Continuing the analysis of evidence re Piotrus, presented in the Proposed Decision by Coren.Proposed_decision#List_secrecyQUOTE
8) Piotrus (talk · contribs) was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors.
Support:
1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The most damaging part of this proposed finding is the claim that "Piotrus was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate," and understanding the meaning of this would require evidence. No evidence was provided. I looked to see if Coren had contributed evidence on this, on the Evidence page; sometimes Arbs, when there is a problem with existing evidence, have themselves compiled evidence. It was a bit amusing in RfAr/Abd and JzG, that an arbitrator essentially duplicated my evidence, but, of course, it was fine, how could I object? It was done, I assume, because it was claimed that my compilation was biased, though I'd been very careful about it, and my evidence in that case was never successfully impeached. But, here, the only evidence that might be relevant on this is in a pile of claims from opponents, mixed in with a lot of drek. Is there something that impeaches Piotrus in that way, in that pile? A sane decision will cite the necessary evidence.
In RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, one of the findings that demonstrated ArbComm's irritation at me was that I'd claimed the existence of a cabal, and they "found" that I had presented no evidence of improper collusion. Of course, I hadn't presented such evidence, because I wasn't asserting such collusion. However, suppose I had asserted such. Would that be reprehensible if I did not provide evidence? If so, then it's reprehensible for Coren to make a claim as shown above, without providing evidence, I do not at all see why an arbitrator would be held to a lower standard than an ordinary editor.
As to attempting to keep the list secret, I'd do the same. There is nothing reprehensible about that, in itself, for Piotrus had no obligation to disclose the list. A list is nothing but a collection of emails. Suppose Piotrus had semiprotected an article, having seen a private email pointing out that there was a problem there with revert warring from a total SPA, which registered and continued reverting serially with another long-term SPA? Was he under an obligation to disclose the email and the source of the email? Why? How would the list be different? If ArbComm wants to establish standards for administrators like this, it should do so explicitly, and with warning and announcement, and not adopt them and punish for violations of rules that did not exist.
The good news is that, so far, no arbitrator has signed on to this proposed finding. However, that could shift drastically, and quickly.
QUOTE
Use of administrative tools in dispute
9) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has used his administrative tools in disputes he and other members of the list was involved in in order to affect disputes and in furtherance of their point of view. [20090916-0602][20090915-0610][1]
Support:
1. There was also some bullying using his status. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I covered this in a
previous post. In short, the evidence cited does not show "furtherance of their point of view"; and the action taken by Piotrus was quite reasonable and effectively confirmed by later, stronger actions. In addition, it's offensive to assert a pattern from a single incident, that has been a characteristic of many abusive decisions I've seen, though I've seen this more often at AN/I than at ArbComm. Is ArbComm descending to the level of AN/I?
QUOTE
Disruption
10) Piotrus (talk · contribs) has participated in edit wars, disruption and bad faith dispute resolution arranged covertly on the mailing list in furtherance of content disputes over numerous articles on Eastern European topics. [20090206-2304][20090206-2304][20090216-0055]
Support:
1. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
On the Workshop page, Coren has placed some quotations from the list archive. he has duplicate numbers above. Consider the significance of this: it means that nobody who cares is actually reading the evidence, it's been almost two days. In any case, the two messages are quoted in his set:
QUOTE
Piotrus
* 20090206-2304 Molobo suggested we try to desysop Deacon. I like the idea in principle, but how to go about it in practice? Note: before ArbCom, we could launch an RfC about Deacon - this may be a good way to irritate him and gather info on who else would like to see him taken down a peg...
* 20090216-0055 Even not knowing him previously I've criticized him on ANI. This should be a good start. * in re Jehochman at ANI in response to 15/02/2009 20:39
Well, full disclosure: I'm now fucking outraged. The first mail is actually timestamped 02/06/2009 19.04. And here is the full mail (minus the response quoted from Molobo):
QUOTE
Molobo suggested we try to desysop Deacon. I like the idea in principle,
but how to go about it in practice?
He is not one of the admins open to raecall
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RECALL); it is unlikely somebody
could convince him into signing up.
To de-admin him we would have to get an ArbCom ruling, showing how he
has abused the admin power and how he gained it without due course. I
tried to bring evidence of that during my last ArbCom, showing how he
intervened on AE and unblocked Lokyz, but that was ignored by the
ArbCom. I am not sure what more could be done. Note: before ArbCom, we
could launch an RfC about Deacon - this may be a good way to irritate
him and gather info on who else would like to see him taken down a peg...
Finally, we should consider seriously: how dangerous is Deacon? Is it
worth for us and will it really benefit Wikipedia to try to take him down?
The comment about irritating him is, of course, a problem. But, remember, this is a private list, and it appears that Piotrus felt he was under some level of attack from Deacon. What is reported here isn't something that actually resulted in any action, AFAIK -- if it did, that should have been cited -- and it doesn't show what Coren claimed; further, parts of the mail which show sensible balance and a concern for the welfare of Wikipedia, placing it above personal concerns, were not quoted. This is cherry-picking of evidence for negative effect; and when ArbComm has found cherry-picking on the part of an editor, with articles, they have banned for it.
Piotrus was simply discussing strategy, standard process for an attempt at desysopping, and the only problematic thing there is the comment about irritation, which is then greatly ameliorated by the general attitude shown.
As to the other message, it's cryptic. All that Piotrus has said is that he criticized Jehochman at AN/I, "even not knowing him previously." There is no coordination or improper action shown by this message. It was a short response to another post, and the entire new part is quoted.
This is the sum of evidence presented by Coren. It is completely incompetent to establish the claims he bases on it. If Coren were not an arbitrator, an RfC on Coren would be in order, for decepetive presentation of evidence! (My opinion is that sitting arbs should be immune to RfC, but the Committee could consider expulsion by motion. I'm not convinced that the incompetence demonstrated would be sufficient for that, but, fortunately, it's not my decision!) Fat chance, anyway, and Coren isn't necessarily the worst.
No prohibited behavior has been shown, no abuse of tools, nothing indicating desysopping as a remedy, much less the three-month site ban and year topic ban that Coren has proposed. Baning Piotrus from Eastern Europe articles would be, apparently, banning a true expert. Banning him from using his tools on these articles and involved editors would be a possibility, Piotrus might have considered voluntarily abstaining from such action anyway, my opinion is, in fact, that experts shouldn't ever edit articles in their expertise in a controversial way, but topic-banning them without very serious necessity?
From other comments from Coren, it's clear what his agenda is:
slapping down off-wiki communication, he's been explicit that he hopes this case serves as an example to discourage it. Whereas others worried about the chilling effect of disclosure of the list, he wants that effect!
Time for a vegetable riot.
I am soooo glad I don't have to worry about these jokers.
This post has been edited by Abd: