Wikipedysta:Piotrus/Piaskownica

RfC

DD

MK

• speculating that others abuse administrating priviliges (ban), using other editors to force his POV, removal of facts, and generaly of bad faith.

I

• accusing other editor of past soruces falsification, no diffs provided
• accusing other editor of weasalising
• source manipulation: giving higher number of casualties (40 when a source claims 'about 40' ([1] - and all other sources give precise number 35).
• wikistalking at another editors talk page
• accusing another editor of supporting "crackpot theories published in Polish press", changing policy and bringing arbcom again
• a reply in discussion completly ignoring all content issues and just accuing an opponent of "wikilawyering and filibustering"
• accusing opponent of revert warring, filibuster, asking other for help when you use up "your revert quota, bringing up ArbCom, OR, offending Poles "It is well-known that many Poles eagerly helped it [the Holocaust happen"]
• mentioning ongoing ArbCom in discussions attempting to discredid the opponent content arguments, also here
• accusing other editors of tag warring and attempting to modify RS policy to influence an ongoing debate
• accusing other editor(s) of ignorance
• accusing other editors of misinterpreting NPA when he warned another editor not to engage in personal attack, brigning out arbcom. Later he himself removed posts by the warned editor when he indeed engaged in personal attacks...[2], [3], [4]
• accusing an editor of misusing NPA policy
• edit summary accusing other editor of trolling
• impolite reply to a polite suggestion

I am tempted to limit my reply's to Irpen's evidence with this single diff, when another editor, annoyed by Irpen's accusations against me, is defeding me and pointing out Irpen's misinterpretations (thank you, Balcer).

I have known Irpen long - for more than 2 wiki-years, I met him in person at last Wikimania and I still respect him as a knowledgable editor in Russia and Ukraine related matters. However I have also came to believe that he has a very strong pro-Russian POV, which he either doesn't realize or admit. As I wrote above, we are all POVed, but editors who don't realize they should compromise tend to cause much disruption. Over my years of editing I have interacted with Irpen often, much more often than either with M.K., Ghirla or practially any other non-Polish editor active in this case. In that time I believe I came to observe a pattern of Irpen's editing.

I (or some other Polish editor) write (or edit) an article related to Polish-Russian history. Irpen's starts inserting POVed formulations, revert/tag warring; sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong. He always strongly objects to others challenging any part of his edits, but after a period of time when he is challenged by several editors and with sometimes lenghty talk discussions, he gives up; the article is commonly chosen by neutral editors for DYKs, GAs/A-classes, even FAs, and the matter of the neutrality rarely resurfaces; with more wikistressed than I'd like the article ends up more neutral and better referenced that it was.

Again, I will be the first to admit sometimes some of his comments are helpful, and he indeed in many cases pointed out POV-problems that we addressed; unfortunatly often he 'POVs the articles to the other side', refuses to admit any of his edits may be POVed, and assumes bad faith on talk. He also rarely provides references for his edits, and when he does, they are usually Russian/Ukrainian, and often from the eras of Russian Empire or Soviet Union (prime example is Warsaw Uprising (1794), a FA-class article, where his source was by the time of FAing this article proven erroneus).

Examples of mentioned behaviour: 1) Northern Group of Forces, removal/rewording of referenced text, reverting, tag warring and trolling accusations, more tag warring, but eventually the article is DYKed. Note: I wrote the article, I provided all the sources... 2) Polish legislative election, 1957. taging as unreliable, but article is eventually DYKed. Note: I wrote the article, I provided all the sources... 3) Przyszowice massacre. tag, warring, warring, warring, warring..., warring..., POV edits without references, reverting, back to tag warring. Eventually however after I and several other editors provided references and NPOVed the article ourselves ([5], [6], [7]) the article is stable. 4) Institute of National Remembrance, reverting, [8], tag, warring, DYKed. 5) Soviet invasion of Poland (1939): tag war begins, continues, [9], the tag changes, tag war for new tag begins, in the meantime the article is DYKed, reaches GA - which Irpen's challenges in a lame talk revert ([10], [11], [12]) war over GA/B status despite GA status being conferred by neutral observer... - and finally passes MILHIST A-class review.

I could cite many, many more examples, as over they years I have seen this pattern in dozens of articles, but I believe five should be enough to estabilsh that a pattern exist. Please note, particularly, that in the end it is most often me (or some other Polish editor) that provides requested citations, and carry out npoving edits that in the end are accepted by Irpen himself; and it is the version as proposed by me or other Polish editors, most commonly, that is accepted by neutral editors for DYKs/GA/FAs and apparently by Irpen (as all of the discussed examples are stable). Yes, the end effect is too often reached through occasional revert war and even protection, but that, however, should not obscure an important observation: Irpen's actions, despite being comprised too often of revert/tag warring and bad faith comments on talk, help us to NPOV and improve articles. Too often, he is the only user interested from the Russian side in the Polish-Russian history articles I write; while I do consider him a "royal pain in the butt", he is a royal pain that helps Wikipedia articles improve. While I would be happy if ArbCom could reach a decision that would lessen some of his disruptive effects, I am not sure what they could be. A civility parole, perhaps, to stop bad faith accusations of like [13], [14] or [15], and maybe a '1 per day revert parole' to stop most excessive revert/tag wars (I would not ask for 1 a week, Irpen's contributions are helpful often enough that I don't mind being prodded by him once per day on any and all articles).

LK

• accusations of vandalism and mental instability(?) in edit summary, selfproclaimed exper, mocking ethnicity (Jewish...), suggesting the word 'Polish' is an insult