Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Workshop

message: I found it a bit interesting that there are several motions, and some vigorous discussion of them, but no evidence yet.  --Rocksanddirt 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the hurry? The editing pattern of Korps! Estonia is well demonstrated on this very page. Take a look at the thread "politely" titled "Smear emanating from FayssalF". Fayssal, you've got my sympathy for having to face what looks like ganging up on you. It is tedious and annoying to repeat your arguments each time a new look-alike account pops up on this page. The pattern is familiar: first there are aggressive accusations from Alexia and Digwuren, then the same from Suva and E.J., then you may expect Staberinde and Martintg to chime in, then, when you think it's over, the same accusations will be repeated by Sander Säde and DLX, etc, etc. This is what I had to go through on WP:ANI on a daily basis. And that's what my grievances are about. Wikipedians are not supposed to be ganged up on. Nobody likes to be witchhunted. This manner of editing results in nothing but stress and frustration on the part of everyone involved. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghirla, put your evidence where your mouth is. Demeaning generalizing is just your thing and the bigest grievance I have with you.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Rocksanddirt, exactly my thoughts. I expected that the accusers in this case present their evidence first... But for some reason this has not happened.--Alexia Death the Grey 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could see some motions being first as the actual scope of this is not well defined (to me at least), but everyone has also had several days at least to prepare the evidence statement for when the arb was opened.  See the Seven of Diamonds one, within just a few hours of opening there were two very long evidence presentations, buy two involved parties.  --Rocksanddirt 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the initiator of the case has not presented evidence, because he sees an "ArbCom axe" above the heads of Estonian editors more useful then presenting his rather meager evidence. He seems to have plenty of time for other activities on Wikipedia so it is getting harder and harder for me to AGF. Sander Säde 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your biggest mistake in this case was involving other Estonian editors who were not party to the issues you have with Digwuren. I think you realise this to some degree, and its wider implications. Two of the 5 in the original RFCU have been offline since July, the third has had practically no involvement, and the remaining two are clean. The honourable way out of this mess is to simply state you have no further issue with these Estonian editors so long as they continue to abid by Wikipedia policies, as we all should. Martintg 06:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting note 

message: Reading User talk:Jimbo Wales#Eastern Europe, one might suspect that Irpen's main motivation in bringing this ArbCom case is so that he'd get a new chance at pushing his weird "remedy" of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision#Proposing a novel solution that may actually work.  The moral standing of such a "strategy" is, needless to say, questionable. Digwuren 04:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole concept of having a central committee dictating content, like this so called "Eastern European Work Group" that Irpen proposes, goes against the whole philosophy of Wikipedia of being an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But Irpen seems to want to turn Wikipedia into a closed shop where only the most "politically reliable" editors were permitted to edit articles. Imagine a Wikipedia where Estonians were not permitted to edit articles about Estonian history while Petri Krohn or Ghirla could, because they were anointed committee members. A Venn diagram with the set of supporters of this proposal and the sets of the protagonists in the various East European disputes would be very revealing. I guess some more cynical people may suggest than in order to propose remedy, one needs to manufacture the problem first. Martintg 05:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. I see the goal of this ArbCom as sanctioning users guilty of disruptive conduct. --Irpen 05:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps an idea to consider too. However, the ideas along the lines of my proposal for Piotrus case are irrelevant to this case. That case was about the content disputes. This one firmly rest on your exceedingly poor conduct that needs to be addressed by the ArbCom regardless of the particular POV that you are pushing. If there was a Russian or Ukrainian nationalists similarly boorish and prone to edit warring I would have called for sanctioning him in just the same way. --Irpen 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's true at all. You also showed a lot of support for RJ CG here User_talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations_of_WP:SYNTH_and_WP:OR. BTW, RJ CG has be recently blocked for 96 hours for edit warring Rein Lang, again. . Where are your sanctions against him? Martintg 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Martintg, Irpen is not an administrator. Sander Säde 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realise that. What I meant to say was: "Where was your call for sanctions against him?" Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Still, you must ask yourself to what degree your reprimanding of an "arrogant admin" on behalf of RJ CG contributed to RJ CG's hubris which has subsequently earned him a 96 hour block for edit warring another Estonian related article.  Martintg 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not reprimand anyone on RJ's "behalf". I did not say a word about the merit of the block. I only raised the arrogant inresponsiveness. If the admin is unfit for the job, this is a totally separate issue from the narrower problem you are raising. If you want to bring PO into this case, you are free to do so. I have no objection to his conduct being discussed by an ArbCom. --Irpen 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If ProhibitOnion is dragged into this, then by causality is RJ CG.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also User:ProhibitOnions vs. anti-Fascist editors (redux), started by User:Ghirlandajo. Sander Säde 07:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Irpen|Irpen]]'s strategy 

message: It would seem that the evil Digwuren is at it again.  This time, using a sockpuppet that looks just like Ghirlandajo, he created a threaded discussion in the Workshop's principle section.  Can a clerk come and clean up the never-ending mischief sowed by that sneaky bastard? Digwuren 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um ... threaded discussion is frowned upon on the evidence page. As indicated in the instructions there, the format of the evidence page is for each user to be able to present his or her own evidence in a discrete, uninterrupted section that the arbitrators can follow. By contrast, threaded discussion is permissible on the workshop page, where the idea is to formulate proposals for discussion and possible consensus. I know that the procedure can be complicated for those who have not been on the pages in the past. Newyorkbrad 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Brad. So, could you please clean up the evidence page? And please keep an eye on it. I am about to post my evidence and I don't want it to be subject to a similar disruption. Thanks in advance, --Irpen 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance the page looks to be organized acceptably as of now. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. Going forward, now that everyone is apprised of the ground rules hopefully there will be no further problems. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yawn. Happened three weeks ago, nobody mentioned anything in the mean time, so it's not an issue. Martintg 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page is not on my watchlist and I have not consulted it since August, I think. You may yawn elsewhere. Your reply is not helpful and intended to obfuscate the deletion. I see that both Workshop and Evidence pages are a mess and I take issue with it. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a look at this later today. Please identify the specific aspects of the pages that you believe are "a mess" and call for clerk attention. In the specific example you give, I told Digwuren that I thought the wording of the proposal was uncivil and unhelpful (I am sure you will agree) and as a result the proposal was withdrawn. Perhaps it should have been stricken through rather than simply deleted but I don't see that any harm was done. If you believe the making of the original proposal proves something you can mention it in your evidence. Newyorkbrad 10:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that proposed decisions are normally stricken out, rather than blanked together with all comments that follow an original suggestion. Never mind. What I really have problem with is the Evidence page, which starts with Martin's rambling rebuttal of the diffs presented by his opponents at the bottom of the page ("In regard to Grafikm's evidence", "Concerns regarding Ghirlandajo's evidence"). This presentation of evidence is disingenuous and makes the page rather confusing and difficult to follow. Since it was Irpen who initiated the case, I believe it is his evidence that should be presented at the top of the page, rather than Martin's. Only then all sorts of refutations and excuses should follow (if they really have to follow), rather than the other way around. I am aware that Irpen has not submitted any evidence so far, but a primary reason may be the sorry structure of the Evidence page which would make his statement, when placed at the very bottom of the page, appear inconsequential or confused. I may be mistaken, though. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't design how these pages work, but the basic format of /Evidence as you know is one section for each editor, and they generally appear in the order the editors post, so this is how things wind up. I don't see what the clerks could do to restructure the page that would not create more hassle than it would solve, unless the arbitrators request a refactoring. As long as everything is clearly labelled, I think the parties should focus more on the substance of the evidence rather than the formatting. I also think that any parties who have not yet submitted their evidence should do so right away, as an arbitrator may start drafting a /Proposed decision at any time now. Newyorkbrad 12:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Case not anywhere near closing yet, so you should post them if you want to. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Irpen for taking care of it. I wondered why the blanking was done as well since it made the discussion and responses to the posts removed look like nonsense.--Termer 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict, probably. I would not expect any malice on anybody's part here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk needed