Creating battlegrounds
editDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), formerly Calgacus (talk · contribs), who has in the past expressed anti-Polish sentiments ([1]), has overturned an AE thread where I requested protection from uncivil user, objected just now when I have requested another AE intervention against the same user (who accused me of being on somebody's "payroll". This leaves me dubious of whether Deacon is really qualified to be an administrator. Admin's are supposed to be protecting the stability and civility of our community, yet Deacon defends a user guilty of personal attacks, and have decided to launch this arbitration to investigate my actions, claiming (pre-refactor arbcom statement) that "Lithuanians are particularly victim, users such as Lokyz regularly treated badly". Yes, I have certainly acted terribly, asking the community to stop slander and harassment of my person, wasting everyone's time since getting WP:CIV enforced is usually a waste of time... The harassed "Lithuanians" have already launched an ArbCom against me, which, surprise, did not find anything in my behavior questionable (it had however considered a ban of one of the most disruptive Lithuanian editors).
Deacon is also a colleague of Irpen (talk · contribs), who has been found uncivil and rather biased when it comes to my person). Recently Deacon has rewritten this article - which I've brought as high as the MILHIST A-class, refused my suggestion for merging our versions - a suggestion supported by several neutral editors ([2], [3]) - called my (referenced) version full of "pure nonsense" and "made-up" facts, and was aided by Irpen (who suddenly appeared at that article's talk after a month of inactivity!), and who accused me of mobilization of a tag team for a revert war coordinated by Gadu-Gadu. While I have reverted his edits in mainspace, I have done so - as I've explained - since my version was the one that has passed GA and A-class reviews. I have seeked peaceful resolution on article's and Deacon's talk, and maintained WP:CIVILITY. Instead, I've been subject to several personal attacks, and finally, an accusation of meat puppetry. Irpen brought up WP:BATTLE below: who is the one creating battlegrounds here?
I also believe I have a good record of civility and trying to resolve conflicts in a civil and friendly fashion: I don't offend others, I respect them, and I seek outside mediation when I am deadlocked. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution, the civility barnstar on my talk page by User:Ioeth and feel free to ask mediatiors who were involved with me for character statement.
Alden, the meatpuppet?
editRegarding user Alden... sigh. He is a problem, I agree, see my statement here. His recent post is very interesting. Who asked him for those reverts? Perhaps it was the cabal :) Seriously, anybody can see from looking at Alden's talkpage that I've endorsed or issued warnings/recommendations for him to be more civil and not to revert.
I resent the accusations that he is my meatpuppet. I also resent Deacon's other unproven accusations, ex. "Piotrus has been shown to use off-wiki IM and email to recruit edit-warring help". No, Piotrus has been claimed to do so by tag team members who proposed this motion in the arbitration (here and here), and the motion has not been picked up by arbitrators, which as far as I am concerned means "Piotrus has been found innocent". Expect to see more past accusations rehashed, that's a standard tag team tactic. For the record, I have never denied I use IMs, @, IRC or even that I talk to editors face to face :) I have even talked with Irpen during Wikimania 2006 - does it prove we are evil cabalists? I think not. I discuss Wikipedia with many people, I have published academic articles on Wikipedia, presented on Wikipedia to various audiences, taught classes with and about Wikipedia, and been interviewed for WWeekly podcast. It would be nice if some good faith was assumed with regards for my actions - certainly recruiting edit-warring help is not on my agenda.
The truth behind all of this
editI am also certainly guilty of creating content. As an editor in the Top 50 most active Wikipedians (see also this), I have created well over a thousand of articles, brought 20 or so to FA (please see the "Outside view by Raul654" in my RfC), and certainly many of them indeed "no-one but an idiot could doubt that the provocative effects are foreseen by Piotrus" (Deacon, pre-refactor arbcom statement). I don't shy from controversial subjects (particularly since I believe that by bringing them to FA status I've proven I understand our core concepts like NPOV). I am well aware that by writing about controversial EE history I have created many enemies (Katyn massacre, Soviet invasion of Poland, Holocaust in Lithuania... I ruffle feathers, yes). Which is why I have the "pleasure" of dealing with several "tag teams" as the phenomena was recently identified by Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars: Lithuanian, German and Russian. I predicted in my opening statement in this arbitration, before refactoring, that "I am sure the next few days will see editors from those nationalities criticizing my person". This is already happening; I have taken the liberty of identifying them (before the ArbCom started) in an email to a respected administrator I've been discussing this issue with recently, and I will reveal those names to ArbCom, with verification from that editor, as my predictions are already coming true.
The existence of the tag teams helps to explain why "there's been thread after thread about [Piotrus]" (Deacon, pre-refactor arbcom statement). Of course there were. That's what tag teams do: refuse to let the matter drop, harass their opponents again and again, defend each others against admin actions, rehash past accusations (expect to see the meatpuppetry added to the list of my wrongdoings for years to come), harass and intimidate hoping to drive their opponents off wiki. This ArbCom is indeed only one in a continuing series of "rewards" I get for creating content and policing the controversial articles in EE history. I watchlist close to ~3k pages and I take it as a point of honor that those articles correspond to WP:NPOV, WP:V and so on (and I believe my FA/A/GA record proves I know what those policies are about). But it would be quite handy for some if I was no longer here so they would have free reign on those articles. My apologies if this sounds a bit megalomaniac, there are many, many other good editors who dedicate their time to policing those articles, but due to my activity (Top 50...) I am the focus of much of those grievances (and believe me, I wish I wasn't - it's not fun being a target of years of harassment).
The very statements in this ArbCom by my opponents slander my name, rehashing accusations not supported by past ArbComs, and devealuate my content creation: would it be wrong for me to say that they are thinly-veiled personall atacks, creating a wiki-battleground? Yet I have been a target of such language for years, and I've seen those editor use that language on other editors. I have taken the liberty and contacted three users (User:Lysy, User:Halibutt and User:Balcer) - all respected editors, good content creators with no past sanctions on them - who have left this project after being subject to the very same tag team harassment campaign I am subject to, asking them to comment on their relevant experiences. It is perhaps a bit ironic that Balcer left the project after Irpen accused him of "academic dishonesty" on the same article my recent trouble with Deacon took place... later, Balcer told me (via the feared Gadu-Gadu) that as a real-life academic working in an English-speaking country, he is not willing to work in a project where his rewards are stressful discussions and slanderous accusations that could be even damaging to his career. See my analysis of Balcer's case here. I heard similar sentiments from Lysy and Halibutt (statement). Score three for the tag teams?
A note on evidence
editI believe all editors have the right to collect evidence for dispute resolution processes. In one of the former ArbComs, Irpen admitted that he is compiling his evidence off-line (see my reply with diffs here and here). It was my understanding later that he was offended when he googled my evidence against him by accident, hence I've taken steps to ensure it's not google-able. I am surprised he went to so much trouble now and found my (not updated recently - since April for Irpen, since June for everyone else) new page. Would the word "stalking" come to mind, anybody? And if Novickas has prepared his evidence, including events not related to articles of his interest (Lithuania) and going back for years "out of thin air", I would be quite surprised, too. Alas, I have no problems with anybody collecting diffs for whatever purpose (just as I don't care whether and how other editors are communicating with each other). This is the information age, and dispute resolution cases actually require one to have evidence ready, so if one is expecting a dispute resolution process, it is only wise to be prepared. Finding bad faith in that, however, is creating a battleground.
Closing words
editI dislike wikipolitics, this post has already eaten up 1h 2-3h of my life and if the ArbCom continues, it will eat up many more, preventing me from creating content (which actually may be a goal for some editors). As much as I'd like to see the issue of tag teams finally tackled, I have no desire to spend hours digging evidence and compiling arguments; I have done so in the past and I've seen little but "general amnesty" or "general warning" toothless rulings (even the recent updated Digwuren/Workgroup findings seem to be pointless - if reporting Lokyz's PAs to AE under those new sanctions results... in me being reported here). Therefore my recommendation to ArbCom is to refuse this case: in theory we have the rules (Digwuren, workgroup), we just need to finally enforce them and start blocking/content restricting/civility paroling the disruptive tag team members! This case could be solved quickly if several ArbCom members would post in the comments below, encouraging neutral admins to be more willing to ban EE-area troublemakers reported in AE. I find Moreschi's statement in this ArbCom case very illustrating of why those issues are not easily solvable: "I would do this [block the troublemaker] myself, except all the people who don't like Piotrus for one reason or another would jump on me" - a proof of a success for the classic "tag team" tactic, i.e. discouraging neutral admins from becoming involved (who want's to join a mud-fight?).
If this ArbCom goes forward, I hope ArbCom will not only review activities of Deacon, but will take a hard look at the issue of "tag team" involvement (albeit this is going to be a tremendous task, mark my words - and to limit the scope I suggest to see which tag teams become involved by posting here). I would also expect to see a series of ruling regarding specific editors: blocking them, putting them under a restriction or a civility parole or declaring innocent. In the past ArbComs I've asked the ArbCom many times to review my behavior and produce a ruling whether I am guilty of being "Wikipedia public enemy no 1" (as my "enemies" seem to imply) or not (so the rehashing of old accusations and diffs would finally stop!).
First statement by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC), refactored on 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)