Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence/Piotrus

Evidence presented by Piotrus
I will just address the appearance of my name. I am not presenting evidence against anybody else; the only person against whom the evidence should be provided is the person who hacked our computer(s).

Re:Deacon
Also, re:PU's "Members of the mailing list defend each other from sockpuppet investigations"

I want to be clearly state that I did not encourage Molobo's socking (and not having seen all the "sikret" evidence in that case I find the public evidence still unconvincing); I encouraged him to find ways to prove he is a constructive editor who should be unblocked.

Re:Offliner
re:my edit to Russian apartment bombings, and re:"Members of the secret email list appear to be involved in stealth canvassing of votes": I think the article was mentioned several times on our discussion list. At some point, despite my relative lack of interest in Russian politics, I decided to read the article. I read it, read the recent talk discussions, looked at the diffs in edit history and reverted to a version I considered better. I see nothing wrong with my action there. Similarly, sometimes deletion or other discussions are annouced; I always read the article in question and consider arguments of both sides before editing/voting, and I hope other members of our groups (and all other editors in all similar situations) do the same. Your argument would be more convincing if I my vote here was pure delete, instead of delete and merge (with rationale). Why don't you mention more examples where the members of our group disagree? Here, for example, Biophys votes keep, I lean towards deletion with my merge. Heck, here you can find an entire mediation with editors from our little group on both sides :) Oh, and here's another recent vote (on merger) I proposed recently and that I am pretty sure I mentioned on our discussion group, where I find myself agreeing with Offliner and disagreeing with Biophys: Talk:Web_brigades. We discuss, sometimes agree, but sometimes disagree (there are no "yes men" among us), and never tell others to do disruptive edits. What's the problem? That we dare to talk to each other off-wiki? That's not against the rules, what's against the rules, to cite our policies and arbcom, is aggressive propaganda campaigns, and that never took place on our group.


 * re:Early June edit warring

I did and do support limiting the number of reverts per person per day, and I do think that 1RR is a commendable policy to support. On multiple occasions I've suggested, on and off wiki, to various editors, that they should stick to 1RR. And that's wrong because...?


 * re:copyvio images

I recall I encouraged, on and off wiki, for editors to find sources for such images and to provide proper fair use rationales; I am currently involved in trying to obtain the permission for the entire archive to be made free (see Template_talk:PolandGov). In the end, some images were deleted, some kept. See for example, or the new improved rationale at File:CaptMruk recce Soviet Aug1944 Rad-Kie.jpg. I see nothing wrong in discussing such issues.


 * re:Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655)

Thanks for bringing this up. I do wonder why did Deacon arrive to vote there, on an article that is not part of his usual editing routine and interests? I am sure it was not because *I* initiated the move... I might have announced such a move on the discussion group (as well as on the various public wiki boards), and asked others to comment. I never ask people to "vote yes" or "vote no", and it is not uncommon for members of our group to disagree with one another (see above) or as happens in most cases, not to join the discussion/vote because they had no time to familiarize themselves with the topic, and our ethics discourage taking action otherwise (think for a moment while I, in the Top 50 active Wikipedians, often spending hours on this project, am so inactive on the Russian modern politics (a common subject in our discussion group)? The answer is simple: I don't consider myself to know enough about it to edit the subject, and even if I sympathize with certain side I won't edit the subjects they care about till I am sure I know what I am doing).


 * re:Members of the secret email list protect each other at admin noticeboards

Eh? We discuss wikipolitics, and are interested in one another wiki-wellbeing. What is that supposed to prove or disprove? Other editors, such as you (Offliner) and Russavia, for example, also agree with one another and support one another in such threads. Such discussions are not a vote, and admins making the decisions are not swayed by choruses (or at least, should not be), but by reasonable arguments.


 * re:Piotrus has made unfounded personal attacks

I don't see what this has to do with the email group, other than be a general jab at me; in either case neither comment I made and you cite is a personal attack. Saying that your evidence is "extremely poor" is not a PA (I will also say this again - your evidence here is "extremely poor" - and if any clerk thinks I am being uncivil, please let me know so I can moderate this comment...).


 * re:Piotrus has abused his admin status

After Jehochman's advice (not a warning), I no longer posted in the uninvolved admin section on AE but in the regular discussion section. At this time we also refined our definition of what an (un)involved admin is (this should be somewhere in the AE talk archives, I think), although I still think this merits more clarifications (my previous understanding of uninvolvement meant no involvement in a given article content dispute, now our practice seems to extend this to interactions with certain users, which makes sense, but needs more refining).


 * re:Piotrus has abused his admin powers

Re: Battle of Konotop. If anything, power (to protect). But plural sounds better, doesn't it? Anyway, it's simple: I was informed that an article is being disrupted by anon's/reds (whose sudden influx suggests socking or real single purpose canvassing by somebody somewhere...), I looked at it, there was reverting going on, with no discussion on talk from non-estabilished editors who have written most of the article. It's a really simple case; was it reported to ReqForProt it would have been granted quickly. It was reported to me, I was not involved in the editing of the article, I protected it. Nobody complained about my protection since... what's the problem? That this was discussed on our group? If I was informed about it by email, nobody would care. If I was informed on talk, same. But since it was discussed on our group, a normal action becomes evil. QED :)

PS. Please note that the article is now fully protected. Perhaps I should have fully protected it in the first place.

PPS. In hindsight, I should have reported this to WP:RFP. But please consider - who out there thinks such a request - protection against sudden influx of reverting IPs and newly registered accounts - wouldn't be granted quickly by any uninvolved admin? I have avoided using my tools in any controversial situations for years; I used them here because I was seeing the case as quite obvious and uncontroversial.


 * re:Piotrus -- as usual -- arrived to support Martintg's unblock

Well, yes, I disagreed with it and still do, per my comment and reasoning there. So?

re:Russavia

 * re:my posting the Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191

If it was a harassment thread, don't you think somebody would have spotted it sooner? Investigating if somebody is sharing an account is not harassment, not unless unfounded accusations are repeated over and over. This was brought up once and once analyzed, dropped.


 * re:my edits to web brigades

See my reply to Offliner, first re. In addition: I am interested in this article due to the Tygodnik Powszechny Polish connection, so I have it on my watchlist, which is an exception as far as the area of "modern Russian politics" and my interest go. I see nothing problematic with me editing that article and discussing it with others.


 * re:Piotrus defending Biophys

I disagree with the rationale behind his block; but while my judgment wavered for a moment, I decided not to unblock him as. No admin power was abused, so what's the problem here?


 * re:Response to evidence by Piotrus

Yes, we talked about you a few times. So????


 * re:More recent battleground created by email list members

I am sorry, I think I'll stop replying to those accusations, they are becoming ridiculous enough that anybody can judge for themselves what merit they have.

re:PU

 * image

I am not sure what kind of argument you can build on my single edit that replaced an unfree and now-deleted image (File:German Soviet.jpg) with a free one (File:Armia Czerwona,Wehrmacht 23.09.1939 wspólna parada.jpg). At least, I am not seeing any argument that the mention of "Piotrus did this, it has to be evil" :>

re:DonaldDuck
was and still is indef blocked for his disruption (edit warring, block evasion and sockpuppetry), unblocked only to participate in this discussion. His edits to tsarist autocracy where on the verge of vandalism (removal of referenced text in violation of WP:V, refusal to discuss issues on talk (particularly in December), edit warring - I don't recall the details but he was breaking 5/6RRs a day at some point, if not more (!)). He single-handedly went ballistic on the tsarist autocracy, caused a major disruption in that article and got himself banned due to his refusal to edit constructively. Yes, this article was discussed on our group, as it fits the interest of most members. We have discussed the issue extensively on Talk:Tsarist autocracy as well. Members of our group have helped to prevent disruption in the article, expanded it into a well-referenced DYK (to the obvious benefit of our encyclopedia-building project), and the vandal got blocked for his own actions, after multiple warnings from many editors. Nobody baited Donald, he was given plenty of opportunities to engage in discussion and work on a compromise version instead of reverting, he refused them and kept reverting and reverting to his own version (WP:OWN, anyone?). Vandal edits (removing refs), vandal gets reverted. Discussions on talk are held, vandal refuses to accept edits of others. Vandal edit wars, vandal gets blocked. I see nothing wrong with this picture. Donads' insistence on not seeing any errors in his behavior, even now, and on attacking those who disagree with him makes it quite obvious who is the dedicated edit warrior here. I am curious, however, who asked Donald to participate in this discussion?

PS. Found it. The final revert spree Donald went on that led to his indef had 17 reverts. SEVENTEEN REVERTS. Who are we going to see next, WheelyOnWheels? :) I rest my case.

Re:Donald: I expect every editor to read the article, read the discussion, and edit (revert, vote, whatever) only after they are familiar enough with the topic. I am assuming good faith and trusting now, just like I did in the past, that those few editors who joined in editing/discussing this article did so. You can ask them about that.

Re:Shell Kinney
My apology and explanation.

Re:Skäpperöd
Our discussion group did not exist prior to late 2008 (December I think?), so it could've hardly have influenced prior ArbCom cases our members were involved before 2009 (and I cannot think of any between Dec'08 and now).

Regarding Molobo, I will just point out to what Radek said.

Re:Crotalus horridus
Discussing article of interest to editors is not against policy, per my expectation (based on past experiences) that they would read/discuss, I won't rehash what I said above. Anyway, I want to make an important admission here: I am sure that I have, on occasion, informed of wiki-related discussion (including various votes) not only the "Eastern European" mailing list, but also the following closed lists with no publicly available archive: 1) for Poland-related articles, "Polish Studies List" run by Polish Studies Association 2) for sociology of the Internet article, CITASA list (Communication and Information Technology Section of the American Sociological Association) 3) for social movement articles (such as the one mentioned by Crotalus horridus), CBSM list (Collective Behavior and Social Movement list of ASA) and 4) for Pittsburgh-related articles, various University of Pittsburgh email lists. On other occasions I've informed of such discussions other institutions, in an attempt to increase their interest in Wikipedia (such as Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), as well as individual scholars and experts. On occasion I make comments on such discussions on semi-public Internet fora (for example, I inform members of Baen's Bar of 163x- and Honorverse- related Wiki developments). It was always my expectation that individuals frequenting those lists would be interested to see how such issues are discussed on Wikipedia, and possibly they would offer comments either to me or join the discussion itself, and I would be quite disappointed if I ever found out they were joining those discussion just to support me, without reading the article/discussion and forming their own opinion. Still, if you want to add all of the above to my stealth and evil "sikrit" canvassing, please do.

Re:Thatcher
Discussing content off-wiki is allowed. If you hadn't put an editor on half-a-year 1RR for 3 reverts on one article... in two weeks - a pretty bad judgment call - we wouldn't have discussed your decisions. If you feel offended about comments we made in our private correspondence - hmmm, perhaps you should not be reading it?

That said, in the June/July debate I shouldn't have posted in the uninvolved admin section; in retrospective Jehochman was right and I was wrong. Since then I am pretty sure I have not posted in the uninvolved section on AE again; and I will certainly take even more care to add an involvement disclaimer in the future posts I make concerning users I know.

With a grain of salt
Regarding some emails quoted here, I have doubts about their authenticity. I'll discuss those doubts with the Committee.

A question to consider
I see lots of comments about stuff allegedly said in private email (and a quick count indicates that out of ~3,500 emails under review, about ~10-20 of mine are seen as problematic...). Shrug. I have written 22 FAs, ~300 DYKs and a ton of other content during my 5+ years and >100k edits, mostly in article space. Show me one article that because of my involvement in this discussion group was made worse. Well?

On improper canvassing
To address concerns about improper canvassing, I agree that all articles discussed by us should also be publicly announced on Wikipedia. We lacked a forum that was representative of our interests; hence in the past such announcements were spread at various wikiprojects/noticeboards or nowhere at all (and centralized only on our list). I've addressed this with this workshop proposal. With this, the problem of improper canvassing should go away.

An offer
Those proceedings are very deprived of good faith (on all sides), yet this project cannot function without this crucial ingredient. I am willing to reply to specific good-faithed questions and pieces of evidence; I am also willing to assume good faith about anybody (even if I lost it in the past) and enter a mediation or try to work, collaboratively, on an article they select. Although I have a huge (public) log of articles I want to work on, I am willing, in an effort to show good faith, to work with any editor here and apply my considerable experience in content creation to improving an article they are interested in and working on. It is my hope that by working together to create content we can rebuild the trust and good faith that got lost along the way - and help the project in its primary mission, creating encyclopedic content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)