Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop

Procedural question
A procedural question here. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your question would be more visible and easier to understand if you asked it directly in the talk page. Myself, I've had problems understanding what you were asking about. --Lysytalk 16:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am told that such questions are not discussed on-wiki these days. Actually, I got the impression that no really serious issue would be discussed on-wiki these days. The fear of openness has drained the project of all meaningful discussion. Does it spell the writing on the wall for English Wikipedia? --Ghirla-трёп- 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure 'which questions' you mean. I would certainly agree that transparency is of utmost importance and thus I have always supported public logging of IRC discussions (which I think is part of the issue you are rising). However from my personal experience and looking at reasons why users I respect have limited or stopped contributing to Wiki, it is not because they were afraid or wronged by some (IRC or not) 'cabal', but because the level of incivility and trolling on Wikipedia is rising, and our ways of dealing with it is far from streamlined. I would be more afraid of Wiki turning into Usenet flame party then of it being taken over by any cabal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I almost stopped contributing to Wikipedia after your repeated unblocks of the arch-troll Molobo. When you said unseemly things about me in Polish and accused me of vandalism, it did look like a Usenet flame party. I hope that it's all in the past, though. Unfortunately, after comments that "Irpen has been gunning for Piotrus", the former editor appears to have left Wikipedia. This seems to be the only major outcome of this arbitration. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Instant messaging log files on Wikipedia?
After witnessing ongoing discussion on the project page, I wonder if there are countries were Internet Service Providers throttle protocols like http to such an extent that web site refreshes are unbearably slow compared to instant messaging protocols? As I understand, Wikipedia policy requires that editors use talk pages and edit summaries to explain why an edit was made or how a consensus was reached. This is kept in history and talk archives so that others can read it. How long would such web site refreshes have to last in order to make the use of IM clients the lesser evil? As some IM clients offer logging, would editors who use for Wikipedia matters be willing to publish logs files? -- Matthead discuß!    O       21:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about email ? --Lysytalk 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does this question answer the conundrum of the unbearable slowness of talk pages in any way that evades me? Unlike IM clients, email contact is build into the Wikipedia interface, users have a choice to allow others to send them email from Wikipedia, or deny this. And if they receive an email, they can answer from Wikipedia to protect their anonymity, choose to reveal their email account by answering directly, or choose to remain silent. Is there a problem with email, is it also too slow? Is it inconvenient, as cc: or an email list is needed to write to more than one recipient at once? That GMaxwell guys recently informed (or spammed) many eligible voters. Or is it inconvenient that those users which prefer not to receive any emails can not be alerted "in private" if they don't use an IM? I don't think that private emails were ever intended to replace public edit summaries and talk pages, and if used to discuss content, the resulting emails can be posted as logs, too. The question remains: why "speedy" in private, why not "slow" in public? -- Matthead discuß!    O       03:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer email, and I hate IMs, as I prefer to manage my time myself. As for the speed of wikipedia, I'm sure we have all experienced the problems with the slow or overloaded wikipedia servers many times. --Lysytalk 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki servers are coughing occasionally, or databases get locked, but then, similar to TV ads, this might be a good opportunity to do something other than endless editing or discussing. Patience has its merits, see also Wait for answers. -- Matthead discuß!    O       17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A little background
I guess I owe it to explain how I found the disgusting attack page meticulously maintained by Piotrus since he is going to claim stalking (he already did earlier in the statement he secretly prepared which I encourage you to read together with his "diffs" that are supposed to support his insinuations.)

I repeat for the record that I don't check his contributions. I realized that what I would see from his contributions list would only increase my stress level. I am neither looking forward towards finding new articles that undergo a spree of tendentious edits by Piotrus, nor multiple threads on multiple boards at Wikipedia projectspace and admin's talk pages where Piotrus runs his endless campaigns aimed at destruction of his opponents without even notifying them or user talk page messages where he incites others to forum shop for blocks of the editors he wants removed from Wikipedia. Here (,  and links therein) is a prime example of how Piotrus uses four different boards in sequence to much displeasure of the concerned parties and the onlookers who chastised him for that. Here and here (back then and still now) one can see some examples of how Piotrus tries to instigate other editors to act in order to have Piotrus' "enemy" sanctioned (more examples can be easily cited.)

A detailed response to his past accusation of stalking has already been posted to the workshop a while ago. So, I will just elaborate now on how I found his secret page in case anyone is interested. I think it is worthwhile to explain since Piotrus will likely claim stalking again. Besides, the history of this discovery would shed some light on other issues mentioned at the workshop. Coincidentally, the context of this incident may very well serve a counterexample to the Piotrus' prepared illustration on how I "disrupt" his new articles that takes a significant part of his statement prepared as a  rebuttal to something that I never wrote. So, here goes (as in the statements by my opponent, I encourage you to check the diffs for youself):


 * 1) Last autumn Piotrus created an unreferenced stub (merely a translation from pl-wiki) about Taras Fedorovych, a heroic Ukrainian historic figure.
 * 2) Piotrus announced the page at the Ukrainian Portal (Piotrus activity in Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian, Belarusian and German topics seems to me highly "helpful" judging from the statements of the respective editors at this ArbCom.)
 * 3) After seeing the announcement at the Portal that I initiated myself a long time ago, I started expanding the subject, as a first step of turning this unreferenced stub into an article. Note, the days and times of the respective edits (announcement and my first edit) prove that I was not stalking Piotrus in any way (as I never did.)
 * 4) Piotrus in response undoes a piece of my expansion
 * 5) Then I further expand the article and reference it
 * 6) As all content is now referenced, Piotrus accepts for now
 * 7) I then further expand
 * 8) Piotrus makes a questionable edit masked as minor
 * 9) After a couple of mutual WP:BRD partial reverts I expand the article again
 * 10) Piotrus adds more preserving my edit and we may think he accepts.
 * 11) I copyedit the article:
 * 12) Suddenly and out the the blue some user joins in, reverts all my changes, including spelling corrections, with summary: "-POV"
 * 13) Same user who I never met posts the message at Piotrus' talk in Polish where in addition to some bizarre accusations of myself, he states that the "PL wiki is concerned about Irpen."

When this episode that I almost forgot was brought last month to this workshop on June 6 I decided to check back to it as I got curious what the hell there is in my persona that keeps an entire PL-wiki so "concerned". What brought Mathiasrex there? I made a simple google search for the following string: "Irpen site: pl.wikipedia.org". I expected to see a canvassing page used to mobilize editors for revert wars. I've seen those in en-wiki and other wikis, where I've even seen entire WikiProjects specifically created for canvassing. What I found instead astonished and deeply shook me to a degree that I was unwilling to edit Wikipedia anymore.

Discovery of an attack page meticulously prepared and maintained by Piotrus
Piotrus' attack page showed up as the very first link in Google (it does not show up now since Piotrus commented it out and updated google results reflect this fact.) It is safe to assume that activity continues elsewhere but I don't really want to know. If one does such a thing once, there is no need to look for more secret collections. But what else did I see?

What I found out also from the search results, I was followed by the Piotrus' protege, an extremist nationalist, who being banned from en-wiki remained active at pl-wiki and was following my en-wiki edits from there. Seeing my conflict with Piotrus, Molobo asked Mathiasrex, a fellow pl-wiki editor, at the pl-wiki page to take action against myself and even drafted a false 3RR report asking Mathiasrex to submit it.

A little extra background here (sorry for testing your patience). Despite Piotrus and myself had an agreement to avoid trying to misrepresent each other's good-faith edits as partial reverts for the 3RR purpose (mutually acknowledged  after being held for a while as an unspoken one this was merely a recognition of WP:BRD as well as of the fact that we both no better than violate 3RR), Piotrus answers Mathiasrex by advising how to report me to a 3RR board, advise of course given in Polish despite many earlier protestation against the usage of Polish in en-wiki space (interestingly, even as late as this week Piotrus, again in Polish, leaves a message at another editor's talk inviting him to move their communication off-site, away from the eyes of other editors. This instance is neither the first nor the  last one when Piotrus instigates fellow editors to do the dirty work for him by instructing them how to call for blocks of his content opponents.

And how I was forced to watchlist the DYK submission page
But lets get back to our article. Without notifying me, Piotrus submits it for DYK nomination. The nomination is absolutely a startling one. The wrong century, POV-worded hook, questionable term for the subject's title. Piotrus graciously mentions "giving Irpen half-credit" in this nomination. Unaware of this development (because I do NOT stalk) I learn about the nomination only when I receive the notification from DYK admin and see a faulty hook being featured on the main page and attributed to me.

I was forced to make an emergency call and the situation is finally corrected. Ever since I watchlisted the DYK nomination page and this is how I saw many of the future nominations of Piotrus that gave rise to the string of conflicts (while he calls them "stalking".)

Thanks for your patience in reading all this. Incidentally, this not only explains on how I discovered the Piotrus' underground layer, but serves a good counterexample to Piotrus' allegations that "Irpen disrupts DYK'ing of his articles and stalks him", the allegations prepared in the statement that did not make it here because he was caught with it (Piotrus did not even show any sign of being ashamed of this). I can give more examples if needed.

Conclusion
But may this not detract us all from the real issue here, the accidental discovery that Piotrus sees no shame in methodical collecting of material on his colleagues for months, keeping this activity out of sight to be used when occasion arise. I stopped editing at the time completely overcome by a feeling of disgust that still has hardly faded.

I know, it is unlikely for an ArbCom to give a ruling on the issues that are purely related to the standards of ethics and decency. But now that the gin is out, people will be more careful with Piotrus and more aware of what to expect from him. Thanks to this case, his practices were revealed wider both to ArbCom and to the WP:ANI attendees even as I doubt he would cease acting like this. Where the activity was moved from the pl-wiki we do not know but we don't need to. If the forum where this continues is online, perhaps, some measures are now taken to avoid detection. But, as we have seen, campaigning to move the communication with other editors off-wiki continues to this day. As I said in my Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, we just all have to live with this. Nothing will likely change in this respect. --Irpen 03:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus reply
First and most important, I believe I - and any other editor - has the right to collect evidence for RfCs/ArbCom. There is no reason why one should be forced to come up with evidence right after the request is filled; particularly if the issue concerns behavior of editors that's - as shown by the evidence - nearly constant and unchanging. I chose to put my drafts in public - knowing that they would be found one way or another - since I believe in Wiki transparency, and that development of Wiki and its history should not be done in secretive ways (thus I try to avoid discussing any important matters on IMs). If I indeed wanted to collect my 'dirt' in secret, I could have done it in an offline document, with nobody the wiser - but I have no problem with others knowing what I am doing; I am not on Wiki for politics but for content creation. The Irpen section was prepared after he declared, on wiki, on 30 of May, that he will add his own evidence section to this ArbCom. Please note that he said "he is writing" such section - yet it has not been made public; may we presume that some draft of 'diffs and claims against Piotrus' is resting on Irpen's harddrive? Personally, I don't care, it's his right to collect evidence, write it and publish it whenever he wants. But if anybody can claim I had no right to compile diffs and draft a reply in expectations of him preparing evidence he first declared is being written by him against me, I would really like to hear logic behind that statement.

As for the DYKs issue, there should be more related diffs that Irpen himself linked; the pattern of Irpen (and some other editors) objecting to DYKs (and FACs) which show Russia as less then perfect entity, on the grounds of 'Polish POV' can be evidenced if needed (and notably they are almost always outvoted by the involved neutral editors who somehow fail to see merit in such arguments). That said, while annoying, I don't even consider it a serious irritant: after all, as I wrote, their objections rarely succeed in censoring the articles, and instead, often, with the help of other editors, we are able to incorporate some of their claims and indeed improve the articles by reducing inevitable Polish POV in stuff I write (although, sadly, their objections are almost never withdrawn - one can hardly expect editors with such strong POV to support Featuring of Katyn massacre or Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), after all).

Finally, as for the dramatic plea that Irpen was so disgusted with my evidence collection that he stopped editing - it's a shame that his feelings were hurt, it was not my intention - albeit let's keep in mind the proverb 'truth hurts'. I don't think many people enjoy mud fights, and this is what such dispute resolutions are; this is why I prefer not to get involved in them and simply create content - but one should also remember another prover: 'Don't start fights, but finish them'. If people feel they can get away with presenting uncivil (if not hateful) claims about me, they should not be surprised when evidence of their misdoing is presented in return. And what about feelings of those editors who pointed in this ArbCom that they stopped or limited their involvement because of the constant incivility barrage against them? For the record, I, myself, have recently considered stopping editing, because there is only so much incivility (near constant accusations of being a nationalist, troll, vandal, cabal leader, canvasser, etc.) that one can take before a task of checking one's watchlist, one's pleasant, becomes a dreaded action ('what lies are being told about me today?')

As I said in many statements here, we DON'T have to live with this. A civility parole on several editors - including myself, if ArbCom finds evidence meriting such an action - will do much to improve the atmosphere here, by stopping flying and groundless accusations that have already chased off may editors off this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor update - comments on Irpen's Taras... DYK example. a questionable edit masked as minor - i.e. ilinking several terms and bypassing a disambig Poland into Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What's questionable here? I still don't understand why we had that conflict about this pipe, but the compromise I suggest is stable. Here I do a partial revert of Matthiasrex revert, and warn him to be more careful with reverts in the future. I wonder why this diff is omitted from Irpen's 'case study' above? Piotrus answers Mathiasrex by advising how to report me to a 3RR board - a user asked me how to report 3RR violations on en-wiki; I replied in the same language he asked me. I did not encourage him to report Irpen, I simply answered a technical question. I am not sure what's the point of bringing this 'case study' to this ARbCom, but if there is any, I'd point to the short thread at Talk:Taras Fedorovych, a recommended reading for this case study, particularly as it shows a problem that has been commonly mentioned in this ArbCom: how certain users avoid discussing content, and create unfriendly atmosphere on talk, with accusations of troll recruitment (or similar).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)