Some specifics. Coren has drafted findings of fact. Many of them cite no evidence at all, yet may involve highly subjective, mind-reading conclusions. Of those which cite evidence, here is an examination that will include some description or quotation of list messages.
Use_of_administrative_tools_in_disputeQUOTE
9)
PiotrusÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
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]
protection of Battle of Konotop:Support:
:# There was also some bullying using his status. —Â
CorenÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
03:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Last first: "Some bullying" is not supported by evidence, but admin bullying is routine on Wikipedia, and very serious bullying has been roundly ignored by ArbComm, and recently.
The citations to the mailing list are supposed to be YYYYMMDD-HHMM, but don't match the list archive I downloaded. I think Coren has used his Outlook display of the mails instead of the time shown in the archive index, and/or has simply erred. I was able to figure this out, I think, the reference may be to messages 09/15/2009 18.02 (Piotrus) and 09/15/2009 18.10 (Radek), but the former is erroneously listed as 09/16, and the latter has little or no bearing on Piotrus, unless dicta by Radek, a simple intention to make a reasonable edit, not even actually done, somehow reflects on Piotrus' use of tools.
The first message in the list to address the Battle of Konotop problem was an appeal for advice, by [wpu]Hillock65[/wpu], 20090915-0524-%5BWPM%5D%20Advice%20is%20sought%20on%20situation.eml. Nobody would have blinked at a message like this on a noticeboard or administrative user page, except that some might have reacted to the mention of "Russian brigades," referring to multiple editors revert warring,
VoyevodaÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
on Sept. 14, when Hillock65 was reverting as well, then
HenrichBÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
on Sept. 15. HenrichB apparently registered to edit war. Voyevoda has, on his user page, "I'm interested in politics and history of Eastern Europe and I try to correct the one-sided view of history maintained by Poles throughout the Wikipedia." ArbComm is completely ignoring context, Hillock65 was faced with apparent abuse and asked for help.
RadekszÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
, another list subscriber,
reverted at 05:38, 15 September 2009. If the list index is UTC, this would be a rapid (and on the face proper) response to the complaint. That is, had the communication happened on-wiki, it would not, in itself, be improper, and ArbComm has laid out the principle the standard that if coordination that happens on-wiki would be improper, it is improper if it happens off-wiki. One might presume the converse, but apparently not.
Radek posted to the list,
QUOTE
Extensive changes w/o an edit summary or any text are probably a decent indication that sock puppeting is going on (the editor doesn't want to give themselves away by making 'signature' statements). Do you have any suspicions as to who the sock puppet is?
Anyway. Reverted that guy, and put it on the watch list.
Hillock replied:
QUOTE
I checked his info on Russian WP. He seems to be a legitimate user there. However, he probably doesn't speak English and is supporting his buddy there. Anyway, thanks for your help. I will monitor the situation, now that I've established that he is not a sock.
195.35.72.49 then reverted Radek, and revert warring began between IP editors.
Piotrus then replied,
QUOTE
Since most of the edits are from IPs/newly registered editors, I slapped
a semi-protection on it instead of reverting (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Piotrus did not edit the article, which, in fact, left it in the "pro-Russian" version. So Radek wrote to the list,
QUOTE
I'll follow it up with a revert to the "good" version in a bit.
. However, that revert was done by Marting, another list member.
Digwuren commented
QUOTE
Not necessarily; the "Those others are beating ours!" battle cry is a known way of Cartel picking up new (usually temporary) members. *But* Wikipedia's checkuser procedures don't always take that into account, so such tag-along accounts can occasionally be blocked as sockpuppets of somebody else.
The list archive stops Sept 16, the next day, so I can't tell if there were more edits on this topic; however, Voyevoda continued with reversions. I have not investigated the content, but Voyevoda was blocked by Backslash Forwardslash two days later, Sept. 17, for edit warring on the article. Other, different editors continued edit warring, and eventually, Will Beback, October 4, again blocked Voyevoda for edit warring, but then unblocked and instead full-protected the article.
I'm sure you are all now shocked, shocked by the vicious anti-Russian collusion here, it's as if Russians weren't even human beings.
Not. Really, if this were typical of Wikipedia battles, on more sides than that of Piotrus, Wikipedia would be a much, much nicer place.
No good deed goes unpunished. Was Piotrus "involved"? It could be argued that this was a factional involvement, Piotrus was helping his "friend."
I tried to raise the issue of factional involvement, as distinct from article involvement, in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, and part of my slap-down was for raising the issue (I used the term "cabal" for it). Piotrus had not previously edited the article. His response was quite a moderate one. Piotrus did not abuse his tools, compared to what I see happen routinely. Far from being reversed, his semiprotection later became full protection.
Now, consider what would have happened if Hillock had not had access to the list. Hillock, faced with multiple editors, one appearing to be a sock, would have gone to AN/I, and there would have been a disruptive discussion, involving far more wasted editor time than the handful of brief posts on the mailing list. This was actually an example of how the list was helpful to Wikipedia. Possible dispute was actually defused, not inflamed, as it was explained that the new editor wasn't a sock, though possibly a meat puppet, and I saw no berserker condemnation of the "enemy."
The list "cabal" is a majority-POV-pushing one, at worst. This shallow evidence, note, is being used to justify desysopping Piotrus.
(There may be other evidence which would shift this impression, but it's important that ArbComm, in issuing findings of fact, cite the best available evidence, and certainly not the weakest! Thus what can be seen here, without doubt, is arbitrator incompetence; an arb has come to a conclusion and then tries to grab some evidence to support it, instead of the much more time-consuming route of collecting evidence, sifting through it to select the strongest, and only then forming conclusions.)
The likely result, if this position prevails (it might not!), is that a sociologist who has written glowing accounts, published in reliable source, of how well Wikipedia works, and who clearly has a reasonably abstracted and sober position on content, the kind of editor I'd want on the other side from me, in fact, will not only be desysopped, but also blocked for three months, simply because he used his tools, reasonably, in a situation where his action wasn't controversial and, if anything, was too mild, inadequate, followed up by stronger action by others. Great result, guys! What will he publish next?
There is another finding after this on Piotrus, that cites more list evidence, from February, which ArbComm jwould routinely consider ancient history, I'll address that separately, later. If that modifies my conclusion here, I'll note it. Usually, for desysopping, ArbComm looks for a pattern of abuse, with recent examples, so I'm skeptical at the outside about the February incident!
Disclosure: Having read the list archive to a degree, and realizing that Piotrus was a sociologist, with some understanding of the basic issues of WP structure, I asked him if I could join the list; he asked the list, and I was accepted and welcomed with a mild interest in my situation and some fairly accurate analysis expressed, so now I get to read all kinds of boring stuff about Eastern Europe, like the price of apartments in Warsaw, and I'm not going to attempt to spell that correctly. These are the good guys, folks, generally, they are trying to figure out how to nicely and nondisruptively let ArbComm know that they aren't monsters, eating Russian editors for lunch.
But they do resist POV-pushing, as is appropriate; and what I see on top, from these editors, is general civility, though not without possibly some loss of patience, with what looks like an attempt to seek consensus, whereas on the other side, there is personal accusation and very strong POV pushing (one characteristic of that is accusation of bias in reliable source, which is often a red herring; bias is, indeed, an issue, but one to be approached with caution, because those accusations are easy and avoid facing the real issue: editorial consensus.)
I see open coordination among the Global warming cabal that is far, far worse than anything I've seen privately from the list archive or subsequently on the list, though I'd certainly think they are now being more careful....
This post has been edited by Abd: 
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk?
