Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? Options

[carbuncle]

There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list.

Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed.

I am not sure what to do about this archive. I will forward it to the Arbcom and I could provide it to any administrator I trust. I would not give it to nonadmins (including Russavia himself) or anybody else (unless the authors give me permissions) as it contain a significant amount of personal information that might be abused. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Abd]

Continuing the analysis of evidence re Piotrus, presented in the Proposed Decision by Coren.

Proposed_decision#List_secrecy

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.

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?

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:

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):

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:

[Deacon]

The list "cabal" is a majority-POV-pushing one, at worst. This shallow evidence, note, is being used to justify desysopping Piotrus.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
Ever considered a career in comedy?

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.)

The list members are all highly nationalistic, and have been able to justify everything to themselves on this basis. So, sockpuppetry might normally be wrong to them, but they believe it is ok when it serves their goal (forwarding their own POV and undermining a rival nationalism).

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.

The only thing I was doing to Piotrus was trying to reduce the power of that cabal in ArbEnforcement threads and such like, where they were bullying other users.

This post has been edited by Deacon:

[Abd]

The list members are all highly nationalistic, and have been able to justify everything to themselves on this basis. So, sockpuppetry might normally be wrong to them, but they believe it is ok when it serves their goal (forwarding their own POV and undermining a rival nationalism).

So, now I see what might have irritated Piotrus. Gross generalization about the positions, thinking, motives, and actions of an entire group of people.

I'm subscribed to the list now, and, suffice it to say, the above is a vast ABF oversimplification of what these editors do. I have not examined the entire history, and did not look into the history of the "Deacon incident," and I was only commenting on what was in the evidence Coren presented. From what I've seen of Piotrus in action, both in the archive, particularly the more recent posts in the archive, and on the list currently, and especially in the evidence presented in the Findings of Fact by Coren, Piotrus isn't guilty of what he's accused of. Some of the list members are more "nationalist," but Deacon has, here, shown me more of what they were faced with. Thanks, Deacon.

And what might happen, based on what I've seen before, is that other claims get asserted later, even after other arbs have started voting, and rapid reactions to that evidence can swing things wildly from how they might have looked at first. My major point is that Coren has an agenda, he's out to punish off-wiki communication about project activity period, I'm quite sure he'd go after anyone who acts on a report at Wikipedia Review if he thought he could get away with it.

[Deacon]

The list members are all highly nationalistic, and have been able to justify everything to themselves on this basis. So, sockpuppetry might normally be wrong to them, but they believe it is ok when it serves their goal (forwarding their own POV and undermining a rival nationalism).

So, now I see what might have irritated Piotrus. Gross generalization about the positions, thinking, motives, and actions of an entire group of people.

I'm subscribed to the list now, and, suffice it to say, the above is a vast ABF oversimplification of what these editors do. I have not examined the entire history, and did not look into the history of the "Deacon incident," and I was only commenting on what was in the evidence Coren presented. From what I've seen of Piotrus in action, both in the archive, particularly the more recent posts in the archive, and on the list currently, and especially in the evidence presented in the Findings of Fact by Coren, Piotrus isn't guilty of what he's accused of. Some of the list members are more "nationalist," but Deacon has, here, shown me more of what they were faced with. Thanks, Deacon.

I've been dealing with this stuff for years, have read the archive, know the people, and so on. You're talking to me as if you are some kind of font of wisdom. You actually just sound like a raving (and suckered) idiot, pissed off about other things and thus diving into this head first without a clue. Gimme a break! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

This post has been edited by Deacon:

[Abd]

I've been dealing with this stuff for years, have read the archive, know the people, and so on. You're talking to me as if you are some kind of font of wisdom.

Actually, I wasn't talking to you, except for the "Thanks" part. Now, however, I am. You are a visible, recognizable asshole, making blatantly partisan statements, gross and vicious generalizations, on the face. I don't have to know the history of it to know that shit stinks, and, in fact, I don't care to know.

[Deacon]

Actually, I wasn't talking to you, except for the "Thanks" part. Now, however, I am. You are a visible, recognizable asshole, making blatantly partisan statements, gross and vicious generalizations, on the face. I don't have to know the history of it to know that shit stinks, and, in fact, I don't care to know.

Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint Eastwood or something, taking such pride in your own ignorance will probably mean "shit stinks" is going to be the height of your insight here. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/thumbsdown.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint Eastwood or something...

You mean he sounds like this?

[Abd]

Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint Eastwood or something...

You mean he sounds like this?
Eastwood singing "I Talk to the Trees."

Horse, for that you win a free LR-115 radiation detector. PM me your address, or the address of anyone who could get it to you, and it's on its way.

So much for stereotypes. No problem with the trees and stars, they were indeed listening to him, as they listen to all of us, the problem was the rest of us, and, of course, that he and we can't hear the answers until one of us does get it and starts translating.

I operate through intuition, and often don't understand why I did a thing until later. WMC was desysopped because, with notice, I violated his ban during the RfAr, and my action was contrary to my own principles and understanding of how WP should work (if we keep the distributed decision-making admin process). But, in context, it was absolutely the most efficient thing I could have done, far more efficient than any verbal statement about how he routinely ignored recusal rules.

Until then, ArbComm wasn't listening, it sits back and distractedly watches the show, then votes on winners. To get people to do more than that, reliably, takes either paying them or providing equivalent performance payoff, and providing them with structure that leads them by the nose, that makes it very easy, Deliberation for the Compleat Idiot. And who creates that structure?

Now, there is an idea. The WMF hires dispute resolution consultants. Easily as valuable as the systems consultants and programmers that they already hire. It could even set up a fund for donations for that purpose. There are people who know how to do what I've been writing about, I'm an amateur by comparison, though I've developed the field in certain ways. Finding consensus is mission-critical, if neutrality is a core policy; all the software in the world cannot create neutrality.

Not yet, anyway.

Why do I comment about intuition? Well, I was quite rude to Deacon. Why? Probably because he appeared and took on the persona of the blind negativity that afflicts Wikipedia, that blames disruption on the partisan factions that develop naturally, and that expresses a fixed view of them, a view that itself disrupts resolution of disputes by inflaming them. Deacon has an axe to grind, however he came by it, and I merely noted that he was waving it here, a simple and clear observation. (Hence "shit stinks.") A neutral observer would not have written as he did, and especially not a neutral observer who was seeking to facilitate consensus instead of judging the contestants, here with collective blame that treats them as cogs in a single machine. When that's done with larger groups, it's called "racism," of the Nazi variety, and that kind of racism finds its echoes on the other side as well, or maybe it even originated there. In the end, for the innocents who suffer under it, it doesn't matter who started it. It has to stop.

Now, if some injustice has been done to Deacon, and he'd like me to investigate that and report on it, I would do it, setting aside any prejudice from his behavior here; sometimes behavior like his results from old damage that hasn't been transcended. Perhaps some EE list members dumped on him? No dispute is beyond resolution, if the parties seek resolution. If they seek victory through revenge, though burying the other side, it can go on for centuries. The only victory of that kind is effectively genocide, and it tends to backfire in the end, at least in modern times.