Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Eastern Europe Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:37, 13 September 2007 editNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 editsm →Digwuren's one week block of July 16← Previous edit Revision as of 01:15, 13 September 2007 edit undoGrafikm fr (talk | contribs)11,265 editsm →Creation of inflammatory templates and disruption on TFD: updating linksNext edit →
Line 222: Line 222:
** -(this time he simply blanks the statement) ** -(this time he simply blanks the statement)


The whole thing was reported on ] by Irpen ] (and counter-reported by Digwuren) (]) The whole thing was reported on ] by Irpen ] (and counter-reported by Digwuren) (])


Several admins were trying to explain Digwuren that his attitude was not fitting with WP policies, but to no avail (see comments by El_C, Bishonen and Cowman). Several admins were trying to explain Digwuren that his attitude was not fitting with WP policies, but to no avail (see comments by El_C, Bishonen and Cowman).



==Evidence presented by {your user name}== ==Evidence presented by {your user name}==

Revision as of 01:15, 13 September 2007

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by martintg

Behaviour of experienced editors as model

Petri Krohn, whose RFC/U Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn was disqualified despite the serious issues contained in it, has provided a model of behaviour that may have been emulated by less experienced editors. Martintg 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Particularly nasty, (and which I am not only offended on behalf of the Estonian editors here, but also the victims of the Holocaust), is his portrayal of Estonian editors as Holocaust denying neo-nazis:

  • Claiming Estonian editor is engaging in Holocaust denial in defence of an anonymous IP reported on the 3RR notice board
  • Claim that dismissing the Holocaust is common among Estonians
  • False claim that the Estonia denies the right for a church to practice religion, with comparison to China.
  • Estonian irredentism
  • And finally this hateful rant, where Estonian editors are accused of having Nazi skeletons in their closets , for which he earned a 3 day block.

However, similar odious accusation as the those made above, have recently been made:

  • Claims presenting sources such as , is "hate speech"
  • Claims of the existence of "hate groups" and "irredentism" on Misplaced Pages on Jimbo Wales' talk page
  • Claims that one party to a content dispute "are in fact a hate group" with Nazi sympathies

This attitude is not only incredibly inflammatory, it is also constitutes an incitement to ethnic hatred against Estonians in an environment that is already heated by the Bronze Soldier issue. Martintg 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Russophone editors

Thanks to the failure of the community to deal with the behavioural issues in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn and effectively sheild him by deleting the RFC, some editors now think it's okay to continue to tendatiously edit Estonia related articles:

Ilya1166

  • Apart from editing Russia related articles, spends time edit warring on Bronze Soldier ,,, focusing on Russian accusations of Nazism in Estonia for which he was subsequently blocked for this activity , and also edit warring on Estonia, being blocked for this activity .

RJ CG

  • Predominantely edit wars Estonia related articles, initially as 206.186.8.130 then as RJ CG since June , particularly Bronze Soldier, to put a "Estonians are Nazis" POV to them. . Here he attempts to encourage fellow editor Mikkalai to act as his meat puppet to promote the view that the Estonian town Lihula harbours Nazi collaborators.
  • Both Irpen and Petri Krohn give encouragement and advice to RJ CG on techniques to mask his edit warring activities and dealing with Korp!Estonia .
  • Hard on the heals of his latest 96 hour block of August 31 , RJ CG immediately begins disrupting the same articles again

Apparent double standards

Otto ter Haar's only issue with Digwuren concerns Otto's attempted blanking of sourced content in Jüri Uluots . In the subsequent discussion on the talk page, Otto characterised the opinion of the European Parliament that Soviet rule was "occupation" as, rather incivilly, "Estonian nationalistic" POV without knowing the personal politics of the Estonian editors, so justifying the deletion of the referenced material. Digwuren responded in kind and called Otto's view "quaint". Otto had taken offence at this "incivility", without even realising his initial comment of "Estonian nationalistic view" was equally uncivil.

Otto, burning with anger that Digwuren does not agree with his view of history, enters into an anti-Digwuren alliance with Petri Krohn . After some discussion on the approach he subsequently supports an action not just against Digwuren's alleged incivility, but unjustifiably against a whole group of Estonian editors who were never party to Otto's little edit war on Jüri Uluots , with the infamous Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Korp! Estonia on wheels case, thus exposing Otto's personal bias against Estonians generally whom he apparently profiles as "Estonian nationalistic POV pushers".

Ironically turning a blind eye to Petri's own documented cases of incivility, Otto asserts the behaviour described in Krohn's RFC are unfounded and therefore acceptable, despite the extensive evidence to the contrary Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Petri_Krohn#Outside_view_by_Otto.

Irpen's claims

In regard to Irpen's case here, it is part of the same continuum of disputes across a spectum of East European articles, be it Polish, Romania, Latvian or Estonian

In regard to Deskana's evidence

Just one point in regard to his evidence, concerning Digwuren's statement: "Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, and even less to presenting them in Misplaced Pages.", which was presented as evidence of incivility. This I believe, is an example of one's cultural background making a difference in interpretation. This statement is apparently derived from a famous quote by the late US Senator Pat Moynihan: "You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts", thus it wouldn't be generally considered incivil. Martintg 23:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren's one week block of July 16

This is the sequence of events leading up to Digwuren's one week block.

Up to the moment of the block Digwuren was indeed happily editing Estonia related articles , not being a party at all in the discussions above.

  • 19:18, July 16, FayssalF applies a one week block against Digwuren for "tendentious editing and edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment"

Looking at the short edit history of Anti-Estonian sentiment, Digwuren only actually reverted Mikkalai once before being blocked. Mikkalai had blanked the article and made it into a redirect to Estonia-Russia relations. Ironically, Irpen considers this redirect as highly POV, requesting an RfD here: Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#RfD. Martintg 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Compare and contrast Digwuren's one week block without warning for his single revert on Anti-Estonian sentiment with Ghirlandajo's 30 minute block for serious page move/revert disruption involving Soviet occupation . Ghirlandajo originally received a 24 hour block, but it was reduced to a 30 minute block after the blocking admin was aggressively brow beaten with the assistance of Irpen here: User_talk:Ghirlandajo#3RR and here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ghirlandajo.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_moved_Soviet_occupation_article_to_Allied_occupation_of_Europe. --Martintg 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Grafikm's evidence

Virtually all of Grafikm's evidence in regard to "edit warring" is connected with Estonia related articles. It takes two to edit war and note that it is either RJ CG or Petri Krohn involved here. Note too that Digwuren, Alexia Death and other Estonian editors, by virtue of the fact that they are Estonian and reside in Estonia and having language skills in Russian in addition to English and obviously Estonian, allowing them to access sources in all three languages, would have a better idea about Estonia related content than these two editors RJ CG and Petri Krohn, who can only access sources in two languages. There are two sides to every edit conflict, so who is disrupting who here? Is it the Estonian editors disrupting Estonia related articles, or is two editors with documented attitudinal issues RJ CG and Petri Krohn disrupting Estonia related articles.

In regard to his evidence of inflammatory templates, both are being adequately handled by the TFD process. There is no concensus for deletion, let alone that it is in any way divisive or inflammatory in Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Notpropaganda. In regard to Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion#Template:POV_Russia, while there is concensus for deletion here, it is because the existing NPOV template is adequate for the job, not that it is inflammatory or POINTy. In regard to Digwuren's action in striking out a part of Irpen's statement, I believe he was simply acting according to WP:BOLD, striking out a part of the allegation which FR_Soliloquy objected to as being a suggestive, and prejudicial comment, lacking WP:AGF, be should be removed from this discussion. --Martintg 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Deskana

Rein Lang article a major point of contention

The article Rein Lang, a biography on the Estonian Minister of Justice, is a major point of contention between Estonian and Russian editors. There was an OTRS complaint from the Department of Justice in Estonia (ticket, OTRS login required), including phone calls to Cary. I cut the controversy section significantly, so as to not disproportionately represent Mr Lang's career . The article has seen edit warring between Estonian editors (such as Digwuren, for example) and Russian editors. The edit warring has been based primarily around the birthday party controversy. There have also been news reports in Estonian newspapers about the article Rein Lang (Wordpress, Postimees). It seems the articles mention the controversy, and state that a complaint was made to a "senior administrator" (meaning me, they seem to have got my role slightly confused) to fix the article. Since then, I have taken an interest in the article, attempting to act as a neutral party with no inherent point of view on the article, to ensure it does not violate BLP and remains NPOV and properly sourced.

RJ_CG has edited Rein Lang disruptively

RJ_CG (talk · contribs), an editor who states his mother tongue is Russian on his userpage, has edited Rein Lang in a disruptive manner, attempting to push a Russian POV on the article, and using inflammatory edit summaries.

  • - "Let Estonians and Russians talk for themselves"
  • - "Explanation where Russia are coming from"
  • - "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help. WP isn't shrink office"

It is worth noting that prior to my involvement in this particular part of the dispute, every single one of RJ_CG's edits to Rein Lang were reverted by either Digwuren (talk · contribs) or Alexia Death (talk · contribs), who are both Estonian. Digwuren could also have handled this situation better, stating to RJ_CG that "Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, and even less to presenting them in Misplaced Pages." while reverting him .

I blocked RJ_CG for 96 hours with the summary "edit warring on Rein Lang" . So far, RJ_CG has not contested the block, and has acted in a civil manner towards me, and this I respect. I do not believe he is simply here to cause trouble, otherwise he would certainly have contested the block (Note that I'm not saying that in all cases, contesting a block = causing trouble)

Digwuren is sometimes unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive

Digwuren (talk · contribs) is sometimes confrontational and disruptive. For example,

  • Digwuren created Template:Big Sock Fishing, which contained a link to Misplaced Pages:Big Sock Fishing, which redirects to his checkuser case.
  • Digwuren created Misplaced Pages:Big Sock Fishing, redirecting it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren . This was deleted by Picaroon, and then recreated by Digwuren, stating "Reredirected. Deletion broke up link chain from the template to the RFCU case.". This isn't a valid reason, since the template shouldn't exist anyway. Both this and the above serve absolutely no purpose, and are simply confrontational.
  • Diguwren states "Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts, and even less to presenting them in Misplaced Pages."
  • Digwuren responds to the checkuser case on him with hostility . It's understanble that he would be angry about being accused, but civility is policy.
  • Digwuren writes an unnecessarily confrontational message on Rein Lang regarding a Russian editor, User:RJ CG:
  • RJ_CG is blocked for 119 hours, and Digwuren taunts the user on their user talk page, by using a mocking version of the DYK template:

Evidence presented by Digwuren

Petri Krohn has engaged in extremely disruptive conduct regarding articles concerning Estonian-Russian relations

  • I should point out that due to time concerns inappropriately invoked by Bishonen, the evidence presented in the RFC/U concentrates heavily on Petri Krohn's disruption in May. Other diffs, including those from earlier months, are available, should any arbitrator find them necessary. Digwuren 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Evidence presented by Grafikm

Note to ArbCom: I require some more time to compile the rest of the evidence, so please don't move this to voting too early.

Digwuren's presence on WP has been extremely disruptive to a whole sector of Misplaced Pages. Indeed, as the ArbCom is probably aware of, Digwuren already has a lengthy record of blocks made by several admins for various disruptions . Since last block, User:Deskana unblocked Digwuren stating explicitely that "having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust."

Obviously, Digwuren's disruptive attitude did not end with that unblock.

Edit warrying and POV Pushing

Digwuren's attitude was extremely disruptive on a number of pages, where he engaged in heavy edit warrying. Examples include:

  • Lennart Meri - edit warrying to keep a POV phrase "non-communist style" election. Such a phrase is obviously inflammatory and far better alternatives are possible but he kept reverting it.
    • after another editor tries to NPOV it.
  • Jüri Uluots reverting almost the same stuff over and over in an attempt to POV it:
  • Lydia Koidula
    • edit made 26h after those 3 - how curious...
    • and here we go again
  • Rein Lang - edit warrying:
    • removing referenced content
    • and again
    • and again
  • Congress of Estonia
    • removing POV tags without consensus
    • and calling other editor's actions "vandalism" to boot.

Also note heavy edit warrying by User:Alexia Death in the same article.

There are many more diffs from this page but they're too many to list them all

Basically, what he's trying to do is to bully other editors to make them stay out of "his" articles so he can plague them with POV pushing. These edits are only a sample (albeit a representative one) of his warrying.


Creation of inflammatory templates and disruption on TFD

User:Suva created a template Template:Notpropaganda, clearly falling under deletion criteria T1 as a divisive and inflammatory. The template was

What followed was (and still is) an attempt by Digwuren and his buddies (Suva and Martintg just to name those two) to bully out people who dared voting "delete" out of the discussion. Now, I know that xFD results are discussion based and not count-based, but still, this kind of attitude is very representative of Digwuren's approach to Misplaced Pages.

Only a few days later, the same User:Suva created yet another inflammatory template, Template:POV_Russia, which was again brought on TFD. This time, User:Digwuren attempted to modify Irpen's TFD statement, which is against the very basic rules of Misplaced Pages, and then edit warried to remove part of Irpen's nomination:

    • -(this time he simply blanks the statement)

The whole thing was reported on WP:ANI by Irpen Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#TfD_disruption (and counter-reported by Digwuren) (here)

Several admins were trying to explain Digwuren that his attitude was not fitting with WP policies, but to no avail (see comments by El_C, Bishonen and Cowman).

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.