Piotrus was desysopped based on ArbComm motion, pending the outcome of the case, and the arbitrator commentary specifically states that it is not for any finding of abusive action. I can't help but notice the difference with WMC. WMC edit warred on the case pages in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, multiple times, and edit warred on User talk: Hipocrite, and then finally blocked me during the case. And even then, a motion to temporarily desysop failed. Here, it passed. Why?
And it suddenly dawned on me.
Rule 0 violation. Of course! The stability and often-unrestrained power of the oligarchy depends on the lack of off-wiki organization of editors. By starting and operating a mailing list that functioned as such an off-wiki organization, as a coordinating tool, as it would naturally become under some conditions, Piotrus violated an unwritten rule. This cannot be tolerated, and it is an emergency.
I do not believe that this thinking is conscious for most. Rule 0 violations are like that. Stating the rule, even
thinking the rule, violates the rule, for those caught in the group-think. But I've seen examples of this kind of strong reaction before, and without this understanding, they make no sense.
Thus my prediction: Piotrus will not get his tools back, unless he apologizes profusely and abjectly, and immediately, and very creatively, expressing how
wrong it was for him to start the list, and urging others to never even think of doing such a thing. Not likely for a self-respecting academic.
I should write to Piotrus....
Wikipedia Review is tolerated now, almost recognized. Why? Because it isn't coherently organized, there is way too much noise....