| |
|
  |
 Ask the Leaker, Go ask Malice, I think he'll know |
|
|
| MaliceAforethought |
|
u Mad?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined:
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 26th June 2011, 5:02pm) 
For openers, do you have anything juicy on the topic of Slim's socking, either Sweet Blue Water or Sunsplash? Or on banal "Whole Foods Market"-style genre of monikers she invents?
No mention of Sweet Blue Water or Sunsplash or anything about SlimVirgin socking that isn't about defending her from accusations (in 2007) or her kvetching about being falsely accused. From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Apr 3 15:35:52 2007 From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] Query regarding sockpuppeting admin In-Reply-To: <20070403131241.TCUY17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com> References: <20070403131241.TCUY17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <3f797b9a0704030835j5ca4e1f0r5ac709adf9af28ae@mail.gmail.com> On 4/3/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote: > Steve Dunlop wrote > > > I have left notes explaining the situation and the arbcom's position on > > it on Henrygb's talk page and on AN/I. > > You left out the bit we discussed most, which was that there was absolutely no urgency to do anything here. > > I deprecate this strongly. The statement contains assertions of _fact_ on sockpuppetry. This is a most unfortunate form of phrasing. Maybe it was the girlfriend's account. But in any case this seems to go way beyond what we had agreed to do. > > So, you have probably run a good editor off the site, now. When I suggested that we might be asking Henrygb to hand in the mop, I meant that. This is (otherwise) someone we should be happy to have editing. > > I think it is extremely important that we handle these matters in a collegiate way. I think it's also important to avoid having our hands tied because someone won't cooperate. Henrygb has been given ample opportunity to provide some explanation or comment on the sockpuppetry charge; instead, he's decided to accuse us of being part of some shadowy SlimVirgin Atrribution conspiracy (all while studiously avoiding saying anything -- anything at all -- as to the charge itself). The fact that he won't discuss the issue with us should be a point against him, not a free ticket out of being sanctioned for what appears -- barring any explanation from him -- as quite inexcusable behavior. In any case, I'll point out that it was Henrygb who insisted on having everything done in public. Given his demands that we conduct all discussion on his talk page, posting the charges on AN/I is quite fair game, I think. Kirill QUOTE
I am curious about any emails relating to the identity of Iridescent.
Looked for all ready, the bloke doesn't even trust the other inmates with his identity. |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jack Merridew |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined:
Member No.: 14,662
|
I'd be interested in stuff about me. I was on the very edge of the M4th/GJP et al stuff and went and knocked on the arb-wiki's door when that was going on (which must have left log-footprints). They have a fix in for me and I'd like to see the *real* reasons. * nyupat means to volunteer for execution, and they have an article on puputan: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puputan:: damn; I thought this was going to go in the ask the leaker thread; mebbe someone wil move it --Jack This post has been edited by Jack Merridew: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Craftyminion |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 13,484
|
I'd be interested to know the gory details of Ottava's wrangles with the Big Bad Arbs. Also anything about Sandy Georgia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
What do I want? There's nothing in this stuff that I would call "compelling" or even "unexpected".
I'd like to see the entire gang of prevaricating, butt-sniffing, backpedalling fools on Arbcom
resign en masse. Especially Coren, Risker, Wjbscribe, Davies, ShellKinney, and Xeno, and with
special contempt for NYB. If you want "disputes" to be "resolved", the last person you want is
a corporate attorney whose career depends on his ability to obfuscate and delay.
They have done a fine job of turning a "dispute-resolution group" into a Wikilawyering tag-team.
Curse them, over and over.
That's all I want. Not much to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Craftyminion |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 13,484
|
Malice,
Thank you muchly for the dish on Ottava the Odious. Greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Mon 27th June 2011, 9:00pm)
I posted this in another thread, but that post got lost.
Anything about Poetlister/Quillercouch during:
September 5-15, 2008?
October 24, 2010?
I second that. This is crucial to understanding the other two threads I have been banging on about. Possibly before that, as FT2 issued a report in August 2008. The people involved (not all of them Arbcom) were Sam Korn (=Smoddy), James Forrester, Jpgordon, Kirill Lokshin (overview), Sam Blacketer at enwiki arbcom or ex-arbs. Checkusers/crats Thatcher, Jayvdb, Rlevse and WJBscribe. Checkuser Aphaia. Stewards Spacebirdy to the extent needed to justify a cross wiki checkuser, Lar to the extent needed to endorse that we must handled it privately if it comes up on-wiki, Dungodung to the point of agreement to review, and Cary, Jimmy Wales and Jay Walsh at Office. Oh yes and Coren http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...4&oldid=1173766 naturally. Goodness and our friend Lar as well http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...t&oldid=1181370 who mentions the famous email (presumably that one, anyway). QUOTE :I meant to add that I think FT2 has done a fairly reasonable job in not rushing to judgment and presenting the facts in a manner that doesn't pillory anyone, and allows the individual to just go away. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...5&oldid=1168873Like approaching the HR department of the sockpuppet's firm? Does this just allow the individual to go away? (Cary Bass, unlike Jimbo, did acknowledge seeing the 13 Sep email). This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jack Merridew |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined:
Member No.: 14,662
|
QUOTE(Jack Merridew @ Mon 27th June 2011, 8:19am)
damn; I thought this was going to go in the ask the leaker thread; mebbe someone wil move it --Jack
→ thanks for the move… Jack |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wikipeek |
|
Neophyte
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined:
Member No.: 58,266
|
Anything useful in functionaries-en to avoid CU? Always wondered if CU reveals account creation IP. Some of my socks with 0 edits were catched.
This post has been edited by Wikipeek:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(Wikipeek @ Tue 28th June 2011, 8:20pm)
Anything useful in functionaries-en to avoid CU? Always wondered if CU reveals account creation IP. Some of my socks with 0 edits were catched.
It does. Just make an account when on vacation or a friend's computer or just a different browser and operating system, and wait three months before using it at home. Also, I'd like to see some leaks regarding how they handle pedophiles. One that comes to mind is Thesevenseas - how exactly does ArbCom figure these things out, and how fast does it take for the block? Edit: Oops, I just saw this was leaked earlier. Anything else on dealing with pedos? This post has been edited by melloden: |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Wed 29th June 2011, 1:38am) QUOTE(Wikipeek @ Tue 28th June 2011, 8:20pm)
Anything useful in functionaries-en to avoid CU? Always wondered if CU reveals account creation IP. Some of my socks with 0 edits were catched.
It does. Just make an account when on vacation or a friend's computer or just a different browser and operating system, and wait three months before using it at home. Also, I'd like to see some leaks regarding how they handle pedophiles. One that comes to mind is Thesevenseas - how exactly does ArbCom figure these things out, and how fast does it take for the block? Edit: Oops, I just saw this was leaked earlier. Anything else on dealing with pedos? Also, anything about Cirt or Mattisse? |
|
|
|
|
|
| SpiderAndWeb |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined:
Member No.: 58,319
|
QUOTE There are aspect to Casliber's resignation and John Vandenberg's
resignation that were not made public. There were aspects to Kirill's
resignation last year, and also Coren's resignation, that were not
made public. If these "aspects" are along the lines of BlackmailedArb's, say no more. If, on the other hand, there is a pattern of the Committee whitewashing the incompetence or misconduct of fellow arbs, that is by far the information I'm most interested in seeing leaked. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Tue 28th June 2011, 9:38pm)
Edit: Oops, I just saw this was leaked earlier. Anything else on dealing with pedos?
...offer them jobs at WMF? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:10am) QUOTE There are aspect to Casliber's resignation and John Vandenberg's
resignation that were not made public. There were aspects to Kirill's
resignation last year, and also Coren's resignation, that were not
made public. If these "aspects" are along the lines of BlackmailedArb's, say no more. If, on the other hand, there is a pattern of the Committee whitewashing the incompetence or misconduct of fellow arbs, that is by far the information I'm most interested in seeing leaked. Not sure if these were already leaked, but can someone either point me to the relevant leak thread or give me a tl;dr summary on this? |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
To echo some earlier requests, I would be interested in seeing any discussion related to the oft-discussed Haiduc. And Shankbone, just for laughs. On an unrelated topic, an Arb emailed me on 6 July 2010 to warn me off taking action against an IP who was editing on Wikipedia talk:Child protection (found now in this archive). Although I was fairly sure at that time that it was Benjiboi (who at that point wasn't yet banned, although some of his socks had been blocked without linking them to his account) and said as much, I was told that a checkuser had been run by one of the Arbs and this was not the case. There is now no doubt that it was Benjiboi, so I am very curious about the discussion which took place at that time given that I was told " ...the Committtee is well aware of the situation, even before you posted, and one of the members of the Committee did a comprehensive range check on the user...". The IP in question was 71.139.2.170 and any discussion would have occurred in the first week of July 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
I'd be interested in any mails relating to my cases before ArbComm and subsequent enforcement and clarification/amendment actions.
There is one particular matter which I do understand was discussed, Fritzpoll offered (more than once, actually) to mentor me, the first time was before his election as an arbitrator, the second time was after that election. Did any correspondence about this show up on the list?
(Fritzpoll had strong intentions of reform, but gave up rather rapidly with no public fuss. What happened?)
My sock, EnergyNeutral, was recently blocked by Coren as a checkuser block. How did Coren come to check this account, which wasn't being disruptive (though the Cold fusion topic ban was being violated), EnergyNeutral was making useful edits, accepted by consensus, and, though one editor obviously had a suspicion that EN wasn't a "new editor," no SSP report was filed.
Any mention of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Craftyminion |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 13,484
|
I'd also be interested to know if the voluminous archives have anything on the egregious Off2riorob. What a knob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Wed 29th June 2011, 3:49pm)
Dear Malice,
Could you please stop, as I'm bored now.
Arbcom exposes are so yesterday.
Irony or not, I disagree. Arbcom is like so many human institutions. It feels no pain, it does not age, it cannot be killed by any reasonable means. The members are replaced but the thing continues. All that is left for such a thing is embarassment. Which it does "feel" in a palid sort of way. Just like City Hall. So continue with the only weapon that has any effect. Just for the Hell of It, since the thing is evil. You might not be able to kill it, but doing anything else would be to assent to It's actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 30th June 2011, 2:27pm) I can now confirm that the entire Anvil email was published on the Arb mailing list some time in February 2010 - at the latest early March, and that there was correspondence about it. Also, FT2 is supposed to have mailed the list saying that the publication of the mail would put the committee in harm, that his tactics were necessary to help the project.
It would be very interesting to see that correspondence. Of course, we could judge what FT2 is supposed to have said if we could see that mail. For this purpose, it is not necessary to know if the information in the mail, nor the mail, is "authentic." (I have no idea what the "Anvil" mail is. But with this comment from Peter Damian, no lightweight, he, I do want to see it!) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Rhindle @ Thu 30th June 2011, 12:59pm)
The only thing that would interest me is if there were any cases where Jimbo played a major part or which arbs(past or present) are silent publicly but are very vocal behind the scenes. The former should be fairly easy to ascertain, the latter would take more time and don't know if I'm THAT interested in digging into but perhaps someone else might be.
I was involved in numerous Arb Events back in the day, and I'm sure there must be a back-story which might be entertaining. For starters, this thread demonstrates that at least one arb (Iridescent) was fully cognizant of the whole racket being run by SlimVirgin and Will Beback, along with handmaidens such as Georgewilliamherbert. I am curious about any secret correspendence at the time of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others (T-H-L-K-D), where I was placed on indefinite probation for the crime of suggesting that other respondents were being sanctioned in an inequitable manner. Here we see a Raul654 baleeting that embarrassing revelation. Slim 'n' Will managed, through adroit gaming of the system, to parlay that into a series of blocks, setting the stage for my eventual Community Ban by a community comprised of Will and JoshuaZ. So, any incriminating chatter from that period? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Tower |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined:
Member No.: 13,429
|
I'd like to see what they have been saying in the past few days about these leaks. It would be interesting to know how worried they are.
Of course you may feel that letting them know whether or not you still have access to these files may give away too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
Further to a question I asked at the ArbCom page, do you have any records of discussions outside of the topics already requested or otherwise released - especially any that you anticipated would be considered interesting? Are you interested in commenting on what proportion of the material you obtained has been made available? I quite understand why you might ignore this request, of course. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| SpiderAndWeb |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined:
Member No.: 58,319
|
QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 12:54am)
Amorrow: Going to burn in a special level of hell stalker "I'm going to kill you and rape your kids" type. WMF does nothing. Nuff said.
This is the guy who stalked Alison at work? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 30th June 2011, 2:20pm) I was involved in numerous Arb Events back in the day, and I'm sure there must be a back-story which might be entertaining. For starters, this thread demonstrates that at least one arb (Iridescent) was fully cognizant of the whole racket being run by SlimVirgin and Will Beback, along with handmaidens such as Georgewilliamherbert. I am curious about any secret correspendence at the time of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others (T-H-L-K-D), where I was placed on indefinite probation for the crime of suggesting that other respondents were being sanctioned in an inequitable manner. Here we see a Raul654 baleeting that embarrassing revelation. Slim 'n' Will managed, through adroit gaming of the system, to parlay that into a series of blocks, setting the stage for my eventual Community Ban by a community comprised of Will and JoshuaZ. So, any incriminating chatter from that period? Thanks, Mal. However, Kelly Martin, who was in a position to know, says the really good stuff would be found in 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 3rd July 2011, 9:50am)
Malice, anything in the archives that might embarass the WMF? Arbcom seems to be blaming them for lack of adequate mailing list technology, perhaps someone should send them a wakeup call?
I think that will come in time. When/if a whiff of this gets into the press (Cade Metz is probably interested) they'll scramble like roaches. There's already a smorgasbord of material to embarrass them by association. And another request for Malice Cooper. The Runtshit vandal holds the record for malicious death threat vandalism against a single editor. The primary identity of Runtshit isn't a secret. Were any steps ever taken to address Runtshit? This post has been edited by Sololol: |
|
|
|
|
|
| lenovo |
|
Neophyte
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined:
Member No.: 58,732
|
I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.
This post has been edited by lenovo:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 5th July 2011, 9:01am) QUOTE(lenovo @ Tue 5th July 2011, 3:15am) I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.
Oh, yeah! BUMP! Well, whatever Malice thinks. I'll agree this is of substantial interest. I saw Durova as getting one very raw deal here. She'd made a mistake (probably!), but corrected it within 40 minutes, as I recall. Compare that to admins who make a mistake and never admit it. The big flap was that there was a Sekrit Mailing List! Hah! What did people expect? There are secret mailing lists, there is IRC, not logged except for individual logs, and one or two whole wikis, at least, that are private. Durova was a very straight shooter, as far as I could tell. She'd become involved in obsessive pursuit of socks, but I see ArbComm as defending that with others, or at least unconcerned about it, as a common practice. ArbComm did not stand up for Durova. So why not? How was the committee divided on this, if it was? |
|
|
|
|
|
| SpiderAndWeb |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined:
Member No.: 58,319
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Tue 5th July 2011, 5:25pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 5th July 2011, 9:01am) QUOTE(lenovo @ Tue 5th July 2011, 3:15am) I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.
Oh, yeah! BUMP! Well, whatever Malice thinks. I'll agree this is of substantial interest. I saw Durova as getting one very raw deal here. She'd made a mistake (probably!), but corrected it within 40 minutes, as I recall. Compare that to admins who make a mistake and never admit it. The big flap was that there was a Sekrit Mailing List! Hah! What did people expect? There are secret mailing lists, there is IRC, not logged except for individual logs, and one or two whole wikis, at least, that are private. Durova was a very straight shooter, as far as I could tell. She'd become involved in obsessive pursuit of socks, but I see ArbComm as defending that with others, or at least unconcerned about it, as a common practice. ArbComm did not stand up for Durova. So why not? How was the committee divided on this, if it was? The biggest problem is that her "evidence" turned out to be laughably specious, and her arrogance and recalcitrance when asked to reveal her "sleuthing" methods and to promise to be more transparent in the future did not help her case. I have nothing against Durova in particular -- she wasn't the first admin to allow a siege mentality to overwhelm her better judgement, nor was she last -- but I also don't think her treatment was unusually unfair. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Tue 5th July 2011, 8:29pm) The biggest problem is that her "evidence" turned out to be laughably specious, and her arrogance and recalcitrance when asked to reveal her "sleuthing" methods and to promise to be more transparent in the future did not help her case.
I have nothing against Durova in particular -- she wasn't the first admin to allow a siege mentality to overwhelm her better judgement, nor was she last -- but I also don't think her treatment was unusually unfair. It was a mob, with pitchforks. Durova had methods of discovering socking that she did not want to reveal. She made a mistake, and admitted it practically immediately. I fully understand why she did not want to reveal her methods, and blocking based on private evidence was the mistake, and especially blocking without misbehavior on the part of the "sock." Yet the crowd that condemned her frequently support banning socks just because they are socks. She made a mistake, and resigned, to avoid what she saw as inevitable disruption from the screaming mob. She eventually realized the implications: the screaming mob was Wikipedia. That's why she retired, to be sure. You are right, SpiderAndWeb, it wasn't "unusual." That's Wikipedia! It eats those who serve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SpiderAndWeb |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined:
Member No.: 58,319
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Wed 6th July 2011, 12:54am)
You are right, SpiderAndWeb, it wasn't "unusual." That's Wikipedia! It eats those who serve it.
No arguments there. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 5th July 2011, 3:46am) There certainly are a lot of requests! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif) We got one from the "peanut gallery" earlier today via e-mail. Around July 20, 2009 there was an arbitration request involving User:Bishonen and Jimbo, after Jimbo blocked Bishonen for (I would assume) stirring up more "Giano-related drama." I believe we covered it in this thread, and possibly a couple of others, and it probably dragged on for a couple of weeks on the mailing list(s). I'm guessing the underlying rationale for the request is either to find out if the ArbCom ever maintained a "hands-off" policy towards Jimbo (I would assume so, personally), or to find out what led to Jimbo's apparent claim that he would stop blocking people after this happened... or maybe both, the person didn't say specifically. I think any discussion where Jimbo is directly involved would help straighten out what his real status is, though in my experience he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Guido den Broeder |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 10,371
|
Some data.
20080707 Indefinite block by Future Perfect at Sunrise on the false accusation of legal threats
20080801 Unblocked by Prodego
20080905 Indefinite block by Prodego on the false accusation of legal threats
20080909 Unblocked by Mangojuice after massive protests
This relates to the Abigor affair. He made legal threats against me, not the other way around.
20081023 Fourth block by Davidruben over CFS, evidence falsified
Administrator Davidruben belongs to the other side of a (still continuing) conflict over content. He kept falsely accusing me of editwarring. All these blocks as well as their length were heavily contested by CFS editors as well as other administrators.
20081219 Banned by William M. Connolley, no evidence of wrongdoing provided, falsely claiming the existence of a community ban in response to a complaint by me about mass deletions and editwarring by WLU on the topic of CFS
William M. Connolley banned me after I asked him not to editwar over spelling with another user (where he was in the wrong). He also belongs to the other side of the same conflict over content on CFS, and kept editing and removing my talk page contributions. A community majority asked for my unban, but were ignored by ArbCom.
20090521 Unblocked by ArbCom member Cool Hand Luke
20090521 Topic ban by Cool Hand Luke for CFS, no evidence of wrongdoing provided
ArbCom member Cool Hand Luke belongs to the other side of the same edit conflict over content.
20090601 Rebanned by Rlevse on the request of William M. Connolley, falsely claiming that I violated the conditions of the unban. This despite hard evidence by other users to the contrary
20090801 Email blocked by Rlevse, falsely claiming that I was evading my ban through email
Administrator William M. Connolly was subsequently desysopped for similar abuse of tools.
ArbCom-member Rlevse was subsequently banned for many kinds of abuse, and is currently evading their ban with sockpuppets.
20101219 Unban request filed
20110217 Unban request denied by PhilKnight, despite satisfying the condition of trouble-free editing on other projects (for many years, in fact)
This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
Malice, can you please fish out the archives on Cool3 in February 2010, and in particular, how ArbCom concluded that the new "Cool three" was a different person than the original "Cool3" before Thekohser compromised the Cool3 account? I continue to harbor suspicion that "Cool three" really was legit, despite being told that he/she was an impostor trying to get adminship for the cheap. A look at Arbcom-L threads would enlighten us on that piece of history. Look around mid February 2010, per this RFA (see question 6 especially): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=342933240 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bishonen |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 4,966
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 6th July 2011, 1:32am) QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 5th July 2011, 3:46am) There certainly are a lot of requests! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smiling.gif) We got one from the "peanut gallery" earlier today via e-mail. Around July 20, 2009 there was an arbitration request involving User:Bishonen and Jimbo, after Jimbo blocked Bishonen for (I would assume) stirring up more "Giano-related drama." I believe we covered it in this thread, and possibly a couple of others, and it probably dragged on for a couple of weeks on the mailing list(s). I'm guessing the underlying rationale for the request is either to find out if the ArbCom ever maintained a "hands-off" policy towards Jimbo (I would assume so, personally), or to find out what led to Jimbo's apparent claim that he would stop blocking people after this happened... or maybe both, the person didn't say specifically. I think any discussion where Jimbo is directly involved would help straighten out what his real status is, though in my experience he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum. I had read and write access to the relevant bits of ArbCom-L at the time (for fairness between the two parties, as Jimbo could walk in and out of the list discussion at his convenience). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=303165818, which the committee agreed with. Letting me in as temporary list member was an act of trust which I appreciated: I certainly won't post any quotes from it. But I simply must comment on " he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum": nope, no lid in this case. I think he was too angry for lids. As for "Giano-related drama", Giano was hardly involved at all. Bishonen. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Manning Bartlett |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 59,115
|
Greetings to those who know me.
I'd be interested to see anything related to the EEML case - late 2009.
I was the clerk on that case, and the conduct of one particular arb led to my withdrawal from the project.
As clerk I was strict but even-handed on this very contentious case. Numerous people received page bans for getting too heated. Most of those people, (eg Radek), accepted their punishment with class and dignity.
However when I applied the same strict discipline to a "special buddy" of an arb, I was quickly made aware that some editors were more equal than others.
Hence I'd be keen to see what was said behind the scenes.
This post has been edited by Manning Bartlett:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Mon 11th July 2011, 12:19am) I'd be interested to see anything related to the EEML case - late 2009.
I was the clerk on that case, and the conduct of one particular arb led to my withdrawal from the project. These people don't realize the significance of this kind of incident. People who are deeply committed to the project, when they run into the abusive governance, give up all the time. The damage is deep and long-term, and mostly invisible. People who point this out on-wiki end up banned, unless they have sufficient connections and clout themselves. QUOTE As clerk I was strict but even-handed on this very contentious case. Numerous people received page bans for getting too heated. Most of those people, (eg Radek), accepted their punishment with class and dignity. Yes. Piotrus, in spades. That's what I saw myself, watching the case and him on the EEML list. People, even arbs, used to say this about me, by the way, it can be seen in some leaked mail. Until I finally gave up on due process, which took about three years. Now I'm an outlaw, dangerous. That case was one where the mask came of off "exemplary punishment." It was explicit, I'd never before seen this be admitted, usually the common wisdom was that the wiki does not punish, it merely protects. Yeah, right. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Manning Bartlett |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 59,115
|
@Abd, just for clarity, when I talked about 'page bans' and 'punishment', I am only referring to the discussion pages of the Arbcom case page which I was supervising.
As clerk, I did my very best to ensure that good conduct was observed on either side of the debate, and no-one was permitted incivility for any reason. (At least until the arrival of someone who was apparently exempt, according to an arb).
I had nothing to do with the judgments handed down by Arbcom when the case was decided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Tue 12th July 2011, 4:52am) @Abd, just for clarity, when I talked about 'page bans' and 'punishment', I am only referring to the discussion pages of the Arbcom case page which I was supervising.
As clerk, I did my very best to ensure that good conduct was observed on either side of the debate, and no-one was permitted incivility for any reason. (At least until the arrival of someone who was apparently exempt, according to an arb).
I had nothing to do with the judgments handed down by Arbcom when the case was decided. I have not examined your specific clerking behavior during the EEML RfAr, but from your comments I'd assume that you were not harmful there. I've seen different results from clerks, mostly, though, it's ineffectual and ineffective clerking that is a problem. There was abuse aplenty during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, revert warring by WMC and others during the case, on case pages and related notices, and the clerk was ineffectual, with actual damage being done as a result. This was Mathsci, removing his name as a named party in the RfAr, editing my section. I explained the addition with this. I accidentally reverted Mathsci, because I'd gone to notify him and came back to add the diff and WTF? It was gone! I must have forgotten to save it! So I added it again and saved. It never occurred to me that Mathsci would remove his own name as a party. Mathsci removed it again, deliberately revert warring. What I'd seen with Mathsci was that he was clueless as to dispute resolution procedure, he'd long been protected by the cabal. How he got the idea that a party could remove themselves from an RfAr, editing the filing party's opening statement, is beyond me. He removed the notification diff here.I protested, but his repeated removal of himself was allowed to stand. The case was renamed, apparently at the request of Enric Naval. This was a case of administrative recusal failure, and later it was confirmed that WMC was acting outside of propriety. By renaming the case, it was turned into a personal conflict, which is an error that ArbComm has made many times. Supposedly the conduct of all parties will be examined, but that was a joke. What a non-admin can expect, claiming recusal failure, even if it's blatant, as it was, is that every action of theirs will be examined with a fine-tooth comb, and there is hardly anyone where something looking bad cannot be found. It is wiki-suicide, and that's been shown again and again. I'd been warned that I'd be banned if I pursued these cases. I did it by the book. And I was banned. Mathsci removed the case notification from his Talk page. AGK warned him. However, the effect of his revert warring remained in place, and had I corrected it, I bet I'd have been blocked. I was, by the way, also warned. For making what should have been my right, control of my section in the filing. Hey, AGK was neutral! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Manning Bartlett |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 59,115
|
I'm aware of what went on in that case, and without casting any other opinion, I'll concur that the clerking was ineffectual.
Clerking is at its best when all parties to a dispute are made to adhere to good conduct and proper procedure, without regard for the agenda of any party.
My dispute with Arbcom arose because I was being made to apply different standards of conduct to participants, depending on how friendly they were with specific members of Arbcom.
This corrupted the entire system as far as I was concerned, and I wanted no part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Tue 12th July 2011, 11:46pm)
I'm aware of what went on in that case, and without casting any other opinion, I'll concur that the clerking was ineffectual.
Clerking is at its best when all parties to a dispute are made to adhere to good conduct and proper procedure, without regard for the agenda of any party.
My dispute with Arbcom arose because I was being made to apply different standards of conduct to participants, depending on how friendly they were with specific members of Arbcom.
This corrupted the entire system as far as I was concerned, and I wanted no part of it.
Manning, welcome to WR! if you name names, or at least link to the issue in question, it helps the readers know exactly who or what you are talking about. This isn't WP where you have to describe other editor's malfeasance in general, oblique terms so that you don't get accused of violating the NPA policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Manning Bartlett |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 59,115
|
Cla68 - thanks but I'll continue to stay oblique. I only posted here to contact the leaker, not to raise a long-dead controversy. I've probably engaged in more discussion that I intended to already.
Cheers, Manning
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Tue 12th July 2011, 7:46pm) This corrupted the entire system as far as I was concerned, and I wanted no part of it. I'd say that what happened was that you became aware of the corruption. It didn't arise at that late date. Looking at the history of Manning Bartlett (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, I see that you go back to 2001. There are not many left! You asked for and received your admin rights back in February. Once Upon A Time, another user and I worked a bit on a project to collect stories of former significant users who had retired. Of the two of us, he was first to be banned, I survived for a few more years. DYK that the admin who started AN/I later considered it to have been a huge mistake? It's been proposed how to fix it, it would not be difficult, ... but you can't fix things on Wikipedia, once they are broken, because there are too many who like things the way they are, they have learned to manipulate the existing structure. Broken structure, practically by definition, creates inequity favoring some group. And that group, by definition, then has excess power and will resist change. It's like clockwork, it happens routinely in organizations where the structure doesn't prevent it, and about the only way to fix it is from some outside force or major revolution. Major revolutions, unfortunately, often don't address the real problem, poor structure, and instead just change the faces, believing that the problem was Those Bad People. So intense is this assumption that, I found, I was considered, again and again, to be attacking individuals as Bad, when I was pointing out structural defects. The page on Wikiversity where I've documented self-reverted editing (two examples from Wikipedia, one from Wikiversity) has been called an "attack page," because some assume that someone like me would be "attacking the bad people, belaboring old grievances," perhaps because that's what they would do. If that page is attacking someone, I'd appreciate it if someone would point out how and where! Indeed, please fix it! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malik Shabazz |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined:
From: God bless Chocolate City and its vanilla suburbs
Member No.: 25,765
|
QUOTE(Sololol @ Wed 13th July 2011, 12:15pm)
Three related requests, all on political campaigners of similar stripes:
-Anything related to the JIDF/David Applebaum
-Jiujitsuguy August/September 2010: JJG was caught recruiting for a CAMERA style lobbying group. The evidence was damning (he was listed as the contact person) but his block was overturned pending ArbCom review or something. Nothing happened.
-The Runtshit vandal
For those playing at home, JIDF = Jewish Internet Defense Force and JJG = Jiujitsuguy This post has been edited by Malik Shabazz: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Encyclopedist |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined:
Member No.: 8,944
|
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 16th July 2011, 12:53am) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34400I'm intrigued now. Are there any more Emails concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica or the GNAA? Who gives a flying fuck what ED say? They are perhaps not liars, but merely invent their own truth, and have their own agenda, which is limited to their own particular strand of juvenile and irrational hatred. As far as their credibility goes, they are somewhat below "The News of the World", and I refer to the newspaper, not the Queen album. One day, perhaps, they'll grow up, and perhaps even evolve. But not yet. Acne-ridden 14-year olds seem to think that they can get away with anything on "teh Internets". They can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Sat 16th July 2011, 1:30am) QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sat 16th July 2011, 12:53am) http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34400I'm intrigued now. Are there any more Emails concerning Encyclopedia Dramatica or the GNAA? Who gives a flying fuck what ED say? They are perhaps not liars, but merely invent their own truth, and have their own agenda, which is limited to their own particular strand of juvenile and irrational hatred. As far as their credibility goes, they are somewhat below "The News of the World", and I refer to the newspaper, not the Queen album. One day, perhaps, they'll grow up, and perhaps even evolve. But not yet. Acne-ridden 14-year olds seem to think that they can get away with anything on "teh Internets". They can't. Cue the music to Psycho... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
