking about and provide evidence? I am afraid that there are no innocent victims here. Colchicum 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symmetry 

message: As far as the parties are concerned there seems to be a concensus that nobody really wants any of the other parties banned off the project (although we have not heard the opinion of Irpen or Ghirla in regard to this). I know the Estonian editors have said in the past, on the various talk pages, is that all they want is the harrassment to stop. The proposed findings have been a necessary wake-up call to every one involved, I believe. 
Given the fact that when Digwuren, Suva and Alexia joined the project back in May, they stepped into a very hostile environment caused by the controversy of the Bronze Soldier events, which was not of their own making, but the that of Estonian government. Unfortunately many editors here seemed to have focused upon them in the belief that they somehow represented, as Alex Bakharev said above, the view point of the Estonian government, that by virtue of the fact that they are ethnic Estonians they some how are collectively responsible for the events surronding the Bronze Soldier. This is a misguided view.
All the Estonian parties are enthusiatic to contribute. For example, Digwuren has created many stub articles, with the obvious intention of expanding them before being diverted by this conflict, concerning famous Estonians in history, literature, that arts, popular culture and other interesting aspects of that little country on the eastern shore of the Baltic that was for so long hidden behind the Iron Curtain, and is of interest to a reader like me located in far off Australia. Article stubs like Estophilia, Mehed ei nuta, Aleksander Hellat, Alo Mattiisen, Arvo Valton, August Wilhelm Hupel, Constitutional Pilsener, Elektrooniline Riigi Teataja and many more on User:Digwuren#Significant_contribution_to have been neglected for far too long due to this distracting conflict. No doubt given the opportunity, Digwuren would rather spent time expanding these articles.
I think everyone concerned believes restrictive remedies are the way to go rather than outright bans, particularly in the case of these newbie editors like Digwuren, who should really be given the opportunity to contribute. Perhaps mentoring could help too. I don't want to see Petri banned either, remedy 8 would be an effective measure, as well as other similar restrictive measures as the others for civility and edit warring. The Bronze Soldier issue is now long past, let us all draw a line under this. Martintg 07:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to Digwuren's statement 

message: The general restriction is what, broadly speaking, I have been hoping for to happen from this case. Actual way to enforce the rules govrening the behavior of editors, an aim of my Community Court idea. It would do a ton of good to the general climate BUT it has to be enforced indiscriminately on all offenders disregarding editing history, or it can and probably will be abused to bite newbies and the source of the problem, established editors set in their ways setting a lousy example, are left free to ignore the guidelines again. This kind of persistent notification and correction will be less harmful than individual restrictions and banns to overall editing while effectively keeping situation under control. It is my firm belief that the current situation has risen due to the fact and policies governing editors behavior have been left unenforced or have been enforced selectively, the former being more harming of the options as this creates double standards. If this is actually properly enforced I may regain my faith in something changing.
A caveat I see is that any attempt to report such incivility and attacks will be countered by sweeping accusations of block shopping...
As an extrapolation of this idea, I would see much benefit in getting things done when 3RR per edit no matter who reverts and 1RR per editor was to be applied to the whole scope of Eastern Europe topics, specially ones prone to edit waring, signified by a talk template notifying of the restriction. It would take the power out of ganging up and allow the discussion to appear. Otherwise restricted editors can be overrun by socks or newbies free of any restriction. Feel free to comment.
--Alexia Death the Grey 06:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexia's approval of the General Restriction 

message: It seems that the proposed decision allows arbitrariness and freedom of interpretation. All of us placed in danger of immediate block on any reason. Is it what did we need? I think we need certaity rather than tyranny of any random admin. In fact admins in Wikipedia also have their political views and are politicized nothing less than other users. Do we really need a sequence of unjustified political-motivated blocks? Does anybody think this Russian roulette will help the dispute resolutions? It seems that arbcom wants to avoid real decisions and responsibility and put it on other admins.--Dojarca 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my Community Court essay for a proposal to solve this on a larger scale. However in this case, as I said, sincere sounding apology and explanation after perceived offense should abolish the sin in order to keep honest mistakes being punished as incivility and allow for free expression, except in cases where incivility is not disputable or subjective, like directly worded ethnic slurs and unproven accusations. Alternately, perhaps arbitrators appointing several specific active and uninvolved admins to deal with these complaints would prevent such problems? --Alexia Death the Grey 09:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah, humbug.  The shootings will continue until morale improves! ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 00:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian roulette? 

message: Hi, Digwuren, it's me. Above, you refer to me as "Bishonen, a friend of Petri Krohn"; the 'inventor' of "the bogus idea of 'not certified'" with regard to user RFCs; the subject of a user RFC at about same time as Petri Krohn was; and the mastermind behind a clever (?) scheme for first making somebody delete the RFC/Petri Krohn, then undeleting it myself. (On the #wikipedia IRC channel, you call me more simply and comprehensively "the B witch".) I'll try not to waste words, as I'm IMO hardly a major player in this case; I hadn't realized that you consider me to be its Machiavelli.
*1. I don't know User:Petri Krohn. I thought I'd never had any contact with him, but checking his talkpage history, I find in September 2006 this block warning from myself, and this follow-up. He didn't reply, but ceased the behavior I was objecting to. To the best of my recollection, the only contact I've had with him since is this post, during your RFC on him, where I suggest he should waive the requirement for dispute resolution and let the RFC run without being deleted, as it might be useful in a following arbitration. He again didn't reply. Oh, wait, though... was that really me? Don't you tell me I was trying to get that RFC deleted, for diabolical (unknown) reasons of my own? ("Bishonen.. suddenly decided that RFC/U on Petri Krohn would be a Bad Idea.")  And can it really have been me who strongly urged you  on the RFC talk to get some real dispute resolution going so the RFC wouldn't get deleted? Anyway. If I have had any other contact with Petri Krohn and forgotten about it, you will find it on the wiki; there have certainly never passed any e-mails, IRC conversation, or other offsite communication between us.
*2. The idea of an RFC being uncertified, which you believe to be a bogus invention of mine, is defined here ("Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered 'uncertified' and will be de-listed") with a link to here for specifics about those minimum requirements.
*3. Yes, I was being RFC'd myself about the same time. (Well, two weeks earlier, but so what.) Er... what's your point? When you saw I'd recently been RFCd, you surely took a look at it? (Here it is, for anybody who'd like to.) And if you looked at it, you surely know how almost ridiculously  favorable to me it was, and how sorry the nominator must have been that he ever brought it? Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the point Digwuren is making is that the RFC/U that you disqualified for lack of prior DR, was subsequently offered by yourself in this Arbcom case as evidence of prior DR. Do you see the inconsistency here? The tragedy for Petri is that had you allowed that RFC/U to proceed, he may well not find himself in this situation today of facing a ban. Digwuren and the others had legitimate issues but the community failed to address them because you deleted the RFC/U. However, thanks to you undeleting his RFC/U and offering it to ArbCom as evidence of prior DR, it has been scrutinised and atleast one member of the committee deems the matters contained in it, and repeated on the evidence page, serious enough to warrent a ban. Martintg 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Had I allowed the RFC/U to proceed"... good grief, it's like I was speaking a foreign language or something. Or do you simply not read what you reply to? I again here offer the diff to my attempt to get Petri to allow the RFC to proceed—because letting it proceed without  attempted dispute resolution was up to him, not me. I wanted the RFC to proceed. But Petri didn't waive the DR requirement, and Dr. Kiernan took the decision to delete the page. Between them, they made the RFC not proceed. They killed it. If you think that was a "tragedy", go bother them, because I'm not going to post this information more than the twice I now already have posted it. Do you take Petri and Dr. Kiernan to be under my remote control? To be my socks?  My sex slaves? What? As for Alexia below, with her usual about the bias and bad faith of whoever isn't agreeing with her—you'll just have to chew that cud on your own, Alexia, if it still has flavor for you. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I the interest of correctness, Bishonen did not delete the RFC. I was not aware of Bishonen having relations with Ghirla and his group at the time. Otherwise a question of interest conflict or more probably bias would have risen.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a weird one.  There is no "allowing" RFC's to go forward.  The reason we have these policies is precisely to avoid this kind of nonsense.  Administrators don't deign RFC's worthy or not.  They're certified, or they're not certified.  If they're certified, they go on.  If they're not, they're deleted.  A person who has been watching the situation may, or may not, be the one to do the deletion, but that's entirely mechanical.  If someone has evidence that, double secretly, the RFC did meet the requirements, then that should be presented somewhere, but any allegation of "my RFC got deleted because you're friends with this person or that" is ... I'm trying to find a polite word for "uninformed or willfully pretending not to understand"... misguided.  Geogre 11:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bad faith accusation of "willfully pretending not to understand" could easily applied to your comment, but I will not engage in this kind of back handed polemic. Martintg 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Points made by Digwuren concerning  "Bishonen, a friend of Petri Krohn"