Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

message: I had very little interaction with Anonimu. But he was often involved in RR warring with other users   
, and yes, he has very strong political convictions .Biophys (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Biophys

message: Once again Irpen advises ArbCom from his pedestal on high lecturing us from above. I'm sorry, but this sort of posturing advising ArbCom, at other times threatening editors with ArbCom action, makes it seem Irpen is more interested in conflict waging from the self-appointed superiorness of his position than contructively engaging with other editors. PētersV (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Irpen 

message: ====Statement by Vecrumba====
On this and similar disputes regarding Eastern European articles being "based on irreconcilable POV differences". This is an oversimplification and, ultimately, a misrepresentation.
   One side contends the Baltics and Eastern Europe were not occupied, minimally that "occupation" and "invasion" are "judgemental" (per Irpen and others) terms, that even perfectly sourced articles fairly and accurately representing reputable sources are "cherry-picked" and "tendentiously" edited. Never producing reputable scholarship in support of their personal position (being characerized as an "editorial" one). Anonimu is but one such editor, but his editorial conduct has been among the least sourced and personally most disruptive.
   The other side contends that Soviet conduct in the Baltics and Eastern Europe was not not glorious. That 100,000,000 people were left to suffer for half a century under a blanket of brutal Soviet totalitarianism. Always producing sources, and producing even more sources when challenged.
   One side states "occupation" is merely a post-Cold War anti-Soviet (neo-Nazi) political manufacture, aka, "revisionist" history. The other side brings reputable sources to the table with factual accounts of Soviet conduct. Apparently reputable source can state "invaded" and "occupied", but we as editors are not to repeat those words here with regard to Eastern Europe so as to not offend a dead empire that sent tens of millions to their deaths. Or it is demanded we represent "both sides" equally in order for an article to be "NPOV" -- regardless that one side is totally discredited/unsourced (except for declarations with no substantive basis--for example, no one has yet produced a source substantiating the Russian Duma's claim that Latvia joined the Soviet Union "legally"), and the other side is voluminously and reputably sourced.
   Everywhere Wikipedia policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction and sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. "NPOV" is giving Soviet propaganda equal time to reputable scholarship. I myself have been attacked in these sorts of proceedings for my "anti-Stalinist" user box (even though it specifically states I dispute Stalinism based on facts).
   This is not a "content dispute." This is not about "irreconcilable POVs" colliding. This is about permitting a community of motivated and knowledgeable editors to write about their heritage and history, filling a half-century gap of missing history, rectifying half a century of Soviet falsehoods. Or not. Wikipedia stands for editorial integrity or it stands for nothing. PētersV (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Irpen couches as constructive "advice to ArbCom" describing the editorial opposition "in generally dishonest editing, devious and unethical behavior, secretly teaming up into off-line coordinated nationalist leagues and unwillingness to compromise" is  nothing more than smearing an entire community of editors en masse. Only in Baltic/Eastern European Wikipedia are editors with voluminous sources denounced as dishonest, while editors without sources to back their contentions present themselves as keepers of editorial integrity. —PētersV (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments after opening the case

message: On this and similar disputes regarding Eastern European articles being "based on irreconcilable POV differences". This is an oversimplification and, ultimately, a misrepresentation.
   One side contends the Baltics and Eastern Europe were not occupied, minimally that "occupation" and "invasion" are "judgemental" (per Irpen and others) terms, that even perfectly sourced articles fairly and accurately representing reputable sources are "cherry-picked" and "tendentiously" edited. Never producing reputable scholarship in support of their personal position (being characerized as an "editorial" one). Anonimu is but one such editor, but his editorial conduct has been among the least sourced and personally most disruptive.
   The other side contends that Soviet conduct in the Baltics and Eastern Europe was not not glorious. That 100,000,000 people were left to suffer for half a century under a blanket of brutal Soviet totalitarianism. Always producing sources, and producing even more sources when challenged.
   One side states "occupation" is merely a post-Cold War anti-Soviet (neo-Nazi) political manufacture, aka, "revisionist" history. The other side brings reputable sources to the table with factual accounts of Soviet conduct. Apparently reputable source can state "invaded" and "occupied", but we as editors are not to repeat those words here with regard to Eastern Europe so as to not offend a dead empire that sent tens of millions to their deaths. Or it is demanded we represent "both sides" equally in order for an article to be "NPOV" -- regardless that one side is totally discredited/unsourced (except for declarations with no substantive basis--for example, no one has yet produced a source substantiating the Russian Duma's claim that Latvia joined the Soviet Union "legally"), and the other side is voluminously and reputably sourced.
   Everywhere Wikipedia policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, "nationalist" is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction and sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors. "NPOV" is giving Soviet propaganda equal time to reputable scholarship. I myself have been attacked in these sorts of proceedings for my "anti-Stalinist" user box (even though it specifically states I dispute Stalinism based on facts).
   This is not a "content dispute." This is not about "irreconcilable POVs" colliding. This is about permitting a community of motivated and knowledgeable editors to write about their heritage and history, filling a half-century gap of missing history, rectifying half a century of Soviet falsehoods. Or not. Wikipedia stands for editorial integrity or it stands for nothing. PētersV (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Irpen couches as constructive "advice to ArbCom" describing the editorial opposition "in generally dishonest editing, devious and unethical behavior, secretly teaming up into off-line coordinated nationalist leagues and unwillingness to compromise" is  nothing more than smearing an entire community of editors en masse. Only in Baltic/Eastern European Wikipedia are editors with voluminous sources denounced as dishonest, while editors without sources to back their contentions present themselves as keepers of editorial integrity. —PētersV (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Vecrumba

message: =====Regarding Anonimu=====
hard to be missed user who fights for the history concept written by the Soviet sources before the Perestroika and glasnost era, before the time of reassessment and reevaluation of the history in the communist block in the end of 80's. Thats fine, I don't mind having an overview on WP how a totalitarian regime interpreted history. The problem is , the user doesn't respect alternative perspectives other than conservative Soviet communist, manipulates the edits made by his opponents instead of adding the POV he supports to the articles according to WP:NPOV. And first of all refuses to engage in constructive discussions. The user talk page speaks for itself.--Termer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Termer

message: hard to be missed user who fights for the history concept written by the Soviet sources before the Perestroika and glasnost era, before the time of reassessment and reevaluation of the history in the communist block in the end of 80's. Thats fine, I don't mind having an overview on WP how a totalitarian regime interpreted history. The problem is , the user doesn't respect alternative perspectives other than conservative Soviet communist, manipulates the edits made by his opponents instead of adding the POV he supports to the articles according to WP:NPOV. And first of all refuses to engage in constructive discussions. The user talk page speaks for itself.--Termer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Anonimu

message: I have to disagree with all points made by Irpen since facts speak exact opposite. First of all the way ArbCom handled the Occupation of Latvia case was right on target. Since the decision to put the article on probation it has made a lot of progress because the disruptive editing was stopped, and the article itself has become probably one of the most stable B-Class articles on WP. 
Digwuren case ended with a decision that was somewhat surprising but made the most sense. Even though the case was opened up against Digwuren, the fact that both User:Petri_Krohn and User:Digwuren were  banned proved that the decision of ArbCom was based on actually looking into the case and acknowledging that the behavior of User:Digwuren was provoked and inspired by his primary opponent User:Petri_Krohn. Since both users were banned, the related articles again, have become stable. So the system works and I'm afraid, Irpen is mistaken--Termer (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Statement by Irpen

message: I have blocked Anonimu indefinitely after another AN/I post. I am aware that an Arbcom case is going on, and I also when behaviour is becoming ridiculously disruptive. The reason in the backlog is "Personal attacks, persistent BLP vios, edit warring, harassing other users, using the encyclopedia as a battleground". Feel free to discuss this action, but I'd really prefer no unilateral overturns of this block without a consensus or at least some discussion. Doing that will cause even more drama, and we've got enough. Maxim(talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not an indefinite block, I don't support it. Well done. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonimu blocked