The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cool3/Cool three (13 Jan - 8 Feb 2010)
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 2:17pm
Post #21


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(cyofee @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 8:25am) *

To say that Shalom has a bad track record in sock investigations would be a massive understatement. See this post for some examples.

If anything, we can assume that his conclusions are false, and start from there.


You are cherry picking the two instances that I got wrong. In each case, somebody else got it wrong with me. I made the call on more than 100 sockpuppet investigations in 2008, as you can see from the archives of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I admit to having made the wrong judgment on two cases without having had access to checkuser. I may still have gotten it right on the other 98 cases (approximately). Furthermore, I uncovered a case of CreepyCrawly (T-C-L-K-R-D) where the Wikipedia establishment was dead wrong in labeling the named user a sockpuppet of Scibaby. That account would still be indef-blocked today if not for my intervention.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 25th July 2011, 2:24pm
Post #22


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:17am) *

You are cherry picking the two instances that I got wrong. In each case, somebody else got it wrong with me. I made the call on more than 100 sockpuppet investigations in 2008, as you can see from the archives of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I admit to having made the wrong judgment on two cases without having had access to checkuser. I may still have gotten it right on the other 98 cases (approximately). Furthermore, I uncovered a case of CreepyCrawly (T-C-L-K-R-D) where the Wikipedia establishment was dead wrong in labeling the named user a sockpuppet of Scibaby. That account would still be indef-blocked today if not for my intervention.


Oh, gosh, Shalom. Now that you present that evidence of past presumed success in the very important CreepyCrawly case, I can see why you were entitled to publicly accuse me of theft. Do I owe you an apology for coming to the wrong and libelous conclusion about my particular case?

confused.gif

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 25th July 2011, 2:25pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 2:27pm
Post #23


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 6:07pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:56pm) *

The answers to these questions -- especially the last question -- will make it clear which one of the following two possible explanations reflects reality.

Explanation 1 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account without the knowledge or consent or assistance of the original editor who created and edited from that account previously. We can decide how serious of an ethical offense it would be to hack into someone else's Wikipedia account, but let's agree that it's not a very kind thing to do.

Explanation 2 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account with the assistance of another individual, who gave you access to Cool3's Wikipedia password or to his email account (to which a new password could be emailed). The reasons for this other person's cooperation may or may not involve a monetary payment from you. (There is speculation on that question, but I don't expect you to answer it.) If this is what occurred, I have no ethical problem with a business transaction between two consenting adults, and I also don't see how disruptive it would be to Wikipedia in the grand scheme, but to be fair, the administration there is within their rights to block such an account per existing site policy.

From the history of the edits you can see that only explanation 2 fits. The original editor even made a few farewell touchups to the bio of his favorite UK physician, even as the new Cool3 edits were beginning to different topics. He surely would have noticed THOSE, so he had to be "in on" the transition. My own analysis of the changeover can be found here on WR. Why don't you read it?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=246351

We're all telling you stuff you're read before.

Milton

Milton: (also re your other post in this thread)

The stuff you told us before in the thread linked to above, which I do remember reading from you, does not seem consistent with what we learned in this disclosure from the Arbcom-L archives.

In particular, I think we can now say that the original Cool3 really was the same individual as the one who appealed to ArbCom to have his account privileges restored to him after Cool3 was desysopped and blocked. Your previous post, linked just above, suggests that whoever appealed to ArbCom was some random troll trying to pull a fast one on the committee and later the community at RFA.

To be clear, there are two issues for ArbCom to consider:

1. Is the appellant claiming to be the rightful owner of the original Cool3 account actually the same person who made the first several thousand edits from that account?

2. If yes, was the appellant a passive victim of identity fraud (or call it whatever you will), or did the original owner conspire to turn over the account to Mr. Kohs?

Given the ArbCom-L archives, I think we are close to being able to conclude that #1 is a "yes". That email at the end of the thread shows pretty convincingly to me that the appellant was the same person as the original Cool3. As noted, the "Cool three" sockpuppet was created two years ago, which suggests to me that it wasn't the work of an impostor trying to pull a fast one on ArbCom.

Question 2 remains unresolved at this time. Note that Mr. Kohs still has not answered the questions I asked him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 2:32pm
Post #24


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:24am) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:17am) *

You are cherry picking the two instances that I got wrong. In each case, somebody else got it wrong with me. I made the call on more than 100 sockpuppet investigations in 2008, as you can see from the archives of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I admit to having made the wrong judgment on two cases without having had access to checkuser. I may still have gotten it right on the other 98 cases (approximately). Furthermore, I uncovered a case of CreepyCrawly (T-C-L-K-R-D) where the Wikipedia establishment was dead wrong in labeling the named user a sockpuppet of Scibaby. That account would still be indef-blocked today if not for my intervention.


Oh, gosh, Shalom. Now that you present that evidence of past presumed success in the very important CreepyCrawly case, I can see why you were entitled to publicly accuse me of theft. Do I owe you an apology for coming to the wrong and libelous conclusion about my particular case?

confused.gif

Would you stop harping on the libel allegation and start answering one simple question -- whether you had help in getting control of the Cool3 account?

I have always--except in my very first post on the topic, just after the story came out and it was a very hot and fast-moving story--allowed some ambiguity in my statements. I have said that I thought you hacked this guy's account, but how the heck am I able to know with certainty. It is not libel to say that based on the available evidence, and without contrary assertion from the man at the center of the brouhaha, that I conclude you hacked Cool3's password. Furthermore, as you well know, truth is a defense against allegation of libel, and at this point we don't know that my conclusion is not actually what happened.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Mon 25th July 2011, 2:33pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Mon 25th July 2011, 3:17pm
Post #25


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 7:27am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 6:07pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:56pm) *

The answers to these questions -- especially the last question -- will make it clear which one of the following two possible explanations reflects reality.

Explanation 1 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account without the knowledge or consent or assistance of the original editor who created and edited from that account previously. We can decide how serious of an ethical offense it would be to hack into someone else's Wikipedia account, but let's agree that it's not a very kind thing to do.

Explanation 2 You, Mr. Kohs, gained access to Cool3's Wikipedia account with the assistance of another individual, who gave you access to Cool3's Wikipedia password or to his email account (to which a new password could be emailed). The reasons for this other person's cooperation may or may not involve a monetary payment from you. (There is speculation on that question, but I don't expect you to answer it.) If this is what occurred, I have no ethical problem with a business transaction between two consenting adults, and I also don't see how disruptive it would be to Wikipedia in the grand scheme, but to be fair, the administration there is within their rights to block such an account per existing site policy.

From the history of the edits you can see that only explanation 2 fits. The original editor even made a few farewell touchups to the bio of his favorite UK physician, even as the new Cool3 edits were beginning to different topics. He surely would have noticed THOSE, so he had to be "in on" the transition. My own analysis of the changeover can be found here on WR. Why don't you read it?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=246351

We're all telling you stuff you're read before.

Milton

Milton: (also re your other post in this thread)

The stuff you told us before in the thread linked to above, which I do remember reading from you, does not seem consistent with what we learned in this disclosure from the Arbcom-L archives.

In particular, I think we can now say that the original Cool3 really was the same individual as the one who appealed to ArbCom to have his account privileges restored to him after Cool3 was desysopped and blocked.

Yes. and with an incredibly tall tale. To wit, that he'd done all those military edits that got him to admin status himself, then gone on vacation and zOMG found out that his account had been compromized by somebody across the Atlantic! ohmy.gif The horror.

And if you believe that (which ArbComm did not) you should stop taking those Stupid Pills, as they are making you stupid,
QUOTE(Shalom)

Your previous post, linked just above, suggests that whoever appealed to ArbCom was some random troll trying to pull a fast one on the committee and later the community at RFA.


No, my previous post says nothing on the matter about who appealed to Arbcom. I hold merely that Kohs is the editor of all those military posts and blast of activity that got the Cool3 account past RfA. The idea that this was the original account owner, in light of the original account owner's interests and activities, is ludicrous.

QUOTE(Shalom)

To be clear, there are two issues for ArbCom to consider:

1. Is the appellant claiming to be the rightful owner of the original Cool3 account actually the same person who made the first several thousand edits from that account?

Answer: yes. Kohs apparently got the guy to make an appeal from the UK or Norway or wherever, after he'd been caught by checkuser operating Cool3 from the US.
QUOTE(Shalom)

2. If yes, was the appellant a passive victim of identity fraud (or call it whatever you will), or did the original owner conspire to turn over the account to Mr. Kohs?

The evidence that it was a conspiracy from the beginning has been provided, in the edits to the previous owner's bio-of-interest after Kohs took over with the military edits. The new military edits could hardly fail to have been noticed. The evidence that it continued to be a conspiracy to the very end, is this appeal to arbcom, in which the original owner claims to be the guy who did all the military edits and took the account, in blast of activity, to admin status. Which is a real knee-slapper, and surely an incredible tall tale. The original owner is being used at this point only because of his IP location, far far away from Kohs, and not matching any of Kohs' socks. But it didn't work. One knows the lion by his paw, and once the account can be seen to have been taken over by Kohs at any point, it's quite obvious WHEN that happened (before the blast of military topic activity). And that's before the run-up to admin, and certainly at a time the orignal owner would have noticed, since he was still editing on his old subjects, a bit.

The only funnier defense would have been for the original owner to come back and say "ZOMG, I came back from a year vacation and found out somebody had stolen my identity and taken my account all the way to admin status!!" ohmy.gif ohmy.gif rolleyes.gif But I guess even this guy figured THAT wouldn't fly. So he did the next best thing. Which was worth a try, I suppose, but didn't work (except on YOU, apparently tongue.gif ).
QUOTE(Shalom)

Given the ArbCom-L archives, I think we are close to being able to conclude that #1 is a "yes". That email at the end of the thread shows pretty convincingly to me that the appellant was the same person as the original Cool3. As noted, the "Cool three" sockpuppet was created two years ago, which suggests to me that it wasn't the work of an impostor trying to pull a fast one on ArbCom.

Question 2 remains unresolved at this time. Note that Mr. Kohs still has not answered the questions I asked him.

frustrated.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 25th July 2011, 3:32pm
Post #26


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:27am) *

Note that Mr. Kohs still has not answered the questions I asked him.

Note that "Shalom" still has not provided any tangible reason why I have any obligation to answer those questions, other than to help him to stop libeling me with accusations of theft.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 6:01pm
Post #27


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th July 2011, 11:32am) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:27am) *

Note that Mr. Kohs still has not answered the questions I asked him.

Note that "Shalom" still has not provided any tangible reason why I have any obligation to answer those questions, other than to help him to stop libeling me with accusations of theft.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I never did libel you.

As to why you should answer my questions...the implied "or else" in this discussion is: Answer my question, or else you lose the argument and have no basis on which to challenge my assertion of what I think happened. I see what Milton has written and I may or may not review it. But concerning you, Mr. Kohs, your obligation to answer my question goes so far as this tempest-in-a-teacup, if you will defend your side or passively concede the point. It appears that you are passively conceding the point, despite your attempt to make it appear to uninformed onlookers (all three of them) that you are undermining anything that I'm writing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 25th July 2011, 6:17pm
Post #28


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:44pm) *

I further believe, as I said at the time this incident came to light, that Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him.


How does this work for you, "Shalom"?

You couldn't be more wrong, and you are an idiot who apparently cannot fathom a concept as deep and challenging-to-the-observer as "acting".

Maybe this will help you understand.

Now, go and libel me no more, because that is in fact what you are doing. Perhaps you can redirect your attention to Donald Sutherland, because (based on the recorded evidence we can see plainly before our own eyes!), he really committed a grave ethical offense against Veronica Cartwright, ruining that woman's experience.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Mon 25th July 2011, 6:28pm
Post #29


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 2:01pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th July 2011, 11:32am) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 10:27am) *

I'm trying to be serious!!!

boing.gif evilgrin.gif

No really! Be serious!!!

popcorn.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 7:15pm
Post #30


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 25th July 2011, 2:17pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:44pm) *

I further believe, as I said at the time this incident came to light, that Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him.


How does this work for you, "Shalom"?

You couldn't be more wrong, and you are an idiot who apparently cannot fathom a concept as deep and challenging-to-the-observer as "acting".

Maybe this will help you understand.

Now, go and libel me no more, because that is in fact what you are doing. Perhaps you can redirect your attention to Donald Sutherland, because (based on the recorded evidence we can see plainly before our own eyes!), he really committed a grave ethical offense against Veronica Cartwright, ruining that woman's experience.



How about, instead of saying "You couldn't be more wrong, just tell me how you got control of the Cool3 account?

(Or, if you prefer a more friendly persuasive argument, you offered to return me a favor after I researched Wikipedia history links for your unban request. Now would be a good time to make good on that return favor.)

You accuse me of libel. Here is the salient portion of what I wrote that you describe as libel (emphasis added):

QUOTE
For my part, I still believe that Cool3 was a legitimate editor who was not socking; that he passively lost control of his account and did not sell it for money to Mr. Kohs; and that he responded to all reasonable requests for ArbCom after the fact with truthful answers that tie in across three years of email and wiki editing. To summarize, I believe justice was not done. I further believe, as I said at the time this incident came to light, that Mr. Kohs ruined this man's wiki experience and committed a grave ethical offense against him. How do you feel about stealing someone's online identity, even for a website where everyone is pseudonymous--you who so eagerly castigated a certain other desysopped Wikipedian who committed a certain (admittedly more deleterious) identity theft?


Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Mon 25th July 2011, 7:36pm
Post #31


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:15pm) *
Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.


So, being an ignoramus is a defense for libel? Interesting.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Mon 25th July 2011, 8:14pm
Post #32


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:15pm) *
Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.


So, being an ignoramus is a defense for libel? Interesting.

Prove to me that isn't so. Quite aside from that, Mr. Kohs would need to prove that he has been damaged in some way.

To be clear, there is a distinction between "I believe" based on information available to me, and "I know" or "I saw" or "this is fact".

This post has been edited by Shalom: Mon 25th July 2011, 8:15pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 26th July 2011, 12:42am
Post #33


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 4:14pm) *
QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:36pm) *
QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:15pm) *
Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.
So, being an ignoramus is a defense for libel? Interesting.
Prove to me that isn't so. Quite aside from that, Mr. Kohs would need to prove that he has been damaged in some way.

To be clear, there is a distinction between "I believe" based on information available to me, and "I know" or "I saw" or "this is fact".
This matter having been properly brought before this court, we rule that the defendant known as "Shalom" is liable in the amount of 1 quatloo plus costs to plaintiff Kohs.

The defendant rested his defense on a technical position that "I believe" makes the statement true, therefore the expression of the belief is exempt from libel. This is rejected because it could be used to excuse and protect any statement at all, and the person's belief is not generally verifiable. Courts have generally considered whether the belief was reasonable or not, and the degree of care required to guard against careless disregard of truth varies with the nature of the defendant.

A friend of the court argued that the defendant was an idiot, a person with no reputation for accuracy. We considered this defense favorably but, again, determine that the plaintiff was harmed and is due compensation. Idiots still have to pay for damages they cause.

Finally, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was not actually harmed. However, the statement was published in a widely-read forum, and the plaintiff was within his rights to demand retraction; the defendant having declined to do so, the plaintiff was forced to file this action in order to protect himself against possible harm in the future, since the libel continues to remain available. Thus we have awarded nominal damages of one quatloo, and actual costs incurred by the plaintiff in connection with this action.

We further order that the defendant take action to remove or counteract the libel, and in the event that the defendant fails to accomplish this, we note that the plaintiff may return to this court for an order recovering future damages as may arise as a result of such failure. This decision only settles damages as of the date of compilation of evidence for trial.

(The judge, off the record, told the defendant that, idiot or not, it was singularly unwise to dare anyone to "prove it," i.e., file a successful lawsuit. It can be very expensive to win, even, and you never know when you'll piss someone off enough that they say, "Hang the cost, that asshole should pay!" Or an attorney friend says, "What the heck? I got nothing to do right now!")

Your mileage may vary. Consult an actual lawyer if faced with a real legal situation.

This post has been edited by Abd: Tue 26th July 2011, 12:48am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Tue 26th July 2011, 12:51am
Post #34


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



Oh for fuck's sake. Laughably toothless libel threats on Internet fora are so the '90s.

I think it's obvious that Cool3 willingly gave away control of his account (and possibly was paid for it.) After the account was blocked, he thought, "what the hell," and tried to get the account (and admin bit) reinstated for bonus lulz, on the off chance the Arbcom was actually as incompetent as they appeared (stopped clock, twice a day, etc etc).

I'm not sure why thekohser is being coy about the details, but I find it unlikely that vigorous whining will change his mind.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 26th July 2011, 1:08am
Post #35


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Mon 25th July 2011, 8:51pm) *
Oh for fuck's sake. Laughably toothless libel threats on Internet fora are so the '90s.
I didn't see any threats here. Did you?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Newyorkbrad
post Tue 26th July 2011, 1:39am
Post #36


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri 29th Feb 2008, 9:21pm
Member No.: 5,193

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 4:14pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:15pm) *
Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.


So, being an ignoramus is a defense for libel? Interesting.

Prove to me that isn't so. Quite aside from that, Mr. Kohs would need to prove that he has been damaged in some way.

To be clear, there is a distinction between "I believe" based on information available to me, and "I know" or "I saw" or "this is fact".

Shalom ... I know you have repeatedly bemoaned the time you spent editing Wikipedia, and seeking to improve Wikipedia, and in particular in addressing "sock" issues on Wikipedia, as a mistake. You've proudly stated that you no longer have anything to do with Wikipedia, and that your life has moved onto better things. The tag-line on your every post here suggests pretty strongly that your attitude has not changed ... and given your particular experiences on WP, I am not suggesting that it should.

That being the case, I don't know why you are spending so much time arguing about the issues in this thread. They may be important to Wikipedia (an enterprise you claim no longer to care about), but I don't know why they matter to you at this point -- and given how unhappy you say your involvement with Wikipedia in general and "sock hunting" in particular wound up making you, I would respectfully suggest that you might want to drop the issue and walk away, for your own benefit.

(Note: I haven't commented on any of the Arbcom leaks/hacks threads, and I don't really intend to start now. This is aimed at a particular poster for a particular reason.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Tue 26th July 2011, 3:04am
Post #37


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Mon 25th July 2011, 5:51pm) *

I'm not sure why thekohser is being coy about the details, but I find it unlikely that vigorous whining will change his mind.

Well, you know the old joke about Jewish foreplay.... rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shalom
post Tue 26th July 2011, 10:35am
Post #38


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue 1st Apr 2008, 4:00pm
Member No.: 5,566



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 25th July 2011, 9:39pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 4:14pm) *

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:36pm) *

QUOTE(Shalom @ Mon 25th July 2011, 3:15pm) *
Using the phrase "I...believe" three separate times in this paragraph--not as a legal disclaimer, but in my natural style of writing--would absolve me of any liability for defamation.


So, being an ignoramus is a defense for libel? Interesting.

Prove to me that isn't so. Quite aside from that, Mr. Kohs would need to prove that he has been damaged in some way.

To be clear, there is a distinction between "I believe" based on information available to me, and "I know" or "I saw" or "this is fact".

Shalom ... I know you have repeatedly bemoaned the time you spent editing Wikipedia, and seeking to improve Wikipedia, and in particular in addressing "sock" issues on Wikipedia, as a mistake. You've proudly stated that you no longer have anything to do with Wikipedia, and that your life has moved onto better things. The tag-line on your every post here suggests pretty strongly that your attitude has not changed ... and given your particular experiences on WP, I am not suggesting that it should.

That being the case, I don't know why you are spending so much time arguing about the issues in this thread. They may be important to Wikipedia (an enterprise you claim no longer to care about), but I don't know why they matter to you at this point -- and given how unhappy you say your involvement with Wikipedia in general and "sock hunting" in particular wound up making you, I would respectfully suggest that you might want to drop the issue and walk away, for your own benefit.

(Note: I haven't commented on any of the Arbcom leaks/hacks threads, and I don't really intend to start now. This is aimed at a particular poster for a particular reason.)

Brad: good point. This will be my last post in this thread.

Everyone: I do think that it is possible that Cool3 voluntarily gave control of his account to Mr. Kohs. I always thought it was possible. I'm not going to take more time to decide whether I should think that's what happened.

To Abd: if I libeled Kohs, then Iridescent libeled me. Do you really want to go there?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 26th July 2011, 11:54am
Post #39


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Mon 25th July 2011, 8:51pm) *

I'm not sure why thekohser is being coy about the details...


Don't you remember one Wikipediot suggesting that if I had hacked the account, I could be brought up on federal terrorism charges? And, if I bought the account, disclosing that might put myself at a future competitive disadvantage, as the ArbCom would post-mortem the thing to death, to learn whether the original seller had any other accounts (potentially) for sale.

It was a losing proposition for me to disclose either way, with really nothing to gain (save perhaps for the lone example of halting Shalom from libeling me with his opinionated, fact-deficient conjecture).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 26th July 2011, 2:31pm
Post #40


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,916
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 26th July 2011, 6:35am) *
To Abd: if I libeled Kohs, then Iridescent libeled me. Do you really want to go there?
Go where?

1. Whether or not Iridescent libeled Shalom is independent of whether or not Shalom libeled Kohs.

Based on speculative meanings of Shalom's comment:

2. I did not claim that Shalom libeled Kohs. I wrote an imaginary legal decision covering certain arguments Shalom had advanced as a defense against Kohs' claim of libel.

3. My opinion is that libel is common on Wikipedia. Iridescent has, on occasion, libeled me. So? There is, from these libels, on occasion, at least theoretical actionability. There are issues which may never have been adjudicated. So?

Newyorkbrad attempted to wave a threat of legal action against me. He's a lawyer, though, and I'm sure that he'd ordinarily know to avoid that, unless it was a serious possibility and necessity. I conclude he's drunk too much Kool-Aid, it's rotted his brain. If legal action were begun against me, I'd defend, and the best defense can include a strong offense.

But I consider that possibility ridiculous, and any counsel for the WMF who recommended legal action, for the kinds of things I've done, should be fired ASAP.

On the other hand, it appears that the WMF would let individual editors, even arbitrators, swing in the wind if they are sued. Volunteers should know that.

The case I know of defamation that might be real would be that of Poetlister. If he's WMF-banned, he's lost any reason to stay away from legal action, and he's definitely been -- and is being -- defamed. He was blackmailed by FT2, that's clear from the mails revealed, and this was known to ArbComm, and he may be suffering ongoing loss from that sequence. The WMF might be considered responsible, because it has turned operational control of the wikis over to "the community." This might be considered to protect them, on the ISP theory, but my guess is that this veil could be pierced. Some people commenting in the meta global ban discussion seem to think that this is really an office action, with a show of asking the community, perhaps because the RfC was filed by a board member.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 9 17, 2:19pm