WJBscribe's involvement in the oversighted edits, Jimbo and Cary Bass too! Options

[Docknell]

Sadly I did not take a record of the talk page so we have probably lost that. I did not realise it would be quite so, er, Orwellian.

Rather fitting also that my final block on Wikipedia was made by a 25-year old with a metal staple in her tongue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LaraLove

and whose main recent work is this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_%26_Kate_Plus_8

which is some TV reality show.

It's not a staple, it's a barbell. What rock do you reside under, Ed? And those aren't my most recent edits. I've actually never seen that show. I was helping another editor fix that article. Regardless, I think my most recent edits are to Talk:Fall Out Boy. I'm not a fan of them, but one of my adoptees wanted me to help him get it featured considering I made it a Good article last year.

I'm glad you brought this up, however. Because you know what it shows, at least the part about the show, because I used to be a FOB fan, is that one can edit an article without having experience with it. You shouldn't judge people based on the articles they edit. It doesn't make you look good, nor does it help your case.

Hi Lara

Will you ever get round to indef blocking FT2 for posting private correspondence on the HD article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62577899

Doc

[LaraLove]

Hi Lara

Will you ever get round to indef blocking FT2 for posting private correspondence on the HD article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...own#Other_notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62577899

Doc

Done.


Okay, not really. Let's be realistic. First of all, I said his block was based not only on the posted emails, but what is viewed as his harassment of another user. Past that, I'm looking deeper into the situation, as I told him I would. There's a lot to read, so it's going to take some time. I've got a lot of stuff going on.

[Proabivouac]

Let's be realistic.

Through this lens of realism, the only rule I've been able to discern is that posting private correspondence is prohibited when it reflects poorly upon the leadership, but perfectly all right if it reflects poorly upon someone else.

And how is it "harassment" for Peter to prove that the edits were improperly oversighted during the elections? Alex Bakharev asks directly if these edits were oversighted. FT2 pops up on his page, not vice-versa, and flat out lies, saying it's the first he's ever heard of it. Peter says, no, see this e-mail. It's now "harassment" to prove that an arbitrator is lying through his teeth?

[Peter Damian]

Let's be realistic.

Through this lens of realism, the only rule I've been able to discern is that posting private correspondence is prohibited when it reflects poorly upon the leadership, but perfectly all right if it reflects poorly upon someone else.

And how is it "harassment" for Peter to prove that the edits were improperly oversighted during the elections? Alex Bakharev asks directly if these edits were oversighted. FT2 pops up on his page, not vice-versa, and flat out lies, saying it's the first he's ever heard of it. Peter says, no, see this e-mail. It's now "harassment" to prove that an arbitrator is lying through his teeth?

I explained this in a PM to Lara yesterday but I don't think she really grasps the issue. At that point I gave up.

[LaraLove]

Let's be realistic.

Through this lens of realism, the only rule I've been able to discern is that posting private correspondence is prohibited when it reflects poorly upon the leadership, but perfectly all right if it reflects poorly upon someone else.

And how is it "harassment" for Peter to prove that the edits were improperly oversighted during the elections? Alex Bakharev asks directly if these edits were oversighted. FT2 pops up on his page, not vice-versa, and flat out lies, saying it's the first he's ever heard of it. Peter says, no, see this e-mail. It's now "harassment" to prove that an arbitrator is lying through his teeth?

I explained this in a PM to Lara yesterday but I don't think she really grasps the issue. At that point I gave up.

O, rly? That's not how the pm conversation went in my view at all. I told you I understood your side of it and would look into the history. But if we're just going to take the view that I'm too dense to process this situation, by all means, find someone else to help you.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this to you in one of the pms. I'm happy to help people who feel like they've been wronged, but just like Don Murphy giving me shit while I'm trying to help his cause, that's the end of my participation in the matter.

Through this lens of realism, the only rule I've been able to discern is that posting private correspondence is prohibited when it reflects poorly upon the leadership, but perfectly all right if it reflects poorly upon someone else.

And how is it "harassment" for Peter to prove that the edits were improperly oversighted during the elections? Alex Bakharev asks directly if these edits were oversighted. FT2 pops up on his page, not vice-versa, and flat out lies, saying it's the first he's ever heard of it. Peter says, no, see this e-mail. It's now "harassment" to prove that an arbitrator is lying through his teeth?

Speaking of dense, I'm talking about his behavior over the past months, not just with this account.

[Peter Damian]

I explained this in a PM to Lara yesterday but I don't think she really grasps the issue. At that point I gave up.

O, rly? That's not how the pm conversation went in my view at all. I told you I understood your side of it and would look into the history.

I didn't quite see how you could understand my side of it and yet need 'to look into the history'.

Speaking of dense, I'm talking about his behavior over the past months, not just with this account.

My behaviour was to complain to FT2 about the blocking of a perfectly good editor after apparently pro-paedophiles complained about his edits. I used the words 'the effect is to support paedophiles', which Ryan and others chose to misread as 'supporting paedophiles'. Your remark above suggests you make the same misreading. You also mentioned in another post that one should not judge an editor by the articles they edit. If this kind of persistent misunderstanding continues there is little point in the process.

I said in the same PM I was walking away from this, meaning, I have no desire to return to Wikipedia despite many years of editing and many whole-article contributions. That doesn't mean I will not pursue this story here, in the press, with donors to Wikipedia, on blogs, with the academic profession and so forth.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 8th July 2008, 1:21pm

[LaraLove]

I didn't quite see how you could understand my side of it and yet need 'to look into the history'.

Speaking of dense, I'm talking about his behavior over the past months, not just with this account.

My behaviour was to complain to FT2 about the blocking of a perfectly good editor after apparently pro-paedophiles complained about his edits. I used the words 'the effect is to support paedophiles', which Ryan and others chose to misread as 'supporting paedophiles'. Your remark above suggests you make the same misreading. You also mentioned in another post that one should not judge an editor by the articles they edit. If this kind of persistent misunderstanding continues there is little point in the process.

I said in the same PM I was walking away from this, meaning, I have no desire to return to Wikipedia despite many years of editing and many whole-article contributions. That doesn't mean I will not pursue this story here, in the press, with donors to Wikipedia, on blogs, with the academic profession and so forth.

From your pm, I realized there is a lot more to this situation. I told you I would look into it. I wanted to look at all the history myself, rather than go from your words or the brief summaries from others. And I started doing that. That's a lot of text. This is FT2 we're talking about, ya know. That takes time, and I've got other things going on in the mean time. However, since predictions indicate I don't have the ability to comprehend, I'm now left demotivated, so I'm off to fulfill other requests.

[Peter Damian]

This is FT2 we're talking about, ya know.

Quite

[Peter Damian]

And actually there is not much to read, as it happens. Here is the excellent summary given by Probivouac.

1. Alex Bakharev asks directly if these edits were oversighted.
2. FT2 pops up on [Damian's] page, not vice-versa, and flat out lies, saying it's the first he's ever heard of it.
3. Peter says, no, see this e-mail.
4. It's now "harassment" to prove that an arbitrator is lying through his teeth?

There is very little you need to check that this is true. On the page you deleted, look for the contribution by Alex (do ctrl-F on 'Alex' - easy) to find where he asks this. Then page down a little to find the bit where FT2 says this is the first time he has heard about it (we will withhold judgment for the time being on whether he is lying, or whether he was not copied in on the material circulated on Arblist-l). Then scroll down a bit further to find the bit of the circulated material I copied (note this was not a private email, but a document formally prepared as evidence for Arbcom, and circulated on Arbcom-l).

PB's final remark (4) is of course a conclusion for rhetorical purposes. It directly affects you, Lara, because you are the one claiming 'harrassment'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 8th July 2008, 4:20pm

[LaraLove]

PB's final remark (4) is of course a conclusion for rhetorical purposes. It directly affects you, Lara, because you are the one claiming 'harrassment'.

This is like conversing with lumber. The harassment refers to everything over the past few months regarding you, FT2, the Arb elections, various accounts, etc. Proavibouac's four point list doesn't do much to summarize everything for me. I want to look at the history, and I don't mean that of your most recent account's talk page for the past week or so. That means looking at the history of the articles in question, the talk pages, his discussions with the banned editor, your involvement throughout it all, and then what has been revealed in the past few days. That is what I mean by looking at the history.

[Rootology]

This entire thing is a complete mess and totally confusing. Can someone please give a 1-2 sentence summary of this for all those that are rapidly losing interest in He-who-must-not-be-named's war with FT2?

All I can guess is that it seems like non-privacy related but very embaressing unsourced content editing about animal sex by FT2 were supposedly oversighted by WJScribe and Cary Bass to not interfere with the Arbcom elections in 2007.

But I can't even tell if that's what I'm even reading, since everyone seems to want to spread stuff over 18,041,947 threads and locations about this, and He-who-must-not-be-named's periodic renaming of accounts still has me confused over what the hell is going on with who.

[Peter Damian]

This is like conversing with lumber. The harassment refers to everything over the past few months regarding you, FT2, the Arb elections, various accounts, etc. Proavibouac's four point list doesn't do much to summarize everything for me. I want to look at the history, and I don't mean that of your most recent account's talk page for the past week or so. That means looking at the history of the articles in question, the talk pages, his discussions with the banned editor, your involvement throughout it all, and then what has been revealed in the past few days. That is what I mean by looking at the history.

That, I admit, would be more painful, yes. I still think that from the point of view of the block, you should have been considering only the immediate part of the story (since Thatcher's reduction of the block to 5 days suggests the offence was only worth 5 days).

On the longer story, I am gradually releasing all the material I have collected on FT2's contributions. But this is a massive task (55 pages of material upwards) and we have only seen part of it.

All I can guess is that it seems like non-privacy related but very embaressing unsourced content editing about animal sex by FT2 were supposedly oversighted by WJScribe and Cary Bass to not interfere with the Arbcom elections in 2007.

That is the long and short of it. On 'supposedly oversighted' read the quote from Scribe at the beginning of this thread. If you are losing interest, don't read it.

[Rootology]

That is the long and short of it. On 'supposedly oversighted' read the quote from Scribe at the beginning of this thread. If you are losing interest, don't read it.

Oversight isn't allowed to be used like that. That's what the WMF Ombudsman is for. Have you contacted them?

This is all Oversight is allowed to be used for, any other usage is a violation and the violation needs to be "outed' as such.

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.


The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

[LaraLove]

That is the long and short of it. On 'supposedly oversighted' read the quote from Scribe at the beginning of this thread. If you are losing interest, don't read it.

Oversight isn't allowed to be used like that. That's what the WMF Ombudsman is for. Have you contacted them?

This is all Oversight is allowed to be used for, any other usage is a violation and the violation needs to be "outed' as such.

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.


The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Isn't there a thread somewhere that speaks about SV oversighting diffs used as evidence against her? Or am I recalling incorrectly?

[that one guy]

I know there's a page that she used to "track" another user that is completely gone and oversighted. No revisions are viewable or nor is there anything in the move log. Funny thing is, she said that Cla68's RFC draft was an "attack page" on her when she's done the same.

[LaraLove]

I know there's a page that she used to "track" another user that is completely gone and oversighted. No revisions are viewable or nor is there anything in the move log. Funny thing is, she said that Cla68's RFC draft was an "attack page" on her when she's done the same.

Okay, then perhaps I'm recalling incorrectly. I was reviewing the evidence page on the Poetlister, Taxwoman, et al situation that she deleted as an attack page and I failed to see how it was such. Double standards are thick on this project... along with irony.

[Proabivouac]

The supposed edits by FT2 would not qualify for Oversight...

Following confidential information which has been forwarded to me by an uninvolved party, I can independently confirm that the edits existed and were oversighted. Though it was already obvious that Peter Damian was telling the truth, it no longer rests solely upon his word. The edits were 4557792 8:23 4 July 2004, 4559833 11:48 4 July 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4557792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4559833

The contents were as Peter Damian described them, and are now blamed on an anonymous IP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ia&diff=4570685

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 8th July 2008, 10:07pm

[guy]

This feature is approved for use in three cases:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Oversight is regularly used to conceal edits made accidentally while logged out. This is against policy, but it is done.

Isn't there a thread somewhere that speaks about SV oversighting diffs used as evidence against her? Or am I recalling incorrectly?

She doesn't have oversight, does she? Did she ask Jayjg to do it?

I was reviewing the evidence page on the Poetlister, Taxwoman, et al situation that she deleted as an attack page and I failed to see how it was such.

Not many people would disagree.

[prospero]

I know there's a page that she used to "track" another user that is completely gone and oversighted. No revisions are viewable or nor is there anything in the move log. Funny thing is, she said that Cla68's RFC draft was an "attack page" on her when she's done the same.

Okay, then perhaps I'm recalling incorrectly. I was reviewing the evidence page on the Poetlister, Taxwoman, et al situation that she deleted as an attack page and I failed to see how it was such. Double standards are thick on this project... along with irony.

Look at Cla68's evidence in the C68-FM-SV case. He has pretty much nailed all the places where SV had Jayjg oversight her edits, some embarrassing and some wrongdoing. Also look on wikien-l about this time last year, where Phil Sandifer basically takes SV to the woodshed for her constant paranoia and getting others to abuse their tools for her benefit.

This is why PD isn't going to get far with his complaint. Jayjg is believed to have oversighted hundreds of edits at Slim's request after she got major butt-hurt from a New York Times Magazine article that called her out on her bullshit. That's when the rules about oversight really went out the window. Jayjg has yet to loose his oversight/CU rights for this abuse of privleges. So why the hell would anyone care about two oversighted edits by FT2?

This post has been edited by prospero: Wed 9th July 2008, 12:40am

[Dzonatas]

Oversight is regularly used to conceal edits made accidentally while logged out. This is against policy, but it is done.

Would that be to make sure there is no username put to an IP?

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Wed 9th July 2008, 1:28am