Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:31, 27 August 2008

Creating battlegrounds

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs), formerly Calgacus (talk · contribs), who has in the past expressed anti-Polish sentiments (), 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 (, ) - 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?

Alden, the meatpuppet?

Regarding 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, 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 Misplaced Pages with many people, I have published academic articles on Misplaced Pages, presented on Misplaced Pages to various audiences, taught classes with and about Misplaced Pages, 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

I am also certainly guilty of creating content. As an editor in the Top 50 most active Wikipedians, 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 this user" (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 attempts to stop me from 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).

Closing words

I 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 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have contacted three users - all respected editors, good content creators with no past sanctions on them - who 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. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)