Was "Watching Whales" an ARBCOM-approved ShankSock?, Benjiboi sez so! Options

[the fieryangel]

MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) adds an "alternative account" tag to WatchingWhales (T-C-L-K-R-D) , citing this well known diff as his source. He then explains his edit on the talkpage :

Hi David. It's incredibly important for transparency and accountability that alternate accounts like this be marked clearly. I've added a (rather ugly) template to your user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WatchingWhales&diff=prev&oldid=322482753 here]. Feel free to improve the current template, add [[:Category:Alternate Wikipedia account templates|another template]], or even redirect these two pages to your main account, but it is ''imperative'' that this account be marked. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 05:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) then removes the tag from the user page and then replies on the talkpage :

:I've removed that as this account has already been shared with Arbcom as an alt and unless there is a policy that a userbox be added it would seem to only embolden those who have nothing better to do than harass when no actual problem has been shown. If there has been a change in policy on these issues please show me the discussion so I understand where the multitudes of users with alt accounts should be shown as to how to brand themselves. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So, this is an Arbcom approved sock? I have asked several members of the Arbcom to comment on this issue and of yet, I have had no response from any of them.

Shankbone himself then comments :

*MZM, please leave the template off. Instead of undertaking contentious actions during a sensitive time, why don't you go block the obvious sock of this account whose words were right above your eyes as you spent time to compose this unnecessary thread. But I'll leave it, if that will satisfy you. That should give fair warning to all who encounter this rather sleepy account that's been around for years and everyone knows about. Take care, --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David</font> '''[[User:David Shankbone|<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone</font>]]''' 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia asks a very pertinent question :

::In what way have you been made aware of ArbCom having been disclosed the connection between these two accounts? Is this something David told you privately, did a member of the committee tell you, or is this information available somewhere on the project? [[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:deeppink">Lara</span>]] 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, does anybody have the answer to this?

[jayvdb]

..
Jennavecia asks a very pertinent question :

::In what way have you been made aware of ArbCom having been disclosed the connection between these two accounts? Is this something David told you privately, did a member of the committee tell you, or is this information available somewhere on the project? [[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:deeppink">Lara</span>]] 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, does anybody have the answer to this?

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

[everyking]

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

[LaraLove]

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

Yes, I agree. We can't trust Jayvdb or any other arbitrator for this type of information. WE DEMAND A NON-ARB CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT ARBCOM KNEW!!!




Haha. Sorry. Too easy.

[jayvdb]

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

I dont give a shit whether you believe me or not. If it makes you happy, you can believe that a fictitious emails exists in the arbcom archive. However, I am intrigued; why you think I would lie about this?

I'm merely reporting what grep told me because some people here are interested in knowing any facts which can help them narrow down the list of likely theories. WR often whittles the list down to a single theory, which means the community can take action to put a stop to ongoing hidden games. Simply put, it is in my best interest to tell the truth; doing so often means that problems are identified and corrected sooner without me loosing any sleep.

In this case, Benjiboi is clearly stretching the truth, which is fun and games, but he is going to get "hurt" if he starts telling porkies. Like Lara, I want evidence.
If there really was an email sent to Arbcom, he should be able to forward it to you, everyking, defender of the project against the mean and evil arbcom, and you, everyking, can then call me a liar. It'll be fun; you'll see.

[anthony]

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

I dont give a shit whether you believe me or not. If it makes you happy, you can believe that a fictitious emails exists in the arbcom archive. However, I am intrigued; why you think I would lie about this?

If the list is private you shouldn't be talking about what is or isn't discussed on it. Either you're violating that trust publicly and openly, or you're lying (or being misleading). Personally I don't have any intuition if it's one or the other.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Sarcasticidealist]

If the list is private you shouldn't be talking about what is or isn't discussed on it. Either you're violating that trust publicly and openly, or you're lying (or being misleading). Personally I don't have any intuition if it's one or the other.

Whose trust would he be violating by disclosing that this account hasn't been mentioned? The trust of all the people who didn't mention it?

[anthony]

If the list is private you shouldn't be talking about what is or isn't discussed on it. Either you're violating that trust publicly and openly, or you're lying (or being misleading). Personally I don't have any intuition if it's one or the other.

Whose trust would he be violating by disclosing that this account hasn't been mentioned? The trust of all the people who didn't mention it?

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

This post has been edited by anthony:

[Random832]

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

It's not Fight Club. If there was a rule that nothing on the list could be made public even indirectly, arbcom couldn't make decisions based on evidence presented to the list. Or even acknowledge that evidence was presented at all.

"There are a large number of things posted to the list whose details should be kept private" is simply not the same thing as "there can be absolutely nothing said about anything"

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Cla68]

Mr. Miller's "I'll eat dog food" statement means that he is disappointed that he's being treated this way by Wikipedians after making as much time and effort to support Wikipedia as he has. What Mr. Miller doesn't understand is that tying one's entire professional career to Wikipedia is a loser's game. Wikipedia doesn't have enough substance right now to support any one person's professional foundation. The thing is, Mr. Miller's actions, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, and the sketchy pictures that he has taken, is one of the reasons for this situation.

[Somey]

There was no way I could argue delete of [[David Shankbone]] without the very basis for the recognition and my fundamental belief in the purpose of Wikipedia to have been an absolute farce. Yes, I felt I could eat my own dog food.

Mr. Miller's "I'll eat dog food" statement means that he is disappointed that he's being treated this way by Wikipedians after making as much time and effort to support Wikipedia as he has.

I just figured he was misusing the phrase. I've always thought "eat your own dog food" meant "use your own products internally (within your own business operation), despite their flaws or inadequacies." That would only make sense in this context if it refers to his use of Wikipedia articles (i.e., products) to promote (or "inform people about") various things he's interested in, or perhaps directly involved in.