Coren's agenda. , two proposed remedies which show what's behind the proposed decisions. It's a structural position, and one not likely to stand if examined closely. ArbComm routinely disregards it. Any individual email that discusses on-wiki situations would violate it. Specifically, Coren states the core of his error:
QUOTE
No discussion held off-wiki can lead to a valid consensus, the basis of our editorial process.
Obviously, no off-wiki discussion is guaranteed to express a consensus, but, rather, can develop and express a factional consensus, and factional consensus can, contrary to what Coren claims, lead to true on-wiki consensus, it's part of the process. Coren naively claims that "valid consensus" is "the basis of our editorial process." Sounds great. However, we have to understand wikispeak, where words which have perfectly ordinary and accepted meanings are given specialized meanings. "Consensus," outside, has two meanings: complete agreement, or something close to that, broad agreement with such limited exceptions that they can be disregarded.
Discussing a position within a faction is part of consensus-building process, not opposed to it. Off-wiki coordination only has negative effect if the on-wiki process is vulnerable to participation bias, and it's only vulnerable to participation bias if majority or supermajority is the basis of a decision, rather than cogency of argument and, preferably, true consensus. Essentially, the problem isn't off-wiki coordination, but defective on-wiki process. Trying to prevent off-wiki coordination is not only an impossible task, and thus subject to selective enforcement, but it prevents the aggregation of factional opinion that, in a mature system, would facilitate consensus, as relatively few editors can then handle the actual negotiation between factions.
In the present case, the evidence actually shows, if arbs were to read it, off-wiki coordination between the "Russian editors." That a faction -- in this case, what I've called a Majority POV-pushing faction -- would engage in similar, in response, as they did, (to a much lesser degree than the evidence presented by Coren implies), isn't surprising at all. It's a natural defense, and extending this natural defense is part of the solution, not part of the problem. The problem is entirely on-wiki, and Coren's solution will make it worse, not better.
What I saw is that the on-wiki action of Piotrus, alleged as a violation by Coren, was actually a reflection of a very simple discussion that simply called Piotrus's attention to a situation. The actual action was mild and supported by later consensus of uninvolved admins, it's reasonable to conclude. What Coren would have, apparently, would be for all information about this to be on-wiki, which would then lead to, predictably, much useless debate. The action on-wiki would be visible to the opposing faction, and if they opposed it, they were free to use on-wiki process to object, and, as well, to discuss strategy off-wiki,
which they do, almost certainly. Coren is seeking sanctions, however, for an action which was clearly, in context, legitimate, but he does not examine the context at all. He simply assumes that any action with regard to a topic on which Piotrus is a recognized expert is improper. This is so far opposite to ArbComm's effective position on the global warming cabal that it's insane.
The only explanation for the extremity of Coren's response is his serious opposition to off-wiki discussion of on-wiki issues, and he's obviously and explicitly attempting to use sanctions as a means of discouraging off-wiki discussion. Punishment as a method of preventing harm from imitators. Very much not the wiki way, but this is where open communities go if steps aren't taken to preserve individual freedom, the trend has been a long time coming, such as what happened to the voluntary organization, Esperanza. Off-wiki structure: not allowed. Wikipedia Review was under such attack for a long time, until Wikipedia was overwhelmed by the actual participation here.
Off-wiki structure is the only hope for Wikipedia reform, and the reasons are obvious. Most important is that it cannot be centrally controlled; wherever you have central control of communication, you have oligarchy with unopposable power. A web site must have central control, but not of the user community, rather of the site itself; the balance of power between the central authorities (ultimately, the WMF) and the user community is essential for the wiki traditions to be fulfilled. Historically, organizations have almost always betrayed egalitarian origins, and it's worth looking at the exceptions. It's possible to keep an egalitarian structure, but it requires hybrids, the formation of a symbiosis between central authority and distributed power; organizations which have pulled this off are extraordinarily resilient and function with levels of consensus far higher than most of us have experienced.