Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:06, 28 August 2007

Comment by Moreschi

Eastern Europe is something of a battleground (understatement of the decade), and I'm sure everyone's heartily sick of the sight of this sort of thing (not another case...), but I don't think this can be ducked. Yes, ANI does not equate to dispute resolution, but I think the Arbitration Committee is needed here to sort things out. This has been coming for a while. Moreschi 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note to arbitrators: yes, something can be done here. Yes, we already know (I see that the Piotrus case has just closed) that Eastern Europe is all screwball, but in this instance there are some genuinely worrying accusations of atrocious user conduct that deserve investigation. I don't think this can be fully fixed, and perhaps it never will, but at the moment the Committee is better placed to attempt some sort of fix than the wider community. Moreschi 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, for heaven's sake, that was a comment on Eastern European Misplaced Pages articles. Do get a sense of proportion. Also, no legal threats. Attitudes such are yours as doubtless part of the problem. Moreschi 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

This seems like a snowjob. No evidence of any real dispute resolution such as mediation or RFC being attempted by the complainant in the first instance. Do we really want to short circuit this and go straight to Arbitration for what is essentially a content dispute over the interpretation of Soviet history? Martintg 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to Bishonen for resurrecting Petri Krohn's RFC, which btw was deleted due to insufficient prior mediation before bringing case for RFC/U. As an aside, it must be said there was a good faith attempt at mediation by one side during the existance of the RFC/U, thanks to the efforts of DrKiernan, but was subsequently ignored by the other party, as indicated here . However, I don't see how Petri Krohn's RFC could in any way be possibly used as a substitute for an RFC on Digwuren. Irpen wasn't a party in that previous RFC and Petri Krohn is not a party to this current RfA. The kernel of this complaint is the interpretation of Soviet history, in this instance concerning Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, the rest, such as the so called "Tartu based accounts" and groundless accusations of computer intrusion is just fanciful embellishment with no basis in fact. Certainly Digwuren's behaviour is comparably better than Petri Krohn's as documented in his disqualified RFC/U.
• If Irpen was serious about this he should have taken it to mediation as a first step, therefore I propose this RfA be declined and mediation attempted first. Martintg 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Irpen mentions the nebulous "Tartu based accounts" in the title of this RfA and as one of the parties to this RfA. Who are they? It's not clear to me, what has this mysterious group allegedly done to warrant ArbCom intervention? Where is the evidence of mediation, as required by ArbCom when groups are involved. And the accusation of intrusion and hacking an admin's computer, as if a regular editor would know the IP address of an admin, what a complete joke. This RfA is ill considered, malformed and premature, and a waste of time until other dispute resolution methods are exhausted. Martintg 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• p.s. Digwuren appears to be presently offline, so I doubt he is even aware of this RfA. Martintg 10:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• In regard to RJ CG's statement in regard to "co-ordinated effort", perhaps he should realise his edits may be against concensus. Estonians ought to have some idea of their own history and be able to form a consensus without having to "co-ordinate". The notion that Estonian editors are somehow massively disrupting and edit warring Estonian related articles and should thus be punished is truly mind boggling. Digwuren was blocked for a week for attempting to expand an article anti-Estonian sentiment, thanks to the "Administrator with balls" FayssalF Since when did blocks become a tool in resolving content disputes? Why wasn't he given the opportunity for mediation for this particular article, rather than a block without warning out of the blue? Martintg 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Petri Krohn

"absolutely no contributions", !!! Wow, what an amazingly audacious lie! Digwuren is one of the most competent and balanced editors in Misplaced Pages, with over 4000 edits to his credit since joining in May. A great contribution by any standard. As for you claims of incivility, it is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Martintg 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?

As per Alexia and Sander, continued unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry by the so-called "Tartu based accounts" is also uncivil and a slur, plus FayssalF admonished for slurring Digwuren's reputation with unsubstantiated accusations of computer hacking and intrusion . Martintg 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ghirla's statement

Ghirla's anti-Estonia sentiment is very much a reflection of the view many Russophones hold towards eSStonia. It is a rather extreme view that has no place here in Misplaced Pages. As an aside, Digwuren's one week block which Ipen cites as evidence of bad behaviour was for defending the article anti-Estonian sentiment, against someone who was blanking and turning it into a redirect , a redirect that Irpen himself subsequently objected to . Ghirla's idea of a central committee on Eastern Europe-related topics is positively frightening, and I would oppose as it goes against the whole philosophy of Misplaced Pages. Martintg 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question by GRBerry

Would the proposed findings at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Proposed decision be sufficient (if so, reject the case), or is more needed?

Statement by FayssalF

I have to say that i've spent around 90 minutes to get all the following facts posted as they look below now. That's really a hard and unencyclopaedic task. I'd have rather gone editing. But well, for the benefit of Misplaced Pages? Hell, yes. There you go...

I have to agree w/ my fellow admin Moreschi in that Arbitration Committee's intervention is needed here to sort things out. Estonia-related articles have witnessed a massive edit warring w/o any attempt from any side to take that seriously and try to go through WP:DR. It has been a ground for multiple accusations from multiple parties.

Well, in brief. I was the admin who blocked Digwuren back on July 2007 as well as a couple of 2 other users which i'd identify as the "other side" in what follows.

Timeline

• I don't know about all past behaviors of User:Digwuren but i know since a couple of weeks that Digwuren's first edit was at Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn on May 1st, 2007. A good start for a first edit. Trying to discuss!

• The first time i heard about the conflict was on 11 July 2007 ? AN/I thread. The thread was started by User:Suva claiming that User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places. As you'd see from that thread, admin Bishonen and myself saw no admin intervention was needed.

• I can't recall the which lead to the following but i'll leave that to maybe someone else who can find the link. This is the link which i got from user:Irpen. That's the link and that's the one i referred to. One of the keys to this enigma is there.

• Blocked Digwuren (talk · contribs) for 1 week.
• Blocked RJ CG (talk · contribs) for 48h (the other side)
• Blocked Petri Krohn (talk · contribs) for 72h (the other side)

• User:Dc76 accuses me of bias and posts a thread at the AN/I. According to reviewing admin Tom harrison FayssalF rocks!.

• Admin Deskana convincing me of letting Digwuren edit conditionally. After a few hours, i accepted and Deskana posted it at the AN/I as per my request.

• On July 19, 2007, i received a kind of a "barnstar" from User:Petri Krohn (the other side). According to , i am an Administrator with balls.

• On July 20, 2007, i've experienced some online intrusion attempts made against my machine (for what i could record, the experience lasted no more than a couple of hours). I've already got a C# userbox posted at my userpage. I am saying this responding to User:Suva's request to know about the IP in question. I am a programmer. I know about hacking but please don't accuse me of hacking anyone. The problem is that User:Suva insists in knowing about the exact location of the IP in question. No, that's IMPOSSIBLE as long as you are not an ADMIN. I've explained to everyone that any admin can contact me to know about this issue. Suva, i am an admin and admins are trusted by the community. Only an admin can get that kind of information. So please, stop insisting. I've already explained that it was not my intention to talk about that but since matters arrived to this point then i considered it is right to talk about it.

• August 14, 2007, A new AN/I thread involving the issue. And here we are.

I could have easily blocked User:Ptrt indef as it is clear that the account has been created for a single purpose as explained above by User:Irpen. Anyways, this case would make that clear. -- FayssalF - 22:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Petri Krohn (in reply to GRBerry)

The cases cannot be compared. User:Piotrus is one of Misplaced Pages's most valuable contributors. User:Digwuren on the other hand had absolutely no contributions to article space when I took up the issue in June. (See: ArbCom or block?) Since then there has been notable improvement in his contributions, but his uncivility and disrespect for WP:NPOV have remained. -- Petri Krohn 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JdeJ

I must agree that Digwuren is a particularly unhelpful contributor. Looking at other comments here, it's obvious that he's defended by some other Estonians as Alexia Death (whom I consider a very good editor) for taking part in conflicts regarding Estonia. For the same reason, it's clear that those who have held the opposite views on some of these matters aren't too fond of him. Personally, I find some articles where I disagree with his opinions and others where I do disagree, but that's beside the point because: regardless of whether I think his opinions are right or wrong, I always find his way to behave out of line. My first contact ever was when he left a message on my talk page, calling me a "crackpot" . The reason he did so was that I had dared to request a source for the claim that Estonians are the oldest people in Europe. After that, I've seen him revert pages he doesn't like with no explanations given, I've seen him call other users vandals for reverting his own edits etc. So the user is a consant POV-pusher who often attacks other users. JdeJ 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Digwuren and his woes

In reply to Alexia's statement, I'm not familiar with the user Ghirlas but it's true that I've been surprised by Petri Krohn's actions many times. Looking at the topics in which Digwuren and Petri have both been involved, my sympathies have almost always been with Digwuren as I consider Petri to be engaged with very weird kind of ]. Having said that, it does nothing to defend Digwuren. I can understand him becoming frustrated, but that is no reason for him to start acting in a disruptive and uncivil way himself. There are people you don't like at Misplaced Pages. If you cannot deal with that without copying their behaviour, Misplaced Pages might not be the best place. So I understand the frustration he must have felt but I can't see it being very relevant to this discussion. JdeJ 17:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by RJ CG

I would like to bring to community's attention another example of coordinated efforts of group in question , see times of edits , , , . Within 3 minutes after one member of the team exhaused his revert limit (and within a minute after I, being an author of a change not to the goup's liking, reverted), another member of the group popped up, failed to identify his changes as a revert in edit history but did not contribute anything BUT a revert. RJ CG 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sander Säde

• "Behind Tartu University firewall" accusation is ridiculous and can be easily verified by a checkuser. I have never edited Misplaced Pages from Tartu University - I've even been in Tartu only twice during last year, both times less then three hours and without using a computer. I guess that Martintg (from Australia) is also flying daily to Tartu? Tartu University cache servers are 193.40.5.245 (talk · contribs) and 193.40.5.100 (talk · contribs) (both IP's from DNS queries). Afaik, all Tartu University IP's should start with 193.40.* (hey, I just remembered my old IP from while I was in Uni, 193.40.8.80 (talk · contribs). Sad, isn't it? I can remember an IP I haven't used in years...).
• As for RJ CG's accusations of "coordinated efforts" - I have my watchlist as a RSS feed in FF live bookmarks, I tend to check it every 15..30 min or so when I am using the computer. Also, some time ago I wrote a script, cleverly named "Estonian articles to watchlist page" that utilizes AJAX to display changes in all WikiProject Estonia articles on top of your watchlist. Said script can be easily changed to support any WikiProject or category. That helps people easily to see changes in WP:E-related articles without a need to add them to watchlist.

For both "Korps! Tartuensis" and "coordinated efforts", I think that next user who accuses us to be sock/meatpuppets or coordinating "attacks" outside en.wikipedia without rock solid evidence must apologize. If he fails to do so, I think that he should be warned by a block.

• Now, as for hacking accusation, I see no way to verify that it actually happened. Even if it did, there is no way to link it with any Wikipedian - as none of so-called "Korp! Tartuensis" is not an admin and therefore just would not know FayssalF's IP. I recommend that he creates a checkuser case with all of us and the IP. However, note that checkuser admin must do a reverse DNS and actually check what IP's are proxies (major ISP's redirect all traffic through proxy servers) and what are geographically close to each-other. Last checkuser cases involving Estonia were ridiculous, accusing basically all Estonian editors to be sockpuppets. Note, that I am unaware what data do admins doing checkuser queries see - or how knowledgeable they are of networking in general.
• And finally, to Digwuren. I fully agree with Alexia and Martintg - Digwuren followed the behavioral patterns of users such as Ghirlandajo and Petri Krohn (I could mention few other users, some who have given their statements here as well). There is no forgiving for behavior such as this, for all three of them. But, there seems to be a special "out-of-the-jail card" if you have a lot of edits - and Digwuren does not have yet 20000+ edits. Others do.

However, he always sources his edits, is fully willing to overturn his own edits when new sources contradict them and follows NPOV guideline by trying to give a neutral viewpoint and sources from both "sides". He is also willing to discuss controversial edits in talk pages. All that cannot be said by far most Misplaced Pages editors. If you follow his edits, then you can see how he gradually became more and more frustrated when other editors (so-called "other side" or "opponents") are making unsourced or one-sided edits - or even insert clear falsehood to the articles.

In many ways it is Digwuren, who revived WikiProject Estonia - although I wish us WP:E editors could have more time to actually contribute, instead of wasting our time to patrol for pro-Soviet/anti-Estonian edits and be involved in cases such as this. Digwuren has contributed to great many articles and if he stops behaving in the same way as those Estophobic users, I see him as a very valuable editor to Misplaced Pages - in future, perhaps among most valuable contributors. He is relentless in chasing sources and improving articles.

I've said it before, my recommendation is for an admin to warn Digwuren about his edit summaries - and clearly state that he will be blocked unless he stops those. It might be useful, though, if an uninvolved administrator follows all changes in WP:E articles for a while - if not for nothing else, then to actually witness what we have to go through daily.

• As for the "Statement by non-involved Ghirla" below, I think that is the biggest pile of hypocrisy I've seen on Misplaced Pages. Far from being "non-involved", he has been the biggest "inspiration" for Digwuren when it comes to incivility. He is accusing (once again, without evidence) of sock/meatpuppets, being a fascist/neo-nazi, tendentious editing ("neo-Nazi flavoured revisionism" - which strangely enough, has been published in scientific journals... Those evil Estonian Nazis must have taken over those as well.). How long will this have to go on until he will be warned for personal attacks and incivility?

Ghirla has one excellent idea, though - committee on Eastern Europe-related topics. I would include Baltics to the scope of that committee as well - apparently Ghirla forgot, that Estonia (and rest of the Baltics) is a part of Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe. Committee on Eastern bloc, perhaps? Committee such as that is badly needed - to check that edits follow valid sources.

What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?

1. End for "Korps! Tartuensis" and sockpuppet accusations, unless someone actually manages to find some proof. So far there is none. Any editors continuing such attacks to be blocked.
2. Rules must apply equally for all. Huge edit count is not an excuse to insult other editors, disrupt Misplaced Pages or misbehave. Civility is not optional.
3. An uninvolved administrator (or more then one) to keep an eye on changes in WikiProject Estonia articles. Hopefully that would be enough to stop this smear campaign.
4. Digwuren to be warned - and if he doesn't change his ways, blocked for a month. Same applies for all other involved editors - warning for any signs of incivility and block if that is continued.

Sander Säde 19:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Statement by probably non-involved Ghirla

The Digwuren case is crystal clear. If there is a troll in the project, he is one. User:Molobo was blocked for a year for less serious revert-warring sprees and boorishness. I have seen no useful edits from Digwuren, except provocations, taunting, and reverts. The leniency of the community to the obnoxious tendentious accounts is appaling. Before Digwuren's appearance in the project, Estonia-related topics were the only quiet haven in the Eastern Europe-related segment of the project. He has effectively turned Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Estonia into a hate group. An attack page against Petri Krohn is a good example of what it's all about. Given the number of vocal meatpuppets, only ArbCom may realistically ban him from the site, for a year at least.

I don't consider myself a party to this case. I'm not interested in Estonia and I don't give a hoot about Estonia-related topics, but I cannot help being alarmed about the way in which the dispute has evolved. A weekly diarrhea of sterile ANI threads is particularly distracting. As soon as I opine in favour of deleting an Estonia-related tendentious page, I have to face harrassment and provocative remarks ("a clearly bad-faith vote", etc) from an indetermine number of Estonian accounts. Briefly put, their strategy is: 1) to make a provocative edit and to wait for my angered reply; 2) to report the perceived "infraction" on the administrators' noticeboard; 3) to repeat the complaint again and again, one after another, so as to make the thread appear as long and beefy as possible. Some of the dormant Estonian accounts instantly resume their activity once they see me cast an Estonia-related vote, prompting me to defend myself on the administrators' noticeboard for hours. I can't spend all of my wikitime debunking allegations of Estonia-based accounts, especially as I have no interest in anything related to Estonia. This relentless campaign of public harassment made me remove all Estonia-related articles from my watchlist.

I infer from this activity that there is simply no way of countering POV-pushing on this scale, involving a dozen accounts, most of them based in the same institution and recruiting friends in real life. You may neutralize a revert warrior or two or three, but not a group of determined users who share the same real-life background and exhibit divergent patterns of behaviour. I really don't think ArbCom may devise a remedy against this sort of disruption. We are thinking of some sort of committee on Eastern Europe-related topics that would include a trusted wikipedian from each nation. Such a committee could take care of mild content arbitration, that is, of determining whether a complaint has some merit before bringing it to the attention of the entire community on WP:ANI, WP:RfAr, or elsewhere. The ArbCom's examination of the proposal is very welcome. --Ghirla 12:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

There is no RFC on Digwuren to point the ArbCom to (and it's no wonder people can't face starting one). There is, however, an RFC from June 2007 on User:Petri Krohn, brought and certified (inadequately) by Digwuren, Suva, Alexia Death, and E.J.. This RFC was deleted after 5-6 days, by DrKiernan, for want of good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, but before then it was used for lively discussion of the issues at stake here, especially on the talkpage. As RFCs will, it scrutinized the behavior of both sides, and the accusations of Digwuren et. al. against Petri Krohn throw light on their own practices. Therefore I think it serves quite a bit of the same purpose as an RFC on Digwuren would do. I have temporarily undeleted it so it can be referred to for this purpose. Bishonen | talk 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Suva

I myself have stopped editing for all. And am trying to talk us out of the situation. Digwuren is one of the few people who still tries to edit and haven't stood back like most others. Don't know if it's good or bad. But I can fully understand him. One thing is sure though, we can't get anywhere with editwarring, neither are any kinds of blocks going to help much, only upset people more. I myself call all the parties for a debate or just chat in IRC or MSN, maybe we could settle our differences in more direct communication, or atleast find better ways to continue. Suva 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

The main editors, Sander Säde, Digwuren, Alexia Death are all real people and more or less known in estonia IT circles. They are also enough normal people so it is highly unlikely they have any sockpuppets. About meatpuppetry, there seems to be some polarization going on where people align on sides and vote accordingly.

At the same time, if someone says "Police beated peaceful people on streets" most estonians who were on tallinn or viewed the TV live broadcasts would get upset and revert. It doesn't need any meatpuppetry if someone writes blatant lies and people who has seen the truth with his own eyes cares to disagree with him.

Suva 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved Vassyana

I believe that the Piotrus case is sufficient to set bounds for this dispute. It specifically places the articles in question under probation and grants a general amnesty for most users, with a stringent call for immediate compliance with Misplaced Pages rules. It empowers sysops to deal with continued edit warring, or other behavioral issues, sharply and decisively. Since the checkuser results have been inconclusive, there is no demonstration of substantive attempts to resolve the dispute and bad faith accusations are abundant, this case should probably be rejected. A possible exception may be if the arbitrators wish to specifically examine the behaviour surrounding this dispute or of particular users, to determine if there should be exceptions in this instance to the general amnesty being offered by the Piotrus decision. Otherwise, this case seems well-covered by the proposed decision for the preexisting case. Just some thoughts. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 09:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments of probably involved Alex Bakharev

I want to ask arbitrators to accept the case there are a few reasons why I think it is worth valuable arbitrator's time:

1. The first reason is personal, User:Erik Jesse alleged that I have improperly used administrative tools in the Estonia-related disputes. Obviously, I want to either clear my name or be desysopped.
2. The second reason is the allegations by User:FayssalF that Digwuren attempted to hack his computer. I think the allegations are serious and by there natire require some confidentiality. I do not see any other body other than arbcom could either confirm or deny the allegations.
3. The third reason is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. A large group of Estonian editors were identified as identical as far as Check User is concerned. It is the third case in my career as an admin then I was able to unblock editors blocked by the results of a "confirmed" check user case. In the previous two cases the condition of the unblocking was that the suspected multiple accounts never edited the same article again. This case is different many of the suspected accounts are clearily belongs to different people. Still there constantly surface a number of new accounts that jump directly into the Revert wars, XfDs, or AN/I discussions and then disappear. I guess the Checkuser of them will be useless. Still some sanity must be kept. Can we decide that in Estonia-related themes any user with less than say 500 edits is discouraged from reversions and !voting? To be fair lets have the same rule for all participants.
4. The fourth reason is that many admins fail to persuade Digwuren to label good-faith contributions of the established users as vandalism. In the long run it is very annoying. It might help to have some parole on such edit summaries.
5. The fifth reason is the usual bunch of the problems that many Easter European edit wars have: stalking User:Petri Krohn, absurd near trollish edits on Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, etc. I think application of the Piotrus remedies might be helpful

Digiwuren seems to be a useful editor, who generates some content. I am strongly against preventing him doing good job. On the other hand he is very disruptive and drains energy from many very productive editors. This disruption should be somehow stopped Alex Bakharev 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments of probably involved Grafikm

Digwuren's case is, all political considerations set aside, a clear disruption to a huge sector of Misplaced Pages. 3RR violations, total NPOV ignorance, personal attacks, trolling, stalking, possible sock/meatpuppetry, you name it, you got it. He's already got a sheet as long as my arm and shows no intention of changing his attitude. Alas, some users support him purely out of ridiculous political reasons and prefer breaking WP rules rather than following them.

Alas as well, it would seem that ANI board and community discussion are not enough anymore to sort such a clear-cut case out. That is why I believe the ArbCom should accept this case. However I must insist that it is infinitely less complicated that Piotrus case, since the Misplaced Pages rules' violations are so blatant.

Finally, to answer Uninvited's question (even if I'm not Irpen): Digwuren is a classic case of a problematic editor that admins are unwilling, for whatever reasons they might have, to deal with. So the case should IMNSHO be about his behaviour and obviously about puppetry as well. It should also perhaps be about personal attacks made by other users, such as the trolling and offensive statement made in this very case by this Erik Jesse guy. -- Grafikm 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Termer

In my opinion the case here is a politically motivated attempt to shut off the Tartu University WP accounts in general. My opinion is based on the pattern of political attacks against the articles on WP concerning the Baltic countries, Poland etc. Regarding the case against the accused directly: Even though in my opinion he/she could slow down a little while fighting the viewpoints on WP that in my opinion belong to the Radical nationalism in Russia, I appreciate his/her efforts made by protecting the related articles against the attacks.

• Suggestions to Digwuren. Please consider not to react accordingly even if provoked. Please consider that in the end of the day, it’s not going to make any difference in the real life out there if the POV of your political opponents is going to dominate an article on WP overnight. So, please just take it easy, every contributor to the related articles is valuable on WP and it would be a great loss if an editor who can spell in Greek and has shown competence in the history of his country could be discredited on the basis of the accusations listed above. Thanks--Termer 09:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I second Termer's advice. The facts can speak for themselves, there is no need to respond to baiting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Balcer

Accusations that reduce one to being just a member of a rogue group of editors are among the most painful one can encounter in Misplaced Pages. The claim that some users discussed here are just "Tartu based accounts" is an extremely serious one. It should be throughly investigated, and if found to be false, the editors who made it should be severely reprimanded.

Let me also make another point, one that some might easily miss. Estonia is a relatively small country of only 1,3 million people. As such, it has very few universities (see List of universities in Estonia). By far the largest and most significant is the University of Tartu. So, making a reasonable assumption that university students are particularly prone to editing Misplaced Pages, it would not be surprising at all, and definitely not sinister, if a significant number of Wikipedians in Estonia were somehow connected to that university. It would then follow that what some are trying to paint as an evil conspiracy of a fringe group based in some obscure institution is in fact a completely natural and entirely innocent phenomenon. Balcer 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement of probably non-involved Hillock65

I have to admit off the bat that I am not familiar with User:Digwuren or any other Estonian editors and have made only a couple of edits related to the Baltic or Estonian topics. However, I do know very well the other side of this argument and have dealt with many of them, and not only in this WP. I have been here for almost a year, wrote several articles, one of them was featured in DYK but soon had to abandon this community in part because of the atmosphere that had been created here. No, I don't want to name them cartel USSR forever!, as someone did above, but some of them are definitely well organized and are actively pushing their own agenda and what is most disturbing, harass and intimidate whoever stands in their way. And I certainly am familiar with User:Irpen and User:Ghirlandajo, who not only edit in tandem and pounce on their opponents in tandem, but tend to use the same vocabulary: "Sterile edit-warrior, disruptive edit, edit warrior". Mind you, those are standard accusations against editors whom they don't like. That is only if the editors are more or less established, the new editors almost by default are called sock- and meat-puppets irrespective of whether there is proof or not. That Irpen has a clear agenda at Misplaced Pages, even he doesn't make any bones about it: To start with, very few editors can claim a greater credit for keeping the Ukrainian nationalism out of the wikipedia articles than myself. --User:Irpen 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC). And he concedes that he finds nothing wrong with it either . Not that it is wrong to fight against a nationalism per se, but one only has to wonder if he claims the same exploits in fighting the Russian nationalism of his friends, to which Polish, Estonian or Ukrainian editors can testify as well. Irpen does not hesitate to mention his mission in this community and moreover he works on it every day. Recently I have been an object of his attacks and constant complaints at the WP:ANI just for trying to step in a content dispute. Him and his friends have assumed virtual ownership of Eastern European articles and don't tolerate any dissent whatsoever. The Kievan Rus' article is the clear example of how all this works. There is no room for WP:BRD when Irpen and his friends are around, his clear message to myself and User:Balcer who was trying to reason with him at talk page was tantamount to asking to submit the changes for his approval at the talk page before he allows it to be published in the articleTalk:Kievan Rus'#Infobox. That was supposed to be the only way to deal with an introduction of an infobox. Mind you, not a substantial change of the story, but an infobox! And his main objections to it were, that modern Ukrainian symbols resemble too much the Rus ones in the infobox (per his mission statement in bold above). It exemplifies the virtual ownership of articles (WP:OWN) that him and his friends have established in WP. So, I am not at all surprised that Estonian or any other editors might have been subjected to the same kind of treatment. I don't envy the ArbCom's task, as the East European topics in opinions of many have become a virtual mine-field. One of the admins, who thankfully only on the second day had enough courage to deal with Irpen's behaviour explained quite clearly that he was not going to get involved in the East Europen/Former Soviet topics. Given the sorry state of affairs there and viciousness with which opponents are harassed, who can blame him? I hope ArbCom can find a solution at least to rein in the pro-Russian zealots, who prevent other users from participating in the project. --Hillock65 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Pēters J. Vecrumba

If I have the energy, I will go back to find diffs. This is a typical pattern of attack on Misplaced Pages. Antagonize Eastern European editors to the point they comment on the pro-(official)Russian viewpoints, aka, Stalinist propaganda living on in the post-Soviet era, for example, all Latvians are Nazis, the Baltics invited the Red Army and were never occupied, ad nauseum. Then attack those editors for making those comments. Frankly, after a review of edits, I quite agree with Digwuren's characterization which Irpen cites as the first piece of "evidence" against him.

We see endless attacks on users and articles. Since the attacks on articles never succeed (since the articles are based on fact), the next behavior is to tar and feather editors who stick in the craw of those who advocate some other position.

Of all the editors on the other side of the fence from me, so to speak, I have the most respect for Irpen because he is consistent in his position and his edits. But I am sorry to see him get on the editor-attack bandwagon. The Cold War had found a new home on Misplaced Pages. The answer is not to punish those who react to provocation, the answer is to punsh the provocateurs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. Thanks for moving to the proper place! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• P.P.S. My solution is to disallow all arbitrations/mediations/etc. for six months so that all editors on both "sides" of historic "interpretation" of Eastern European events can focus on editing. That includes citing reliable sources, not simply tagging things as POV with no explanation--if you want to tag something, tag specific places with a dated {{fact}} tag. This endless torrent of accusations has to stop. Good, honest, editors with much to contribute have been driven away from editing Eastern European related articles by this sort of activity. And all of those editors have been victims of the camp accusing Eastern Europeans of nationalistic POV-pushing. And why is that? Because they got fed up and disgusted with the POV pushing and slurs that Misplaced Pages indulges. (Including not admonishing people for comments that the majority of Latvians were all too glad for the opportunity to pick up rifles and kill Jews.) The only way we will return to editing is to enforce a moratorium on these sorts of actions. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead, on Irpen's user page there appear two awards from the editor, Grafikm_fr, who made those (majority of Latvians eager to kill Jews) comments. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Ghirlandajo

• Ghirlandajo fails to mention that Petri Krohn (despite his excellent editing elsewhere) labels as a "Holocaust denier" anyone who paints Soviet WWII activities as less than liberating and glorious. If that is not POV provocation, I don't know what is.
• There's a much simpler solution as I've suggested, put a moratorium on these actions and give editors 6 months to put facts where their mouths are.
• And delete content from Eastern European articles which is not related to the article topic, e.g., Bronze Soldier of Tallinn has become a forum for accusing Estonians of being Nazis--which has NOTHING to do with the statue, the movement of the statue, or the direct reactions to the movement of the statue. There are plenty of appropriate articles already to expand on historical background without making each new article a battleground. The contention that Baltic articles are being turned into hate groups--of what, exactly?--is absurd. If anything, it is the reputation of the Baltic and Eastern European nations that is under attack here on Misplaced Pages.
• I welcome a debate with any editor based on reputable sources. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Petri Krohn

• Regarding "Since then there has been notable improvement in his contributions, but his uncivility and disrespect for WP:NPOV have remained." As constant as the day follows night, one can always count on Petri finding a new (Eastern European) article disparaging Soviet glory and accusing everyone of Holocaust denial. If that is not WP:NPOV, I don't know what is. If Eastern European editors have taken up the mantle of following Petri's contributions to insure they can counter his accusations of "Holocaust denial" in a timely fashion, that's hardly "stalking" as has been described. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Irpen and Petri Krohn

Let us not forget this microcosm: derision by Irpen followed by tagging by Petri (and subsequent invocation of Nazism) regarding the Soviet occupation of Romania (from )

How could this pearl have been missed? Soviet occupation of Romania by several users. Enjoy! -- Irpen 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have labeled this as {{totallydisputed}} -- Petri Krohn 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

...and Petri's classic comment that if you call liberators occupiers, then you can't be told apart from a Nazi . Exactly what is the basis for tolerating this behavior and allowing these editors to attack others with apparent impunity? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)