Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe/Evidence

Sockpuppetry between RJ CG and Ilya1166

ProhibitOnions appears to suspect that RJ CG and Ilya1166 are each other's sockpuppets: [1]. While I'm not certain, I have a nagging suspicion -- based on their style differences -- that he's mistaken on this point, and these two are actually distinct people. It would seem the mistake arose from ProhibitOnions' horizon regarding these two users being limited to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn where, indeed, these two have been making rather similar edits. Digwuren 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be interesting to note, however, that RJ CG edited as 206.186.8.130 until June, and apparently occasionally still does. Digwuren 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this has to be posted to the evidence section, not its talk page. And also you forgot the diff where PO expresses his suspicion of socking. I would like to see that too. --Irpen 05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. And as of "evidence section"; I have done my job and expressed my suspicion. If you want it to be supported by solid evidence, why don't you go out and find the evidence yourself? Digwuren 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Standard practice is that the accusers present evidence against the accused first. As I'm not one of the accused, I don't see any problems with me providing evidence first. I've visited Tallinn for about a week in 2006, I've yet to visit St Petersburg, I'm told it's the "Venice of the North", so maybe one day. It's really a shame that some Russians feel the need to bully tiny Estonia and this has spilled over into Wikipedia. Martintg 07:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings, I'm pointing out that my suspicion is not accusative by nature. To the contrary!

Of course, if Irpen keeps harassing me over expressing suspicions that might be useful to his side, I'll need to think twice before I'll do such a thing again. Digwuren 12:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Otto ter Haar's involvement

Otto ter Haar is a quite infrequent contributor to Wikipedia. His involvement with Estonia-related articles is confined to less than two days, to June 2 and June 3. Yet, after five quite problematic edits to Jüri Uluots, he went on to [2] and [3]. After that, Petri Krohn has left him "friendly notifications" such as [4] and [5], invariably followed by Otto ter Haar's presence. One might almost think there's an off-Wikipedia relationship translating to on-Wikipedia unquestioning support at play here. Digwuren 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly had the impression that Otto's reaction was way overblown for the alleged offence of having his view on Estonian history called "quaint", but then opening the discussion by branding the article "Estonian nationalistic" POV is not really a civil way to start a discussion either. Odd that such an infrequent editor would choose the Jüri Uluots to edit, hardly a well known person. Perhaps he was fishing for a reaction. I'm kind of reminded of a soccer player taking a dive and writhing in affectated agony to get the referee to send off the opponent player. Martintg 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen hard at work on the M.V.E.i. front

An interesting exchange has taken place in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user. Digwuren 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. --Irpen 12:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG's involvement in Rein Lang

I would put my comment into context. Specifically, RJ CG had (most recently in [6] but also elsewhere) attempted to pretend that the issues were a matter of POV, and that accordingly, WP:NPOV requires Wikipedia to be blind about his side's assertions' faults. My comment was intended to remind him, within the narrow confines of an edit summary, that WP:NPOV operates (in structural sense, not in its meaning) differently in matters of fact and in matters of opinion.

As for RJ CG's behaviour towards Deskana, it has a reason. But since Irpen was so unnice towards me the last time I presented something usable to his side of the battlefield (and, in fact, exploited by Ghirlandajo on WP:AN to tar ProhibitOnions already), I do not see any value in expressing it. Digwuren 10:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Status of tarbija24.ee

tarbija24.ee is not an individual publication, but a special "portal" of Postimees. Articles that appear in this domain are usually printed in a separate "informed consumer" section of the paper edition. Furthermore, because postimees.ee and tarbija24.ee are ran off a same (slightly inconsistent) engine, articles published in one of them are available in the other, too -- and sometimes even so linked. (Similarly, when Eesti Ekspress, who normally uses ekspress.ee as its domain, links to articles of Eesti Päevaleht, another newspaper operated by the same concern, normally in domain epl.ee, they use epl.ekspress.ee for the domain.)

Thus, when referring to an article found in tarbija24.ee, the proper attribution is to Postimees. Digwuren 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've changed it. --Deskana (talky) 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In regard to Deskana's evidence

Clerk note: Moved from main evidence page. Cbrown1023 talk 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia.", 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)

While this is clearly cultural, it is not ethnic. Google finds 1920 matches for the complete phrase "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts", and many more thousands for various paraphrases and commentary. Apparently, its most notable use concerns discussions regarding pseudoscience. Digwuren 02:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. I've changed my statement to reflect the proper origin of the phrase. Martintg 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As for confrontational, I find that it's rather late to refrain from confrontation after having been confronted with bogus accusations. Digwuren 13:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is never too late to refrain from confrontation. DrKiernan 13:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying means that once you meet a bully your best and only option is leaving the project.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Stooping down to the level of a bully accomplishes nothing, especially on Wikipedia. Rise above it, don't fall to the bait. --Deskana (talky) 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're quite mistaken. I was lampooning Irpen, who appears to be unable to present a case to the arbcom, rather than RJ CG. In fact, RJ CG is not significant enough to deserve any taunting. Digwuren 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Lampooning anyone isn't acceptable. And please stop replying to people's evidence on the Evidence page. If you want to submit your own evidence arguing your point, then do it. So far you've provided little other than a link to an RFC. --Deskana (talky) 11:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, I haven't had the foggiest idea on what the case will be about. How could I know which evidence is relevant before the scope was clarified? Digwuren 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk needed

I see that Digwuren continues creating threaded talk discussions at the Arbcom pages, this time at the evidence page. Could those be cleaned up? --Irpen 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You, sir/madam Irpen, are a hypocrite. But I repeat myself.

Or would you like to offer an alternative explanation for your non-involvement when Ghirlandajo "created threaded talk discussions" in the Workshop page? In order to jog your memory, I would point out that you can't claim you weren't there, because you participated in this very thread! Digwuren 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. And please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Clerk needed. Thank you, Newyorkbrad 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Digwuren

Now that I know what the scope will be, I can prepare my case. Please allow until September 20, at least, as the case is not an simple one. Furthermore, I note that although FayssalF's accusations are not explicitly included in the declaration of scope, the ArbCom appears to intend them to be within this case's scope. Digwuren 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on statement by Martintg

"Petri Krohn[7], Ghirlandajo [8] and his compatriot Paul Pieniezny [9] attempt to paint Estonian editors as bad faith meat puppets"

Nun brichs mie die Klumpen. Nee, dan lieber "mir laust der Affe".

If User:Martintg thinks I am a compatriot of Ghirla, he's got his geography wrong: I am a German Belgian and Ghirla is Russian, as far as I know. Oh, and I also think someone who on his user page claims to have visited both Belgium and Flanders separately, not only has his geography wrong, but may even perhaps not be deemed completely neutral in nationalistic fights like these.

If there is a grammatical error and he thinks Petri and I are compatriots, then I withdraw my first comment. Petri must needs have something German in him. Dieses Blut läßt sich nicht verleugnen. --Pan Gerwazy 09:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant "comrade", not "compatriot". I don't see why you would think I claimed to have visited both Belgium and Flanders separately, note on my page also have the flag of Texas in addition the flag of the USA the intent being to indicate the region I stayed in within the country, nor do I see how indicating I stayed in the Flanders region of Belgium deems me not completely neutral in "nationalistic fights". Martintg 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pan Gerwazy, you should not be surprised to find yourself called Ghirla's compatriot or even Ghirla's sock (or mine for that matter.) People who disagree with certain editors on any issue, be it a content dispute or standing up to the propriety of their conduct in general tend to be called Ghirla's or Irpen's socks rather customarily. Even ex-arbitrator Dmcdevit was accused at IRC of being Irpen's sock (!) at one time by Suva simply for telling Suva to stop trolling at IRC #wikipedia IRC channel. So, if I have former arbitrators with the checkuser and oversight access among my socks, German Belgians can be Ghirla's compatriot. The sin is to simply agree with Ghirla or myself. If you do, you must be something fishy. Sock, compatriot or just "comrade", a new term Martin introduced. --Irpen 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the big deal is, I meant "comrade" and corrected the text quite a while ago. Given Paul Pieniezny's comment in the diff I gave as evidence [10], your claim that I called Paul "Ghirla's sock" or suggested he was your sock is highly ironic. Not that Paul, having minimal involvement with articles that Digwuren and the so called "Tartu based accounts" happen to edit, would be in a position to form such a view expressed in the diff. And while we are on the topic of this so called "Tartu based accounts", how about you devote some time providing some evidence to the evidence page regarding your accusations against this group of otherwise uninvolved Estonian editors, rather than sniping here. Martintg 03:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Irpen did not want to accuse you of being a sockpuppet. He was comforting me and referring to an incident some time ago, when I fell a bit down because of this (note that the guy later switched Polish communist to Polish nationalist and back - you are not the first one with the comrade trick). There were other things going on at the same time, but as far as I know I was never called a sockpuppet, but a meatpuppet yes. By the way, I did try to edit on the Soldier of Tallinn, but as you know, I soon gave up because of all the meat and sockpuppets overruling any sensible editing (and yes, there were some Russian IPs doing horrible things there as well). I have "met" Petri Krohn and Digwuren on other occasions - that is very easy to verify - but as Digwuren and others intend to turn this into an RfC against Petri and perhaps others, why should I give you diffs? And there are many Texan nationalists too, so the flag of Texas proves nothing.--Pan Gerwazy 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So you claim: "By the way, I did try to edit on the Soldier of Tallinn, but as you know, I soon gave up because of all the meat and sockpuppets overruling any sensible editing". Really?. Your one and only edit to Bronze Soldier was to change "nazism" to "fascism" here [11]. So were is the evidence of all the meat and sockpuppets overruling your sensible edits? Martintg 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I was only one of many who did that (and I suppose the many edit conflicts I had, I have already forgotten) Though I at least explained on the talk page. Let me repeat, because the way Ghirlandajo presents it, I am afraid people may think I am a fighter against fascism, which I am not. I said it was relevant even though Italy had left the war, not because Schroeder had said it like that (let us be clear about it, and forget AGF: if the version with "nazism" had prevailed, "someone" would have come along and claimed he never said such a thing and deleted Schroeder), not even because (a lot of) people in the Soviet Union thought so, but because in the case of Estonia it was the simple truth: a significant part of the troops fighting the Soviet army in Estonia 1944-1945 were not German, but fascist volunteers from third countries (no, I am not counting Estonians): strangely enough, both the Walloon SS and Flemish SS (who had suffered great losses at the Narva river, however) were both fighting in this same sector. And I agree it is a bit awkward for Estonian nationalists that this was the case. As for the "senseless edit warring" versus "my sensible editing" (oh, often no more than copy editing, I agree) : Leopold III of Belgium, Lydia Koidula‎, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya‎. You are an Australian, why did you not notice the bad English in the last two articles (though why the hell they became a bone of contention, I still do not know - unless Digwuren wanted them to be)? I also noticed a catch-22 here: Westerners who noted Digwuren, like me and User:Otto ter Haar, are quickly dismissed as "not having had enough experience with Digwuren-Petri Krohn battles." However, if we insist or acknowledge that we have seen enough without at that time wanting to participate ourselves, the claim is made that we are not neutral enough because we are expatriates or communists. --Pan Gerwazy 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that your claim "By the way, I did try to edit on the Soldier of Tallinn, but as you know, I soon gave up because of all the meat and sockpuppets overruling any sensible editing". I think this is misleading to ArbCom, implying there was some kind of massive disruption over your "sensible edits", which the evidence shows was no more than substituting one single word "fascist" instead of "nazi" in Bronze Soldier, nor was your edit reverted immediately, it was so trivial it was initially ignored. Yet you make a similar misleading statement to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Korp.21_Estonia_on_wheels "As far as the Bronze Soldier is concerned, any attempt of mine to keep the words "fight against fascism" in the text...was summarily reverted within minutes"[12].

Just as in the case of User:Otto ter Haar, who also participated in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive261#Korp.21_Estonia_on_wheels after a single incident, your involvement here is highly suspect, as is your claim of neutrality. Analysis of your contributions to usertalk reveals almost 50% of your entire usertalk dialogue since you joined Wikipedia involves just four editors, Ghirla, Irpen, Alex Bakharev and Petri Krohn. You, Irpen snd Ghirla too easily claim your opponents are meatpuppets in this case, but I will soon present evidence to reveal who the real meatpuppet is. Martintg 03:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By way of remark, I think Paul Pieniezny has changed his username in recent months, and used Pan Gerwazy before that. I do not yet know if it is relevant to your analysis. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The analysis goes back to his first edit on 20 November 2005, so he has had quite a long period of collaboration with those four, particularly Ghirla. So there is no doubt in my mind that he is not a neutral player here, but wheeled in to provide the illusion of "community outrage" against against Irpen's so-called "Tartu based accounts". Martintg 05:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the renaming didn't interfere with the analysis. The renaming happened somewhen between the May and September. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename logs for User:Paul Pieniezny are clear. Suva Чего? 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence by Suva

I thought for long time whether I post any evidence myself. Or take part of the case at all. I don't think there is any need. I could list hundreds of diffs of Ghirlas incivility and disrespect towards other editors but will it make any difference? He has faced several different cases with much more respected editors before and never any damage to his reputation was done. So why would I make any difference? Only thing I want to say is that it doesn't matter how many contributions one has done to wikipedia, he should still respect other editors.

As of me. I feel regret for one instance when I was blocked when I said "Why is biggest troll still throwing fæces around." That was bit incivil. It's mostly cultural difference it's common term in estonian. In english it would probably "throwing mud" or whatever. Trying to picture someone worse as he is. And I probably was quite upset in May when the incidents took place and I was personally unbalanced because my home town was being destroyed. Bar where my friends work was destroyed and some of my friends life was in real danger. And at the same time some people saying that Estonians are Nazis. Sorry I got emotional, and probably made some attacks.

As of any later edits. I don't feel any regret. Most of the diffs provided have important context which quite much changes their meaning if anyone bothers to investigate the issues. If they don't, feel free to indef block me. Maybe only way to get rid of harassment and stalking for me is to create another account. Not interested about the case any more. Bye. Suva Чего? 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

On "evidence" presented by Irpen...

Firstly, as of now I am not planning to present any evidence of my own, so I will reply to the accusations here. Secondly, can Irpen be warned for wasting everyone's time by presenting evidence that is - there is no other word - laughable - and furthermore, spending a month to collect that so-called "evidence"?

I am going to comment only in general, perhaps only those five diffs about me in detail (I wish he would at least gotten my name right. Well, he only had a month, cannot expect to have time for minor details, such as the name of another user. I fixed it now myself.).

Irpen, I guess I have to spell it in bold for you, as you have seen this repeatedly before, as proven by diffs you gave - and yet you insist on that slander. No Estonian mentioned in this arbitration case edits from behind Tartu University firewall. Those checkuser cases you mention don't have a single word about Tartu University firewall - which are, as I have shown before, cache.ut.ee and cache2.ut.ee, which resolve to 193.40.5.245 and 193.40.5.100 respectively (I used this tool to get the info, but since you probably won't trust me - and are a fan of IRC, do try //dns cache.ut.ee command). The checkuser cases were ridiculous, pretty much claiming that all Estonians are one single user. I suspect that the checkuser clerks even didn't bother with reverse DNS (didn't know what it is, perhaps) that would have given to a knowledgeable user clear indication of geographical locations of IP's and/or ISP's. For god's sake, Digwuren and I have different ISP's here - and yet the result was "Likely".

As for your WP:MEAT accusations - somehow you forgot to mention, that a whole lot of Estonian users joined Wikipedia during Bronze Soldier events, mostly because article Bronze Soldier of Tallinn was getting filled with anti-Estonian lies coming from Russian sources. What do you think, if article Russia would be filled with contents, such as, for example, "Russia is a huge proto-fascist country in Eurasia run by ex-KGB dictator, with a personal Putinjugend. Russia is currently home for five sixth of the world's neo-nazis", then Russian editors would not like to join Wikipedia to change that article? And like I said, somehow you skip over that important fact why there were about ten new Estonian editors in late April/early May... so nice that you at least try to be honest, Irpen.

You bring Ptrt (talk · contribs) as an example of "one-purpose accounts whose activity is limited to seconding Digwuren's opinions", yet forgetting to mention that particular person has a long history of activity in Estonian Usenet and forums. Obviously, it was Digwuren all along, preparing for years and years so he could bring in a short-lived sockpuppet. By the way, I think that the way you and RJ CG drove that user away from Wikipedia is worthy a block of its own. Overall, I think you, Ghirla and Petri have managed to drive away about four to five Estonian users, including hard-working user 3 Löwi (talk · contribs), who has been here since July 2005, and Klamber (talk · contribs), who has been here since January 2007. And I can see this arbitration case only as a continuation of that campaign, "Get rid of users, who we don't like.". Don't you all think that you've done enough damage to Wikipedia already?

You continue with "their activities started with a flurry of revert warring", suddenly including me to that section as well. Thankfully you provide differences, which clearly show why Digwuren was edit warring - he was trying to get rid of ethnically motivated POV and replace it with NPOV. You continue with a attempt to show that all Digwuren did at first was edit warring, while the truth is that he was hunting down sources and contributing to the article, reverting only cases of obvious disruption and POV pushing. Evidence? Here you go.

I will skip over the section where you accuse thinking that Ghirla's threats and AfD's are done in bad faith. From recent events it is very clear that they were done in bad faith - and if you like, we can have a small voting here about Ghirla's "good faith or not". I think you know what the result would be.

You may want to look at the accusation reverting with misleading edit summary again, as if you scroll down, it becomes apparent that the edit summary is correct - and most probably it was an edit conflict, not revert. Rest of those "revert warring" accusations are about as equally valid as this one.

Deleting articles created by Petri Krohn? Let us see what Digwuren has to say about placing them to fiction and arts, shall we:

“ I did so because this is the only category that fits, this article being about fictional alternate history. There is no category for world politics, nor geography. I considered 'places and transportation', but its relation to transportation, which this article does not touch, and the fictionality of the place mentioned, forced me to choose 'fiction' over that. I also considered 'indiscernible' and 'uncategorisable' and found neither to apply here. If there had been 'other', I would have used that one; alas, there isn't. I resent your accusations of bad faith. Digwuren 12:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC) ”

[13]

In fact, you forget totally to include the fact, that the articles in those AfDs were unsourced original research. And you skip over the fact, that some of those articles were created by Bloomfield (talk · contribs), who is now permanently blocked (as a side note, I do believe him to be an early incarnation of Petri Krohn - or one of his sockpuppets. Very similar edit patterns and language. Alas, by now there is no way to prove or disprove it). I believe you can get more information about Bloomfield from administrator Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as she was the one dealing with that vandal, see here: "I was the one who identified and blocked the socks of user:Bloomfield. He created a number of articles, some of them are pure POVs (like some attack articles on "neo-fascists" in Estonia), some of them are not verifiable (like Palemonids that I merged just last night). He is keen on really obscure subjects, obscure spellings, unconventional sources."

And yet you continue "Even in English Wikipedia, they would communicate in Estonian, to prevent the comments from being read by other wikipedians.". Firstly, as far as I know, you provided diffs to only two occurrences where Digwuren has used Estonian in Wikipedia. Secondly, you haven't shown how they were intended to "prevent the comments from being read by other wikipedians". Thirdly, there is no rule or guideline that users cannot use other languages in their user talk pages. I must say I find this accusation highly racist and two-faced, as I do believe I've seen both you and Ghirla use Russian on occasion (I may be wrong there, as I will not bother with diffs unless required). And taking into account the harmlessness of content on both occasions that Digwuren has used Estonian - and that Petri Krohn understands Estonian...

Let us move on to stalking - highly appropriate subject, as you show up in all articles created by Digwuren, tagging them with various templates with reasons that have never been more then a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I must admit that I don't understand, how Soviets-Forever! stalking of Estonian editors is not stalking and when Estonian editors check what other users are doing, it suddenly is. I must confess to stalking as well - I daily check the edits of Digwuren, Alexia Death - and lately also Suva and Martintg. So far they haven't complained; if they do I will stop doing so. And on occasion, when I see a name from Soviets-Forever! popping up in my watchlist, I do click on "contribs" link. I do believe it is there for a reason, as if you don't want your edits to be reviewed, perhaps your place is not on Wikipedia? I have no problems with other users looking at or scrutinizing my edits. Why? Because I don't do edits that I should be ashamed of or would want to hide from others. I sincerely recommend that to Soviets-Forever! - although admittedly, they would have no edits then.

Now we finally get to your accusations of my incivility. You've chosen to tear out few words from the sentence and present them without context - so what I will do is explain what they are about.

• Sander Säde/DLX chimes in: "Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror, Ghirla, and check if it is a troll who looks back?"

How nice of you to put it, "chimes in". Almost poetical, too bad it is derogatory personal attack from you.

That particular sentence comes from a long reply/question to Ghirla - after he posted a derogatory hate-filled pile of lies. None of his accusations have been proved to be true, quite the opposite. And naturally, as usual for Ghirla, he refused to reply to any of the questions, instead threatening me on my talk page [14].

• Sander describing Petri as "our favorite Estonian-hater with his silly conspiracy theories"

I don't see what is uncivil about it. It is a common knowledge, that Petri has a grudge against Estonia/Estonians - and those are silly conspiracy theories that he pushed around, as proven by the fact that his original research articles have been invariably deleted by community consensus.

• Sander accusing Petri of "some personal petty hatred against Estonia"

And...? Like I said before, Petri has a grudge against Estonians. Take, for example, his recent attempt to get Rene Reinmann, an article created by Digwuren, to be deleted. You can see AfD with a mountain of keep and his attempts to get article deleted, no matter what. Or just go to Petri's RfC and find a pile of evidence nicely laid out. Coincidentally, link is to Digwuren's edit, I am not sure what edit you mean. Could you please fix the link - on both evidence page and here?

• More accusations of "petty hatred against Estonians", thanks to Petri for "providing entertainment"

Er... again, what is uncivil about it? Petri's (and coincidentally, yours) attempts of edit warring, lies and accusations have been highly amusing for me. Sad, but amusing. I fail to see incivility.

• Sander/DLX accusing Ghirla of "bad faith slander and lies".

And exactly why didn't you include rest of the comment, namely "Please don't try to deflect the current discussion of your inappropriate behaviour by accusing others. As you have failed to respond in any other meaningful way, except threatening me, I think that Ghirla's "Outside view" can now be safely considered to be bad faith slander and lies, constituting to be WP:ATTACK.". Please do go and read his "outside view", it is bad faith slander and lies, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

And finally - please avoid anything along the lines "To be continued". If you have any material, please post it so the accused ones can see it. I do hope you have something solid then, as your current accusations are half-truths and fragments of sentences torn out of context.

I must admit, I expected you had some actual proof, Irpen. I don't know if I am sad or relieved to see that it isn't so.

-- Sander Säde 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The days of endless attacks on Baltic and Eastern European articles and editors and attempted promulgation of UNSOURCED UNVERFFIED UNSUBSTANTIATED Soviet historiography as an equally valid "viewpoint" balancing the "nationalistic" "political agendas" that the Soviets "occupied" territory during and subsequent to WWII must come to an end. Wikipedia has become a cottage industry devoted to the promulgation of said UNSOURCED UNVERFFIED UNSUBSTANTIATED Soviet historiography (lies) as NPOV neutral while extensively sourced materials inserted by Baltic and Eastern European editors--who have the sources, interest, and knowledge to contribute--are mercilessly attacked as political (even Nazist) slander of the Soviet legacy, and said reputable editors are assaulted until they decide they have no interest in continually defending themselves and their edits against baseless and endless accusations--and leave Wikipedia.

    Let's show some spine here and stop pretending this is some "good-faith" "content dispute" by two sides with "equally valid opinions." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It merits notion that in Russian political discourse, the word 'fascism' means something different from the Western understanding of fascism. I've got a source ([15]) analysing the difference, originally for the article on Estonian Anti-Fascist Committee, but, alas, the source is in Estonian and is not yet wikified. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 01:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on evidence presented by User:Vecrumba

Vecrumba accuses Petri of calling his opponents "ethnofascists". I think his knowledge of English is at fault here: Petri actually used the phrase "ethofascist POV pushers" in a comment on another harassed user's talk page, he put "ethnofascist" between quotation marks and made it a link to a statement by another "ethnofascist" POV pusher, a Russian nationalist whom he had had problems with before. Ethnofascist is an adjective and refers to POV, but Vecrumba turns that into the substantive "ethnofascist". Basically, what is only a border case between criticizing the edit or the editor, is turned into a straightforward personal attack.

I have also had a look at the third link, an edit by RJ CG, and I invite anyone with an open mind to do the same. RJ CG 's edit summary is of course faulty: instead of "PC isn't really a Soviet phenomena", he should have written "PC isn't really a Stalinist phenomenon", but anyone who reads the version before the deletion and then the version after it, will agree that the deletion is an improvement. Does it delete the Soviet Union's attitude towards PC and therefore create a pro-Soviet or pro-Russian POV? Of course not: after RJ CG's intervention, the article still claims that the expression was derived from Marxist-Leninist sources and first used in the Soviet Union. The entire passage about Stalin was unnecessary and irrelevant. Perhaps incorrect too, because Stalin was notoriously good at eliminating his politically correct friends. Digwuren reverted that one as vandalism, an American editor later very correctly, put some "bad bit about communism" in the passage on the Russian genesis of the term. And also deleted "entire article sections on Soviet versions of "political correctness" "(quoting Vecrumba, in fact this was 5 lines in bad English and with no fewer than seven links - a showpiece section). RJ CG 's second edit quoted is of course POV, but so is the original. A plague on both your houses. Some Estonians willingly joined the SS, most however semi-willingly and therefore more or less conscripted (you lost your job and rations if you did not). When the Soviet Army reached the Estonian border, members of the pre-Soviet government called on people to join the German war effort against the Soviet army: were those who joined then "conscripted"? And some Estonians joined after deserting from the Soviet army, but I suppose those were not meant here? Basically, this was POV pushing on both sides, "let's not forget to always mention that they were conscripted" versus "we do not need to say that every time, and not all of them were" .--Pan Gerwazy 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone is called "a racist XYZ" or simply "a racist," the operative word is "racist." Your contention that I am somehow overreacting with a "personal attack" by saying I and others are characterized as ethnofascists because "ethnofascist" was originally used in the adjective and not noun form is--you'll have to pardon me--completely lost on me. You are suggesting I overreacted to Petri's lack of command of the English language? You doubt that Petri meant ethnofascist? Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for "having problems", what do you call it when someone says that if you are against Soviets, it's hard to tell you from a real Nazi? Or someone else contends that most Latvians were glad to pick up rifles to murder Jews? How does this make it a bi-lateral having of problems? I reached out to Petri (before finally learning the gap could never be closed) in particular asking to understand the basis for his stridency regarding anti-Soviet = Nazi. Dead silence.

As for a "plague," I have been waiting for months for anyone to produce a single source that Latvia was taken over legally by the Soviet Union as the Russian government has proclaimed. Dead silence. But no stemming of the flow of contentions that Wikipedia is being assaulted by Baltic and Eastern European "nationalists."

As for when the Soviets were reinvading, suggesting that anyone in the Baltics fought the Soviets out of their loyalty to the Nazi cause as has been pushed is nothing but an attempt to discredit the Balts and justify Soviet actions. Before that, the Waffen SS were conscripted. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I would also misinterpret Roobit's: "We face an outlandish situation here where a gang of dedicated ethnic nationalists and ethno-fascists from the Baltics, primarily from so-called Estonia, which is today the real center of ethnic hatred and official neo-Nazi malfeasance in Europe and the world,..."

You are not on the receiving end--this is not simply a benign "good faith" POV difference. And you will note that in this case ethnofascists has been used in the suitably offensive noun form.

And for this a "plague" on both our houses because I am somehow being equally unreasonable and am misunderstanding these vile contentions? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on evidence presented by User:Piotrus

I request anyone who read the Piotrus' statement to actually click on the diffs Piotrus presents to support his claims. For instance, he claims I accused Balcer of Xenophobia. I never did such a thing. All I did was to try him to stop bringing such horrific accusations against myself which he has done repeatedly. For the rest, do click on Piotrus' diffs and read the threads. They speak for themselves. Thanks, Piotrus, for bringing them here. --Irpen 07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the diffs. I had no idea your harassment campaigns were that wide by their grasp.

I realise that I'm waxing Quixotic here, but Wikipedia needs to put an end to behaviour like this, or it is doomed to become a cesspool. It is impossible to do encyclopædic work in an environment like what you've been creating.

I guess a case could be made that I, or Alexia Death (from you yourself praised), or Suva alone have lesser contribution potential than Irpen. It would be a bad case, but it could be made. Such a case would be much less plausible for Balcer. And when the scales hold a dozen of editors from various areas, with various perspectives and experiences -- including Lysy, Alexia Death, and Balcer -- on one hand, and you alone on the other, the choice is clear: you, and not the dozens of other people, are the problem. Wikipedia just can't afford to keep losing good editors because of your abrasive personality, and it does not matter an iota if you think you're doing it out of a holy nationalist crusade or because you're a paid KGB troll. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 08:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)