|
Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? |
|
|
carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list. QUOTE 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
Coren continued QUOTE Off-wiki coordination is likely to lead to echo chambers where there is a false appearance of neutrality and consensus. The problem is that this happens on-wiki as well. It was the core of my "cabal" claims, that participation bias led to the appearance of consensus, if consensus means "majority," -- and Wikipedia routinely follows "majority rule" on a very small scale, i.e., the 3RR rule is a rough majority rule when applied to individual editors -- or even if it means "supermajority," for, as I 've shown , there was a 2/3 majority to ban me when the cause was that I raised a claim of action-while-involved at RfC/JzG 3, a claim that ArbComm confirmed. The supermajority was caused by participation bias, a large faction can easily do that, without any off-wiki coordination. The majority at that RfC clearly imagined that they represented the consensus, and the big claim that continued against me was that I "disregarded consensus." I didn't, of course, rather, I sought consensus, which, in the presence of participation bias, requires patient, extended process and lots of discussion, if it's done on-wiki, which I did, in fact, do, I didn't utilize my extensive email contacts to solicit support. Now, if the members of the EE mailing list didn't know that a consensus among them wasn't, per se, a wiki consensus, wouldn't they be awfully stupid? What, exactly, is the problem with a group of editors finding and recognizing a consensus among themselves? The problem is, of course, that they may express this consensus. But, with a mature process, how would that be different than any individual editor expressing their opinion? Indeed, if only one member expresses that consensus, it is *more* efficient and displays *less* participation bias. And if they all pile in, WP process that doesn't recognize that birds of a feather flock together is, itself, pretty stupid. The Massachusetts bird population is almost entirely sparrows, and I know because I look out my window and can see hundreds of them, and not another bird at all. Right now. Wait a minute, here it is a few minutes later, and I don't see any sparrows. Did "consensus" change? No, consensus never formed! Coren has, in fact, described the Wikipedia problem, but has projected it on the external, private mailing list, with restricted membership, which, of course, may be an "echo chamber." So? There are problems from off-wiki coordination, for sure, with existing defective structure. But does it really matter if the "coordination" is through a mailing list or is just through a collection of watchlists? The effect is quite the same! And watchlists are private, for the most part, though we can infer them. ArbComm, in my case, refused to address the problem of group "involvement." I predicted this would then continue to cause problems. Well, here it is, folks..... I did not attack the "cabal," the claims that I did were based on assumptions of intent. I simply described it. I sought no sanctions against any cabal members. I didn't even seek sanctions against WMC, but a ruling that he had acted while involved; what ArbComm chose to do with that was their business.... I did express the opinion that if ArbComm was going to tighten up the rules, it should be forgiving of prior "violations," and should only lift admin bits if it had cause to fear continued violation, such as through continued defiance (as was the case with WMC.) What's the difference between my case and this one? Well, the cabal in my case was a broad one, with a fair number of administrators involved. In this case, I think it's just one administrator, not many. The topic is of narrower interested, so, in order to counter off-wiki coordination from a blatant POV faction, the so-called "Russian editors," they needed to have something to increase their own efficiency, they didn't have the manpower of the global warming, anti-pseudoscience cabal. However, the actual actions taken on-wiki -- as distinct from the brainstorming that happened off-wiki, reported as if it represented an evil plot -- were mild by comparison to what the GW cabal routinely did, and even did during the RfAr, in full sight, with ArbComm's attention being drawn to it -- if they actually read the case pages, and the evidence, which apparently most didn't. In fact, ArbComm should delegate cases to a committee of arbitrators who commit to become thoroughly familiar with cases, with, then, the full committee signing off on (or rejecting, occasionally) detailed reports from a subcommittee, and any arbitrator being allowed to enter a dissent before the full vote is taken, to debate the matter before the full committee. With better process, the workload on each individual arbitrator, relative to the overall workload, would decrease. With arbitrators developing their own "staff," it would become even easier for them. All this is well-known and functional in traditional deliberative bodies. Newyorkbrad expressed regret at the loss of me as an editor, because he considered me an expert on parliamentary procedure. I'm not, though I have served as a parliamentarian in some organizations. My interest is consensus process, and parliamentary procedure is an aspect of that; if consensus process isn't efficient, it becomes unsustainable as the scale increases. NYB was puzzled by my taking a position on cold fusion, but, obviously, never bothered to investigate the basis for that. I was simply someone who, in spite of having a natural skeptical position, happened to read the reliable sources and reversed my position. Thus I considered myself a harbinger of a future consensus that will arise as others likewise become familiar with the evidence, and that was true in many cases in my two years as a highly active editor. After I was banned, already in several cases the community adopted, as consensus, with no apparent sustained opposition, several of the positions I'd advocated, to loud opposition, during my RfAr. Wikipedia must start to respect minority opinion, far more than it does, and facilitate true dispute resolution process instead of interrupting it by deciding one side or the other is wrong. ArbComm can and should make temporary binding decisions, but these should all be designed to facilitate true consensus, not to crush and decimate one side without addressing the underlying dispute. I'm sure that banning will still sometimes be necessary, but, again and again, I discovered examples of banning where what was really being banned was POV, even expert POV, because the editor asserted the POV. In this case, the EE "cabal" is a majority POV cabal, generally. Their positions will ordinarily be sustained when the community examines them in depth. There is still danger from majority POV-pushing, and I've written that MPOV is actually more dangerous than fringe POV, to project neutrality, because the latter is obvious and relatively easily recognized -- or imagined! -- and thus FPOV pushing is relatively harmless unless undetected and unnoticed. So how to notice FPOV? Well, coordinate! If everyone watches everything, much less is actually watched with any reliability! The problem isn't MPOV-pushing, the problem is lack of true consensus process that would, of course, include the "Russian" POV, other minority POVs, as well as, obviously, the majority point of view. (I say obviously even though this wasn't obvious to the Global Warming cabal, for the imagined that "consensus process" meant that mainstream science would be give undue weight. Quite simply, the didn't understand consensus process, and feared it; especially they did not understand that consensus process would not mean that they were all doomed, collectively and individually, to endless debate with fringe advocates. It only takes one editor from a faction to represent a factional position in true consensus process, and that representation is voluntary and doesn't require continual attention. Further, when real consensus process operates, minorities will police themselves, the last thing the sensible among the minority want is a battle with the majority! They'll lose! One of the most offensive things I've found about Coren's evidence was that he included some speculation from Piotrus about filing an RfC against another editor, but then rejected his own speculation based on the disruption that this would cause without sufficient value to the project. Guess which part of the email was quoted! Coren is recommending that the list disband. I'm recommending, directly to the list, about the opposite, that they open it up, but manage it to keep possibly disruptive traffic down. Welcome editors of opposing POV, but insist on clear behavioral standards, and enforce these standards on all participants, not just the minority from the other side brave enough to join! If you are in the majority, be brave enough to demonstrate collegiality, you can afford it, or at least demonstrate a sincere attempt, toward the other side. And if you want to discuss stuff privately, do it with other private lists, but the coordination function would work with the list as an open list, thus avoiding the whole secrecy issue, and the list function as a device for negotiating consensus would expand if there was some inclusion from the other side, those on the other side who are capable of civil discussion, and there almost always will be such. Want to deliberate in "caucus"? Do it as such, with security, and do understand that leaks can occur. There is, however, no actual need for what the community might consider "improper coordination" upon wide reflection, except under conditions that don't obtain yet, and which may never obtain. Set up the structures so that you could do it if needed, and you may never need to do it. Need for massive "revolution"? You'd better be ready! If you have enough editors that, out of their own pockets, they could easily fund a site mirror, and out of their own labor and what would crystallize around them, they could maintain and expand it, maybe you'd be ready. However, a faction prepared to do this would almost certainly be able to obtain the cooperation of the WMF, instead of needing to oppose it, and it would only be sustained incompetent stupidity on the part of the WMF that would make direct alternative action necessary. That level of stupidity is unlikely, and, if it were to arise, a prepared community could handle the problem. It's a classic solution, that's known to work: if you are prepared to manage an existing project, truly, that involves the voluntary participation of a broad community, you are prepared to start an independent one. The same structures that are necessary to be able to govern a project are the ones that could start a new one if needed, including gathering the capital and labor. The key asset of Wikipedia, aside from the community momentum (who owns that?) isn't owned by anyone, it's an open license. QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 14th October 2009, 1:55pm) Is this case still dragging on? Someone let me know when Napoleon reaches Moscow. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) How about when Alexander cuts the Gordian knot? Has anyone pinged him? Where is off-wiki coordination when we need it?
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm)
In this case, I think it's just one administrator, not many.
At this point, we need to be blunt about what's going on. Piotrus is an aberration among admins: he actually writes articles. Lots of them, and the quality of the writing is superior to the so-called superstar writers of Wikipedia. As an administrator, however, he very rarely used his tools. In 2009, he issued a single block -- back in January. Compared to some of the OCD cases who never wrote a single article but who live to block so-called vandals, 3RR warriors and various rude boys, Piotrus was a fairly quiet admin. Was it necessary to desysop him at the start of the case? Of course not -- it was a venal act by a venal Sanhedrin that wanted to immediately finger Piotrus as being guilty before the hearing began. We have several arbitrators here on WR, and I am curious to hear what went into their decision to remove the tools from someone who barely used them. We also have to acknowledge an ugly fact that Piotrus, who is from Poland, has earned the wrath from WP admins and editors who have identified themselves as being Jewish. Piotrus and many of his fellow Polish writers have published articles on WP that offered a view of Polish Jewish history that many Jews considered to be a whitewashing. I helped with several of these -- odd, since I am neither nor Polish nor Jewish -- and I recognized that there were aspects of Polish history that were not very well known and that contradicted the popular notion of an overwhelmingly anti-Semitic nation. However, I saw firsthand the hostility that went into the campaigns against these articles. One article, about the rescue of Poland's Jewish population by Christian Poles during World War II, turned into some of a battleground with various Polish writers trying to get one point across while Jewish writers (including the egregious Boodlesthecat) and their supporters trying to erase anything that made the Polish-Christian population look good. Did anti-Polish sentiment play any role in getting Piotrus desysopped? I have no answer, but I am suspicious. QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) In fact, ArbComm should delegate cases to a committee of arbitrators who commit to become thoroughly familiar with cases, with, then, the full committee signing off on (or rejecting, occasionally) detailed reports from a subcommittee, and any arbitrator being allowed to enter a dissent before the full vote is taken, to debate the matter before the full committee.
And in the ideal world, men would be the ones who ride side-saddle. I've seen first-hand how one Arbcom subcommittee refused to accept responsibility of their duties, preferring to shuck it off to the big committee. Your proposal makes sense in concept, but it won't work if you create subcommittees of people who refuse to do what they are chartered to do. QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm)
Newyorkbrad expressed regret at the loss of me as an editor, because he considered me an expert on parliamentary procedure. I'm not, though I have served as a parliamentarian in some organizations.
All horsing around aside (because I've cracked jokes at his expense), NYB is a very good person and a very smart man. I genuinely think he is wasting his time on WP -- I really wish he would pursue professional writing and not get stuck in these puerile melodramas. QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) After I was banned, already in several cases the community adopted, as consensus, with no apparent sustained opposition, several of the positions I'd advocated, to loud opposition, during my RfAr. The only way we can enact serious change on WP is to refuse to recognize the Newspeak that is being used as a substitute for real English. You are not "banned" -- your Abd account was disabled. Unless you have an overwhelming nostalgia for the Abd account, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating a new account and resuming your editing. CoolHandLuke/One (an arbitrator) has already acknowledged it here on WR and Risker (another arbitrator) has openly stated that she allows so-called sockpuppets to operate on WP. And for that matter, let's make an effort to get rid of the word "sockpuppet" -- unless Shari Lewis has her hand up your ass, you are not a "sockpuppet." You are a person and you deserve to be addressed as such. If anyone claims that violates the rules, remind them to re-read WP:IAR -- Arbcom can't have it both ways. They cannot claim to enforce the rules when the concept of Ignoring All Rules is crucial to the WP philosophy. QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) One of the most offensive things I've found about Coren's evidence was that he included some speculation from Piotrus about filing an RfC against another editor, but then rejected his own speculation based on the disruption that this would cause without sufficient value to the project. Guess which part of the email was quoted! I have yet to see any evidence that Coren is qualified to hold a position of administrative/managerial responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 14th October 2009, 6:20pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) In this case, I think it's just one administrator, not many. At this point, we need to be blunt about what's going on. Piotrus is an aberration among admins: he actually writes articles. Lots of them, and the quality of the writing is superior to the so-called superstar writers of Wikipedia. As an administrator, however, he very rarely used his tools. In 2009, he issued a single block -- back in January. Compared to some of the OCD cases who never wrote a single article but who live to block so-called vandals, 3RR warriors and various rude boys, Piotrus was a fairly quiet admin. And, as I've seen in what Coren presented as evidence against him, and especially when I looked at the original emails, one who was very mild in "pov-pushing" compared to what ArbComm has routinely overlooked. QUOTE Was it necessary to desysop him at the start of the case? Of course not -- it was a venal act by a venal Sanhedrin that wanted to immediately finger Piotrus as being guilty before the hearing began. We have several arbitrators here on WR, and I am curious to hear what went into their decision to remove the tools from someone who barely used them. As I see it, it was a response to the firestorm of outrage over the "cabal." Pandering to the public. There is the added desire on the part of some arbs to sanction and shut down off-wiki communication. Some would love to get rid of WR. QUOTE Did anti-Polish sentiment play any role in getting Piotrus desysopped? I have no answer, but I am suspicious. Well, I wouldn't put it that way. The list was compromised and provided to ArbComm, probably by a pro-Russian editor, though it remains unknown. Contrary to what ArbComm has implied, the list archive was, indeed, sanitized; critical headers were removed that would have allowed identifying the original recipient of the mails. Somebody knew what they were doing. QUOTE QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) In fact, ArbComm should delegate cases to a committee of arbitrators who commit to become thoroughly familiar with cases, with, then, the full committee signing off on (or rejecting, occasionally) detailed reports from a subcommittee, and any arbitrator being allowed to enter a dissent before the full vote is taken, to debate the matter before the full committee.
And in the ideal world, men would be the ones who ride side-saddle. I've seen first-hand how one Arbcom subcommittee refused to accept responsibility of their duties, preferring to shuck it off to the big committee. Your proposal makes sense in concept, but it won't work if you create subcommittees of people who refuse to do what they are chartered to do. Of course not. However, the narrower the responsibility, the more likely it is to be fulfilled. Committee/subcommittee structure is what makes all large deliberative bodies functional. Further, there is staff. ArbComm has "clerks." How about "investigators"? How about "analysts?" It's up to ArbComm, structuring their own process is part of their responsibility, and that they fail to do this, that they mostly remain passive, is simply one more sign of incompetence. Yet this is a defect that any arbitrator, acting unilaterally, could largely fix, and I've seen that kind of thing happen in organizations. Believing that it's impossible is extrapolation from negative experience to positive impossibility, a basic error. QUOTE QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) Newyorkbrad expressed regret at the loss of me as an editor, because he considered me an expert on parliamentary procedure. I'm not, though I have served as a parliamentarian in some organizations. All horsing around aside (because I've cracked jokes at his expense), NYB is a very good person and a very smart man. I genuinely think he is wasting his time on WP -- I really wish he would pursue professional writing and not get stuck in these puerile melodramas. Very nice, perhaps, and I have evidence for that, but, in person, I'd say, nearly dead emotionally. No presence as a human being. I know the difference. To be fair, this is the case with many active Wikipedians. Stuck in their heads, at best. At worst, stuck somewhere lower. QUOTE QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) After I was banned, already in several cases the community adopted, as consensus, with no apparent sustained opposition, several of the positions I'd advocated, to loud opposition, during my RfAr. The only way we can enact serious change on WP is to refuse to recognize the Newspeak that is being used as a substitute for real English. You are not "banned" -- your Abd account was disabled. Ah, phooey! My account is not disabled, for one, only general editing is disabled, my watchlist works, I can edit my Talk page, and email works, so I can email any editor who has email enabled. "Banned" was short for "site-banned," which is typically implemented with a general editing block. That's a mistake, by the way, with cooperative editors, a "site ban" should be the same as a page ban, voluntary, with all the usual exceptions, and the editor should be allowed to edit their own user space. It's another example of routine failure to seek consensus by only restricting minimally, as necessary. QUOTE Unless you have an overwhelming nostalgia for the Abd account, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from creating a new account and resuming your editing. CoolHandLuke/One (an arbitrator) has already acknowledged it here on WR and Risker (another arbitrator) has openly stated that she allows so-called sockpuppets to operate on WP. I'm fully aware of that and technically competent to avoid checkuser. However, that's not my approach, and why should I resume my editing? I don't need to edit the project to do what I want to do, as a primary goal, and, indeed, editing would distract me from that goal, and can consume endless hours; I had a noncontroversial project going that was stopped by first by all the flap and then by the ban, and, remember, I was banned from the beginning of June, for the most part, with very little exception I honored WMC's illegitimate ban. Fat lot of good it did me! Which is needed more, a few hundred more helpful external links and maybe a few hundred articles on minor poets, or consensus process? Being banned is convenient for me, and it makes me relatively invulnerable. What can they do now? If I have an on-wiki project, I can be hurt, to a degree. As it is, I notice damage being done, and sometimes I comment on it here, and sometimes not. Nobody seems to care. Part of the structural problem. Only a few care about any given topic, which is to be expected, but how to, then, handle controversies among the few who care? Those who don't care frequently don't have the knowledge to actually mediate.... it's doable, but it won't happen spontaneously, not enough. QUOTE And for that matter, let's make an effort to get rid of the word "sockpuppet" -- unless Shari Lewis has her hand up your ass, you are not a "sockpuppet." Maybe I'll reconsider. Shari Lewis, you say? QUOTE You are a person and you deserve to be addressed as such. I don't think I've been called a sock puppet lately. However, yes, this is wikispeak. Alternate accounts, not used to amplify votes or expressed opinion, aren't "socks" in the traditional sense. They are "block-evading" accounts, used in the sense considered. Block evasion is a harm, of a kind, but only to the extent that it's enforced! Often, I've seen, enforcing blocks can do more damage than allowing the editor to edit. And this does point toward possible solutions, if anyone were paying attention! QUOTE If anyone claims that violates the rules, remind them to re-read WP:IAR -- Arbcom can't have it both ways. They cannot claim to enforce the rules when the concept of Ignoring All Rules is crucial to the WP philosophy. Ah, but then they can ignore rules as well. IAR is, in fact, the common-law principle of Public policy, which is applied by judges acting under common-law. It's frequently superseded, in effect, by statutory law, but remains, and high courts do rely on it. The benefits of Rule of Law are so great that the exceptions are kept to a minimum. What's truly offensive is to sanction someone who believed that they were acting according to guidelines, and, when they defend themselves, to accuse them of "wikilawyering." What this does is to allow crowd mentality to condemn, based on "unwritten rules," easily overwhelming any sober assessment of the situation. QUOTE QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 14th October 2009, 2:41pm) One of the most offensive things I've found about Coren's evidence was that he included some speculation from Piotrus about filing an RfC against another editor, but then rejected his own speculation based on the disruption that this would cause without sufficient value to the project. Guess which part of the email was quoted! I have yet to see any evidence that Coren is qualified to hold a position of administrative/managerial responsibility. I had not seen evidence in that direction, this blatant, before. It's one thing if an arb signs on to a stupid decision where the evidence actually contradicts the conclusions, but it's another to actually write it. Coren, in this case, has displayed a level of contempt for the freedom of the community and such a lack of understanding of what it means to seek consensus, that I was actually shocked. It's worse than I thought. Is Coren beyond redemption? I never believe that. Coren could turn around in a flash, it's really a very small attitude change that's needed. However, such shifts are not the norm, when the environment encourages and rewards the error. Social animals, we are, and we imagine much more power for our intellect than actually exists in ordinary practice.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
carbuncle Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? LaraLove And the plot thickens. Some Wikipedians are droppi... MBisanz It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at... TungstenCarbide
It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is a... One
It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is ... MBisanz
It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is ... don fugazi
Regardless of why he was added (I don't know ... Nja247 I say let there be full disclosure and then let th... LaraLove
I say let there be full disclosure and then let t... No one of consequence
I say let there be full disclosure and then let ... LaraLove
If there really are 3000 emails it would be prett... carbuncle
Releasing partially redacted info would certainl... carbuncle
I say let there be full disclosure and then let ... thekohser Here is the full disclosure:
Wikipedia is a multi... Somey So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the unde... Cla68
So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the und... Moulton The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chech... Cock-up-over-conspiracy The Russia vs Poland vs ... vs ... vs ... vs ...... Cla68 MBisanz says that the emails have been posted onli... Mathsci
MBisanz says that the emails have been posted onl... Cla68
[quote name='Cla68' post='195175' date='Mon 21st ... No one of consequence
Thank you Mathsci, that did it. If those emails ... MBisanz
Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their ... No one of consequence
Besides Tymek, did any other editors share their... MBisanz
[quote name='MBisanz' post='195236' date='Mon 21s... No one of consequence
Well specifically I allege I had a conversation w... One
I got it now. I don't think the overall accu... TungstenCarbide Meanwhile, Durova has offered to use her technique... Cedric
Meanwhile, Durova has offered to use her techniqu... Abd But of course. What wiki-scandal can be complete ... One
I have complete confidence that Durova would atte... No one of consequence
Perhaps if someone on the list could break ranks ... One
Perhaps if someone on the list could break ranks... No one of consequence
[quote name='No one of consequence' post='195323'... One
Yes, but at this point they could easily leave o... Digwuren the Grey
I thought this would have been an obvious respons... Appleby
I have complete confidence that Durova would atte... EricBarbour No, I recommend that Durova's offer should be ... Abd [quote name='No one of consequence' post='195241' ... One
Now, ten editors can tag team a smaller number wi... Cla68
Now, ten editors can tag team a smaller number w... Milton Roe
:huh: :hmmm:
Since Kato has been adamantly ... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Durova has never worked for any orgazation more ne... Random832 I got it now. I don't think the overall accur... No one of consequence
I got it now. I don't think the overall accu... TungstenCarbide They certainly have been desperate the keep the ar... Kelly Martin There seems to be people who like to do this. Case... MBisanz
There seems to be people who like to do this. Cas... TungstenCarbide
There seems to be people who like to do this. Ca... InkBlot
[quote name='MBisanz' post='195353' date='Tue 22n... carbuncle
MBisanz says that the emails have been [url=http:... EricBarbour [quote name='Cla68' post='195175' date='Mon 21st S... Abd (It was moved yesterday anyway. Warning, 10 megab... Backslashforwardslash
So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the und... Nevo
So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the und... MBisanz
So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the und... Abd This is one of the long running trends I have seen... Kelly Martin This is one of the long running trends I have seen... One
How many times have I said that Wikipedia is larg... Cla68 I would imagine 90% of the people in this forum ar... Moulton I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intellig... Lar
I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intelli... Moulton [quote name='Moulton' post='194940' date='Sat 19th... LaraLove
The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chec... Cla68 A case has been opened. GlassBeadGame
[quote name='Moulton' post='194744' date='Thu 17t... Jim
See, that's true wisdom.
You can't crit... Friday
[quote name='Moulton' post='194744' date='Thu 17... Moulton There are any number of people who attempt critici... Friday
There are any number of people who attempt critic... Cedric
[quote name='Moulton' post='194818' date='Fri 18t... EricBarbour FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponent... victim of censorship
FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponen... tarantino
FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponen... carbuncle
FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's oppone... Apathetic What a sordid mess LaraLove
[quote name='LaraLove' post='194751' date='Thu 17... Jim
I was saying that we get Moulton's view. GBG... LaraLove
I was saying that we get Moulton's view. GB... Jim
[quote name='Jim' post='194814' date='Fri 18th Se... Casliber
How many times have I said that Wikipedia is larg... tarantino Piotrus, the hub of the East European mailing list... A Horse With No Name
Piotrus, the hub of the East European mailing lis... TungstenCarbide
Piotrus, the hub of the East European mailing li... tarantino
I don't know how you define "gonzo... TungstenCarbide
[quote name='A Horse With No Name' post='196446' ... A Horse With No Name
Teenagers find HST cool. Now that I'm older I... Kelly Martin Today's teens read HST? That would be cool. ... GlassBeadGame
Today's teens read HST? That would be cool. ... carbuncle
Piotrus, the hub of the East European mailing lis... No one of consequence
I've skimmed the first few pages, but haven... MBisanz
[quote name='carbuncle' post='196470' date='Mon 2... Abd Piotrus, the hub of the East European mailing list... Cock-up-over-conspiracy Wikipedia is phenomenally inefficient ...
My point... Casliber
Teenagers find HST cool. Now that I'm older ... trenton What's the outrage here? Isn't it common f... Silverman
If a bank leaves money out in the open, unguarded... Abd Piotrus was desysopped based on ArbComm motion, pe... A Horse With No Name
Piotrus was desysopped based on ArbComm motion, p... CharlotteWebb
Anyone who knows Piotrus knows that he rarely use... MBisanz
Anyone who knows Piotrus knows that he rarely us... Apathetic PD posted, FYI Abd They did just go through the WMC-Abd case where it... Digwuren the Grey
I've argued that ArbComm should immediately s... thekohser
In other words, you learnt about the topic. In W... Kelly Martin This would seem to be in conflict, at least on an ... Kelly Martin And once again Wikipedia reminds its editors: ... Abd And once again Wikipedia reminds its editors: ... CharlotteWebb The most egregious finding of fact I see so far is... Abd Some specifics. Coren has drafted findings of fact... CharlotteWebb
The citations to the mailing list are supposed to... Abd
I understand he is French-Canadian eh so you migh... Malleus I find small town America really scary. God knows,... CharlotteWebb
[quote name='CharlotteWebb' post='199290' date='M... A Horse With No Name In regard to this proposal:
"Piotrus topic ... Abd In regard to this proposal:
"Piotrus topic ... Malleus
I find small town America really scary. God knows... Eva Destruction
[quote name='Abd' post='199302' date='Mon 12th Oc... A Horse With No Name Dragging the thread back on topic, this is one of... Abd I hated small-town America for exactly this reason... YellowMonkey These gimmick cases of POV disputes clouded by sen... EricBarbour Well, so far, it doesn't look good for Coren.
... Sarcasticidealist Well, so far, it doesn't look good for Coren.H... dogbiscuit Perhaps the saddest indictment of the ArbCom proce... Kelly Martin Perhaps the saddest indictment of the ArbCom proce... dogbiscuit
Perhaps the saddest indictment of the ArbCom proc... Abd Fundamentally, in any system where the rules do no... SB_Johnny Heh, took a bit to find where the thread on this w... Abd Continuing the analysis of evidence re Piotrus, pr... Deacon
The list "cabal" is a majority-POV-pus... Abd
The list members are all highly nationalistic, an... Deacon
The list members are all highly nationalistic, a... Abd I've been dealing with this stuff for years, h... Deacon
Actually, I wasn't talking to you, except for... EricBarbour Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint Ea... A Horse With No Name
Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint E... Abd Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint Ea... A Horse With No Name Horse, for that you win a free LR-115 radiation de... Abd
Horse, for that you win a free LR-115 radiation d... Milton Roe
Sadly, while you may think you sound like Clint ... Achromatic
I'm subscribed to the list now, and, suffice ... Abd [quote name='Abd' post='199889' date='Thu 15th Oct... Digwuren the Grey
:lol:
Ever considered a career in comedy?
[...... Trick cyclist
What language would these people call their own?
... Digwuren the Grey
[quote name='Digwuren%20the%20Grey' post='209382'... The Joy Why is the ArbCom reluctant to indefinitely ban ev... EricBarbour Coren started posting his "remedies" bac... Sarcasticidealist Coren started posting his "remedies" bac... Abd [quote name='EricBarbour' post='199536' date='Wed ... Abd Coren's agenda. , two proposed remedies which ... A Horse With No Name Is this case still dragging on? Someone let me kn... Milton Roe
And for that matter, let's make an effort to ... YellowMonkey
The only way we can enact serious change on WP ... Milton Roe
We also have to acknowledge an ugly fact that Pio... A Horse With No Name :hmmm: That is just shocking if true. We've n... Abd Very nice, perhaps, and I have evidence for that, ... radek [quote name='A Horse With No Name' date=... Deputy Cabal Ringleader Radek, learn how to quote properly :) Hint: you ne... A Horse With No Name
While I'm here I also wanted to respond to th... A Horse With No Name For those who got distracted by Mr. Miller and his... A Horse With No Name Overlooked in recent days is another BLP AfD, this... A Horse With No Name Giving credit where it is due: thanks to Backward ... The Joy
Giving credit where it is due: thanks to Backward... A Horse With No Name
Not so fast, Horsey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi... The Joy
[quote name='The Joy' post='202670' date='Mon 2nd... Cedric
[quote name='The Joy' post='202670' date='Mon 2nd... A Horse With No Name Meanwhile, in Oceania: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/i... Abd I I like how Manning rewrites history: "For t... Guesswork Orange I think Piotrus resigned because he wasn't usi... radek All you've done there is just list everytime t... Digwuren the Grey
Off-wiki communication is what could dethrone the... Digwuren the Grey
Meanwhile, in Oceania: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/... thekohser
It may not be *the* standard procedure, but it su... Digwuren the Grey
You have to love a community/system/tribunal that... MBisanz According to new, now oversighted evidence that I ... radek
According to new, now oversighted evidence that I... MBisanz
According to new, now oversighted evidence that ... radek
[quote name='radek' post='208123' date='Fri 4th D... radek
[quote name='radek' post='208123' date='Fri 4th ... MBisanz
[quote name='radek' post='208152' date='Thu 3rd D... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
I would be interested in a translation of: ArbCom... Somey Behold the words of evil and hate, and tremble:
... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
[quote name='Deputy Cabal Ringleader' post='20820... radek
[quote name='Deputy Cabal Ringleader' post='2082... radek And here is my "official" statement I se... MBisanz
And here is my "official" statement I s... radek
I would be interested in a translation of: ArbCom... MBisanz
""I would be interested in a translat... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
I wasn't asking you to translate to confirm w... TungstenCarbide EDIT: I just found what made Radek so angry. I am ... carbuncle Just so it's not all "take", here... Abd Just so it's not all "take", here... Milton Roe
(If we don't make decisions by vote, please e... Abd [quote name='Abd' post='208288' date='Fri 4th Dece... Somey It's both. I'm still not as negative as yo... Kelly Martin The "system," such as it is, is brillian... Random832
[quote name='Somey' post='208443' date='Sat 5th D... Kelly Martin [quote name='Somey' post='208443' date='Sat 5th De... radek
[quote name='Random832' post='208545' date='Sat 5... radek
I wasn't asking you to translate to confirm w... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
There ain't crap in there and you know it.
... RDH(Ghost In The Machine)
[quote name='radek' post='208123' date='Fri 4th ... everyking I find the ArbCom's own mailing list to be a m... Sarcasticidealist Welcome to WR, Piotrus. Guesswork Orange Even so this thread is strategically spammed by th... A Horse With No Name
I recognized my mistakes and now we are only beat... Deputy Cabal Ringleader Interesting... Somey [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wik... radek
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi... Milton Roe
Yes and this was a "voting bloc" that r... Mathsci Does Abd's ban stop in time for him to vote? V... Abd Does Abd's ban stop in time for him to vote? V... Mathsci
[quote name='Mathsci' post='208374' date='Fri 4th... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
Abd has apparently joined the EEML.
As I believ... Abd [quote name='Mathsci' post='208579' date='Sun 6th ... wjhonson Can people whose names start with A please stop po... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
I have no problem with the existence of a mailing... Guesswork Orange
I have no problem with the existence of a mailin... radek
[quote name='Deputy Cabal Ringleader' post='20871... Abd While we're on the subject, I think the one ba... Abd Can people whose names start with A please stop po... Guesswork Orange
We are not a closed group, applications are welco... wjhonson But Halibutt is not gone.
See this link
Or did y... radek
It's a matter of perspective. Take a look at... radek
But Halibutt is not gone.
See this link
Or did ... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
But Halibutt is not gone.
[url=http://en.wikiped... Guesswork Orange The new information leak (Radek wanted to copy... Somey
The new information leak (Radek wanted to copy... Deputy Cabal Ringleader
[quote name='Guesswork Orange' post='208433' date... Guesswork Orange
[quote name='Somey' post='208438' date='Sat 5th D... radek
[quote name='Somey' post='208438' date='Sat 5th ... Deputy Cabal Ringleader Radek, why are you bothering with a SPA who doesn... radek
The new information leak (Radek wanted to copy... Somey My GTalk sidebar automatically adds people that I... Wiki Witch of the West
My GTalk sidebar automatically adds people that I... radek
[quote name='radek' post='208534' date='Sat 5th D... MBisanz
[quote name='Somey' post='208537' date='Sat 5th D... radek
Alllllllrrrriiiighhhhht lemme ask this one more ... MBisanz
Alllllllrrrriiiighhhhht lemme ask this one more... radek
See what I posted at the arb com Evidence page. ... Deputy Cabal Ringleader Radek, give it a rest. I already told you that it ... Guesswork Orange Anyway - I posted all the email headers at the ca... radek
[quote name='radek' post='208534' date='Sun 6th D... Abd For example, the biggest email thread contains 46 ... MBisanz
[quote name='Guesswork Orange' post='208433' date... JohnA Somey:
I'll struggle to find a better synop... Sarcasticidealist I confess that, based solely on what's been pr...
200 User(s) are reading this topic (200 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |