Scibaby, Why so much fear and anguish about this account? Options

[Cla68]

I just happened upon this note on Raul654's talk page today which might indicate that Raul range blocked some innocent IPs. That led me to this page of investigation into meatpuppetry for an account called "Scibaby". I've noticed that there seems to be great concern among a small group of editors who mainly edit the Global Warming articles about this "Scibaby." What's going on here? Are their fears justified? Are they going overboard in protecting the 'pedia from this "Scibaby?"

[One]

Until recently (that is, until this ANI thread a couple weeks ago), there were about twice as many Scibaby rangeblocks as there are now. Raul654 has apparently not been happy about so many of them being removed. Over 1 million addresses were blocked, over 1/4000 of all available IP addresses.

To put this in perspective, there were more IPs hard blocked due to Scibaby than any other alleged person.* More than Grawp, more than Amorrow, and Scibaby is not even a vandal. Consider also the type of material Scibaby adds. His characteristic addition is about bovine emissions and their alleged contribution to CO2. Scibaby is generally dismissive of man-made global warming, and some of his alleged edits have been imitated by GoRight who is a skeptic himself. Raul654 claims that this is meat puppetry.

I tend to think that sharing the same POV as a banned user is not MEAT. But what say you, Cla68? After all, you're supposed to be a meat puppet of WordBomb, right?


*I say "alleged" person because some doubt that Scibaby--who geolocates to several regions in the US--could be a single person. For the sake of argument, I assume that there is one master villain Scibaby as opposed to several unrelated skeptics, but it doesn't seem to justify the amount of collateral damage caused.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

I've always thought that Raul's obsession with Scibaby was overblown. He's never been terribly bright with Checkuser, but he has enough social wank for even pretty serious incompetence to be ignored. It can't hurt that he has been actively suppressing a point of view inconsistent with the Wikipedia house POV; Wikipedia clearly endorses anthropogenic global warming, and has a long history of suppressing dissent to this view.

Wikipedia apparently hasn't figured out that "NPOV" doesn't mean "the most popular point of view held by Wikipedia's administrators".

[Milton Roe]

I tend to think that sharing the same POV as a banned user is not MEAT. But what say you, Cla68? After all, you're supposed to be a meat puppet of WordBomb, right?

That just serves to remind me that somebody really should do something about WP:MEAT. IT's a vague policy that really doesn't know what it wants to be, or else doesn't dare say it. No attempt to clarify it has resulted (so far as I know) in anything other than gross ethincal problems being exposed in either the new policy or the proponent of same, or both. Vagueness is needed as a drape for basic unfairness.

I wish there was a WP template tag that you could slap on policy sections, and which said something like:

Is there anybody here really wants to formally stand up for this turkey of an idea? Speak up now, as this thing is PRODed..

But there isn't. If you did PROD or delete it with the summary "Stupid policy which nobody will defend," you'd be reverted as disruptive, and invited to argue it on the TALK page. If you do argue it on the TALK page, nobody will answer you. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[dtobias]

They always need some bogeymen to get all hysterical over, and WordBomb and Brandt are too "old hat" these days.

[Cla68]

Until recently (that is, until this ANI thread a couple weeks ago), there were about twice as many Scibaby rangeblocks as there are now. Raul654 has apparently not been happy about so many of them being removed. Over 1 million addresses were blocked, over 1/4000 of all available IP addresses.

To put this in perspective, there were more IPs hard blocked due to Scibaby than any other alleged person.* More than Grawp, more than Amorrow, and Scibaby is not even a vandal. Consider also the type of material Scibaby adds. His characteristic addition is about bovine emissions and their alleged contribution to CO2. Scibaby is generally dismissive of man-made global warming, and some of his alleged edits have been imitated by GoRight who is a skeptic himself. Raul654 claims that this is meat puppetry.

I'll do the rest of my talking about this on-wiki.

No, check that. I just went through the archives of ArbCom decisions to find one related to this Scibaby situation and couldn't find one. How is it that such questionable use of checkuser and admin actions has been going on for so long without any kind of ArbCom ruling on it? How is that Scibaby and anyone who is believed to be him can be banned so easily?

I was going to find the applicable case then request a motion that ordered Raul654 to cease and desist with any further actions related to Scibaby, but couldn't find a related case. I'm posting a link here to the pertinent discussion for reference. Have there been any RfCs on Raul's actions regarding this issue?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Somey]

This part of the discussion is interesting, containing a link to this list of range blocks, as well as one or two other ways to get to the same basic information. I'm afraid curiosity got the better of me, and sure enough, there's still a rangeblock in there for good ol' Lir, 129.67.134.0/24, which hasn't appeared in WR's database for over 3 years.

Has Raul654 come down on one side or the other regarding the flagged revisions issue? He certainly hasn't been out front about it, and if he has any stated position at all, I don't quite remember what it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Sarcasticidealist]

It can't hurt that he has been actively suppressing a point of view inconsistent with the Wikipedia house POV; Wikipedia clearly endorses anthropogenic global warming, and has a long history of suppressing dissent to this view.

Wikipedia apparently hasn't figured out that "NPOV" doesn't mean "the most popular point of view held by Wikipedia's administrators".

The view that evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea of human-driven global warming is somewhat more than a "Wikipedia house POV". NPOV, both as presently written and under any reasonable re-write, supports that articles on the subject of global warming should be written from that perspective.

Global warming deniers aren't quite as cockamamie as "intelligent design" advocates (those who claim to be arguing it from a scientific perspective, I mean - I have no problem at all with people who acknowledge that their support for ID rests entirely on faith), they're alike in that most members of both categories start from a conclusion that they find convenient and work backwards. On content issues, the assorted "pro-science cabals" are almost always in the right.

(Though I'm probably biased by the fact that I'm a prominent skeptical Wikipedia editor.)

[Somey]

Global warming deniers aren't quite as cockamamie as "intelligent design" advocates (those who claim to be arguing it from a scientific perspective, I mean - I have no problem at all with people who acknowledge that their support for ID rests entirely on faith), they're alike in that most members of both categories start from a conclusion that they find convenient and work backwards.

As much as I hate to come down on the side of GW/Climate-Change deniers, I'm not sure that's entirely fair - ID supporters always work backward from their conclusion, because there's really no other way to make their argument. But quite a few GW skeptics, such as the late Michael Chrichton, were actually reasonably respectful of the scientific method (even though he was really just a sci-fi author, not a climatologist).

There were some discoveries made just a few years ago (2002-2003, I think?) that were said to put the kibosh on a lot of the GW skeptics' most usable arguments, but that isn't really all that long ago... I also suspect a lot of people are still getting grief for statements and such they made back in the 80's and 90's, espousing positions they may have since abandoned.

That has little to do with User:Scibaby, though, whoever he is.

[Cla68]

Global warming deniers aren't quite as cockamamie as "intelligent design" advocates (those who claim to be arguing it from a scientific perspective, I mean - I have no problem at all with people who acknowledge that their support for ID rests entirely on faith), they're alike in that most members of both categories start from a conclusion that they find convenient and work backwards.

As much as I hate to come down on the side of GW/Climate-Change deniers, I'm not sure that's entirely fair - ID supporters always work backward from their conclusion, because there's really no other way to make their argument. But quite a few GW skeptics, such as the late Michael Chrichton, were actually reasonably respectful of the scientific method (even though he was really just a sci-fi author, not a climatologist).

There were some discoveries made just a few years ago (2002-2003, I think?) that were said to put the kibosh on a lot of the GW skeptics' most usable arguments, but that isn't really all that long ago... I also suspect a lot of people are still getting grief for statements and such they made back in the 80's and 90's, espousing positions they may have since abandoned.

That has little to do with User:Scibaby, though, whoever he is.

I might open another thread on the current situation with the Global Warming articles in Wikipedia at a later date if no one else does first. I just meant this thread to be about this Scibaby account and the reactions to it, which appear to be ridiculously over the top.

[tarantino]

Has Raul654 come down on one side or the other regarding the flagged revisions issue? He certainly hasn't been out front about it, and if he has any stated position at all, I don't quite remember what it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I pondered something similar last December in the "People who refuse to equally protect BLPs" thread -

These people don't even seem to consider that there are over 1700 articles that "not anyone can edit". There are millions of IPs that are prevented from editing any article while not logged in, and a large fraction of those can't create an account without emailing someone. Raul654 alone blocked over a million IPs last year for periods up to 5 years in continuation of his hunt for the great white whale Scibaby. If they can accept huge range blocks to prevent some easily revertible contrary opinions being put into global warming articles, why can't they accept semi-protection of biographies to lessen the amount of damage to real people?

[Shalom]

I just happened upon this note on Raul654's talk page today which might indicate that Raul range blocked some innocent IPs. That led me to this page of investigation into meatpuppetry for an account called "Scibaby". I've noticed that there seems to be great concern among a small group of editors who mainly edit the Global Warming articles about this "Scibaby." What's going on here? Are their fears justified? Are they going overboard in protecting the 'pedia from this "Scibaby?"

I have known the Scibaby situation since March 2008. Raul654 blocked an innocent user, CreepyCrawly, as a Scibaby sock. After literally about seven hours of research I succeeded in convincing him to unblock, but I did not managed to get the "Sorry, you are actually innocent" from Raul654 that he should have proffered. See endless discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CreepyCrawly There is additional material in my userspace, since deleted, which supports my conclusion that Scibaby and CreepyCrawly are two different people.

Based on several qualitative criteria, I can reasonably conclude that all the other Scibaby sockpuppets until March 2008 actually are from the same individual. Whether that has changed is not worth looking into.

Raul654 was sharply criticized in May 2008 for full-protecting about ten global warming articles against a concerted attack by Scibaby socks. It was discussed on the Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents, and the community resoundingly spoke out against what they considered an excessive use of force. I wrote on Raul654's talkpage to commend him for what I considered the right decision, but he did not respond. In the ANI discussion, Raul654 expressed frustration at spending hours hunting down Scibaby socks, only to see new ones continue to pop up, and he told everyone that he was done with fighting a worthless battle, and if they cared they could deal with it on their own. Of course, like many folks who are heavily invested in an ongoing effort, Raul654 did not stay away from the Scibaby fight for excessively long, and I understand he is still involved. I find it remarkable that Scibaby himself would still be active after such a long time.

[Kelly Martin]

That just serves to remind me that somebody really should do something about WP:MEAT. IT's a vague policy that really doesn't know what it wants to be, or else doesn't dare say it.

The "meatpuppet" policy is used whenever an administrator wants to ban someone for supporting an undesired point of view, but cannot find any legitimate reason within policy. All that has to be done is to show that undesired person A has, at some time, edited any article in any way that might be arguably similar to any other editor who has previously been banned. The proof does not need to have any legitimate basis and often involves a bogus analysis of "writing style" (e.g. the editor uses semicolons, or certain words that are declared to be "unusual", but which do not stand up to a serious statistical linguistic analysis, not that anyone at Wikipedia would know what that is anyway).

Has Raul654 come down on one side or the other regarding the flagged revisions issue? He certainly hasn't been out front about it, and if he has any stated position at all, I don't quite remember what it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Pellegrini is and always has been adamantly opposed to flagged revisions.

It can't hurt that he has been actively suppressing a point of view inconsistent with the Wikipedia house POV; Wikipedia clearly endorses anthropogenic global warming, and has a long history of suppressing dissent to this view.

The view that evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea of human-driven global warming is somewhat more than a "Wikipedia house POV". NPOV, both as presently written and under any reasonable re-write, supports that articles on the subject of global warming should be written from that perspective.

See, that's exactly not what Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires. NPOV (assuming one believes in it) requires that the article author acknowledge dissent from the "majority" position even when that dissent is unfounded in science, if the dissent is held by a substantial minority of those people having an opinion on the matter and if the form of that dissent can be reasonably elucidated. For the purpose of NPOV as defined by Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are complete crap; all that matters is that they exist and can be expressed in some coherent form, and that some reasonably-sized fraction of the population believes in or espouses them. In the specific case of global warming, this means that an NPOV-compliant article must feature the anthropogenic theory most prominently, but must acknowledge the presence of dissent and give the dissenting theories attention proportionate to the degree they command belief and support in the population. It does not permit for the article to be written as if anthropogenic global warming is established, unchallengeable fact.

Please note that I am not arguing against anthropogenic global warming (of which I am quite reasonably convinced), nor am I arguing in favor of Wikipedia's NPOV policy (which fundamentally reflects a very juvenile and naive understanding of what knowledge is).

[Sarcasticidealist]

See, that's exactly not what Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires. NPOV (assuming one believes in it) requires that the article author acknowledge dissent from the "majority" position even when that dissent is unfounded in science, if the dissent is held by a substantial minority of those people having an opinion on the matter and if the form of that dissent can be reasonably elucidated. For the purpose of NPOV as defined by Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are complete crap; all that matters is that they exist and can be expressed in some coherent form, and that some reasonably-sized fraction of the population believes in or espouses them.

I disagree. NPOV (the Wikipedia version) requires that articles reflect the views espoused by reliable sources. It allows for the possibility that not all reliable sources should be treated equally, and that some sources are weightier than others. If (as probably is not quite the case) all respectable scientific journals are reporting that anthropogenic global warming is extremely likely to be occurring, it is not required to give viewpoints equal treatment just because an equal number of Texan editorial writers are arguing the opposite.

In the specific case of global warming, this means that an NPOV-compliant article must feature the anthropogenic theory most prominently, but must acknowledge the presence of dissent and give the dissenting theories attention proportionate to the degree they command belief and support in the population.

I think the mistake you're making is in equating "population" with "reliable sources".

It does not permit for the article to be written as if anthropogenic global warming is established, unchallengeable fact.

Here I agree. But it does permit the article to be written as though the existence of AGW is a consensus view in the scientific community, even as not all of the American public is convinced. Because that's accurate.

(I'm not necessarily arguing in favour of Wikipedia's version of NPOV either, though I think it would function somewhat better if people didn't pretend NPOV was a binary, black and white phenomenon, as is often done on Wikipedia.)

[EricBarbour]

No, check that. I just went through the archives of ArbCom decisions to find one related to this Scibaby situation and couldn't find one. How is it that such questionable use of checkuser and admin actions has been going on for so long without any kind of ArbCom ruling on it? How is that Scibaby and anyone who is believed to be him can be banned so easily?
I was going to find the applicable case then request a motion that ordered Raul654 to cease and desist with any further actions related to Scibaby, but couldn't find a related case. I'm posting a link here to the pertinent discussion for reference. Have there been any RfCs on Raul's actions regarding this issue?

This was from last year.

You will never get a useful reply. Pellegrini is usually a good admin. But when he decides he doesn't like something or someone, nothing can change his little mind.

He is one of the most toxic, arrogant senior admins Wikipedia has, and he is popular enough to have backup in disputes like this. You will not find much serious discussion about this massive rangeblocking, except dismissive crap about Scibaby. Raul can be as smug of an asshole as he wishes, because another senior admin will step up and defend his bad decisions.......(well, IF it involves an aggressive on-wiki pest like Scibaby. If not, he just looks like an ass.)

Just more proof that Raul's aggressive opposition to flagged revs and/or global semi-protection is foolish, irrational and ultimately wasteful.

Thatcher and Connolley are the ones usually supporting Raul in this. Ask them.
Better yet, try asking Scibaby why he's doing this idiocy.......

And furthermore, one of those AN/I threads has a nice little example of Raul's ability to be a stupid asshole to anyone. Even people who later ended up on Arbcom. Behold:

For what it's worth, the changes appear to be misguided attempts to improve the encyclopedia, which is not vandalism. If this actually was vandalism, you wouldn't have to resort to checkuser to ban the accounts. This is a POV war being conducted by a determined banned sock puppeteer. That's why I supposed your involvement was relevant, but I see now that there was no ongoing content dispute. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he appreciates your attempt to wikilawyer for him, but yes, getting yourself banned and then using sockpuppets to disruptively edit articles and push a POV is vandalism. Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And:

The block was procedurally incorrect because an involved admin made it (involved with GoRight, if not Global Warming). It should be lifted. Then a community ban discussion should proceed. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Coolhandluke is incorrect in all counts - first, Aitias has already lifted the block; I was not involved either with GoRight as the evidence supplied by Rootology above shows, or the GW articles in general except as an admin; and that no such requirement (that community sanction discussions take place while the user being discussed is unblocked) exists in policy. I'll also note that Coolhandluke himself has intervened in these articles in the past to support GoRight's misbehavior (claiming on GoRight's RFC that apart from his misguided push to edit an OpEd source on a BLP (William Connolley), his actions have been well-taken, and conscientious. - this was during a time where 34 out of GoRight's 36 edits were edit warring). I echo Thuran's comment below that GoRight has essentially mastered the trolling tactic if picking a fight with actives administrators to prevent action on disruptive editing. Raul654 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Then don't fall for it. Get someone else to issue the block.
Anyhow, I agree with ThuranX insofar that this is an unhelpful diversion. Should close these sections and open a discussion for community ban because there's clearly a case. Cool Hand Luke 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sick, okay? OKAY?......

[Somey]

Has Raul654 come down on one side or the other regarding the flagged revisions issue? He certainly hasn't been out front about it, and if he has any stated position at all, I don't quite remember what it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Pellegrini is and always has been adamantly opposed to flagged revisions.

Y'know, that's what I thought, but I couldn't find anything to link to. Thanks for that! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Of course, now that we've established that, I'd have to say that he really has no legitimate right to complain about Wikipedia's lack of adequate features for dealing with "long-term abuse" by any particular person.

[Kelly Martin]

I think the mistake you're making is in equating "population" with "reliable sources".

I accept this statement with the caveat that Wikipedia has no meaningful definition of "reliable" or any meaningful way to evaluate the "reliability" of sources, so this ends up being a proxy for popularity all the same. A theory for which there is no well-documented exposition (no source, reliable or not) will obviously garner little space. However, a theory which is widely believed, and thus well-documented in a wide array of sources, deserves at least some coverage even if the arguments for that theory are only published in supermarket tabloids, crank journals, and Bible study guides, if nonetheless forty percent of the population appears to ascribe to that theory.

The problem with the "reliable source" issue is that no source is "reliable" or "unreliable". Rather, a source is reliable (or not) for a specific claim. My blog is wholly unreliable as to claims about Russian domestic policy, but quite reliable as to claims about my personal beliefs. timecube.com is entirely unreliable for claims about physics, but is reliable (to the extent that it is comprehensible) as to what Time Cube Guy claims to believe in.

Wikipedia has often toyed with (and continues to toy with) rules declaring certain classes of sources categorically reliable (e.g. major newspapers, scientific journals) or unreliable (e.g. blogs, MySpace, Wikipedia Review); this is a labor in stupidity, but Wikipedia is inordinately fond of such activities.

Of course, now that we've established that, I'd have to say that he really has no legitimate right to complain about Wikipedia's lack of adequate features for dealing with "long-term abuse" by any particular person.

Here's a log from the Wikipedia admins channel from back in 2006 when Pellegrini was on a rampage against stable versions. At the time I shared this log with various others, I characterized Mark's objections as "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit with how I want Wikipedia to be".

It's possible he's changed his tune in the past three years. Yeah, right.

[sbrown]

I tend to think that sharing the same POV as a banned user is not MEAT.

Of course it isnt but youll never get abusive admins to behave otherwise.

The "meatpuppet" policy is used whenever an administrator wants to ban someone for supporting an undesired point of view, but cannot find any legitimate reason within policy. All that has to be done is to show that undesired person A has, at some time, edited any article in any way that might be arguably similar to any other editor who has previously been banned. The proof need to have any legitimate basis and often involves a bogus analysis of "writing style" (e.g. the editor uses semicolons, or certain words that are declared to be "unusual", but which do not stand up to a serious statistical linguistic analysis, not that anyone at Wikipedia would know what that is anyway).

Yes thats what often passes for technical evidence. They should appoint a few statisticians as checkusers.

NPOV (the Wikipedia version) requires that articles reflect the views espoused by reliable sources. It allows for the possibility that not all reliable sources should be treated equally, and that some sources are weightier than others. If (as probably is not quite the case) all respectable scientific journals are reporting that anthropogenic global warming is extremely likely to be occurring, it is not required to give viewpoints equal treatment just because an equal number of Texan editorial writers are arguing the opposite.

That would require some knowledge of the subject which is verboten under WP rules. Youd have to produce a reliable source that some sources are better than others.

[One]

Here's a log from the Wikipedia admins channel from back in 2006 when Pellegrini was on a rampage against stable versions. At the time I shared this log with various others, I characterized Mark's objections as "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit with how I want Wikipedia to be".

It's possible he's changed his tune in the past three years. Yeah, right.

That's weird to me. Most people opposed to flagged are open editing fundamentalists. Raul654 is clearly not one of those: he can lock down multiple IP ranges before breakfast. In this IRC he seems to dislike the concept... because stable articles share the same path and would encourage article ownership? This from the guy who once tried to full protect ten GW articles in their preferred untainted form?

I don't understand. Flagged seems like a good solution to Scibaby.

[No one of consequence]

Here's a log from the Wikipedia admins channel from back in 2006 when Pellegrini was on a rampage against stable versions. At the time I shared this log with various others, I characterized Mark's objections as "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit with how I want Wikipedia to be".

It's possible he's changed his tune in the past three years. Yeah, right.

That's weird to me. Most people opposed to flagged are open editing fundamentalists. Raul654 is clearly not one of those: he can lock down multiple IP ranges before breakfast. In this IRC he seems to dislike the concept... because stable articles share the same path and would encourage article ownership? This from the guy who once tried to full protect ten GW articles in their preferred untainted form?

I don't understand. Flagged seems like a good solution to Scibaby.

Ah, well, flagged revisions would be a good way of preventing Scibaby from adding edits about cow farts. But it could also be tremendously abused, for example, if only AGW true believers had permission to approve revisions.

Thatcher and Connolley are the ones usually supporting Raul in this. Ask them.
Better yet, try asking Scibaby why he's doing this idiocy.......

If you this this link is me supporting Raul, you didn't read it right.

[EricBarbour]

If you this this link is me supporting Raul, you didn't read it right.

Granted, this part isn't supportive.

*From a past interaction with Raul654 over a similar issue, I feel safe in saying that anyone who feels as User:B does would be wasting their time posting further here in the hope of persuading Raul654 to do anything differently in the future. Whether other avenues are likely to lead to other results is dubious, of course, but the method of behavioral modification by noticeboard harangue is even less likely to work here than for other admins. Thatcher 21:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But there's also this, which isn't quite clear.

I'm putting these sections into an archive. Raul654 is not the pressing issue here, and this is unlikely to be helpful, per Thatcher. The immediate question is whether GoRight should be community banned. If another user's behavior is a concern, I suggest an RFC rather than diverting a timely community ban discussion. Cool Hand Luke 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is: Raul has shown a gross tendency towards arrogance and intolerance
in such disputes. Pointing out your "Quis Custodes" essay is fine, but most people's
eyes would glaze over whilst reading that. Meanwhile, Raul gets away with being a dick.

Why don't you upbraid Raul a bit more forthrightly, instead of being so passive?
CHL clearly does it, and yet I don't see other admins supporting him.
That's the basic point I was trying to make. Wikipedia is sick, partly because
pushy short-tempered people like Raul can "get away" with things......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kato]

I've always maintained that Raul is the anti-Wikipedian. He is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each of the non-negotiable tenets. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[everyking]

Here's a log from the Wikipedia admins channel from back in 2006 when Pellegrini was on a rampage against stable versions. At the time I shared this log with various others, I characterized Mark's objections as "I don't like it" and "It doesn't fit with how I want Wikipedia to be".

It's possible he's changed his tune in the past three years. Yeah, right.

That's weird to me. Most people opposed to flagged are open editing fundamentalists. Raul654 is clearly not one of those: he can lock down multiple IP ranges before breakfast. In this IRC he seems to dislike the concept... because stable articles share the same path and would encourage article ownership? This from the guy who once tried to full protect ten GW articles in their preferred untainted form?

I don't understand. Flagged seems like a good solution to Scibaby.

He also seems to be single-handedly responsible for the purported policy against semi-protecting the featured article of the day. Instead of just locking the door at night (since nobody really ought to be going in the building at that hour without special permission), Raul would prefer to stand guard just inside the door the whole time, prepared to beat the living daylights out of any suspicious looking person who opened the door. I think a big part of it, although maybe not consciously, is that he just thoroughly enjoys the pursuit and beating of suspects and doesn't want some practical technical measure to keep him from having his fun.

[Kelly Martin]

Part of the reason that Pellegrini gets away with so much is his iron control over the featured article of the day. If you have any hopes whatsoever of getting your prize article on the front page (and what self-important encyclopedia editor doesn't?), you know that you have to keep yourself in the good graces of the Almighty Featured Article Director For Life. Pellegrini's self-appointed role gives him a lot of power and forces a lot of people to suck up to him, which he, of course, just eats up.

Jimmy is a sleazeball, but at least he seems to listen to you when you talk to him. Pellegrini is an alligator: all mouth, no ears. Easily the most annoying person I met at Wikimania 2006, and that's saying something considering that Jtkiefer was there.

[Moulton]

I've always maintained that Raul is the anti-Wikipedian. He is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each of the non-negotiable tenets. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Actually, there is something wrong with bullying.

Doubleplusungood, it teaches the wrong lesson to the starving children of Africa.

[Cla68]

I've always maintained that Raul is the anti-Wikipedian. He is adamantly against all of the touted claims of the site. He is against discussion, consensus, anyone-can-edit, neutrality and so on. Rather, he exhibits autocratic control in the face of each of the non-negotiable tenets. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I didn't mean for this thread to be a list of grips about Raul, because he isn't the only one holding a torch over this Scibaby account. I think most of Raul's decisions about running the main page are fine, and, like Kato, I don't mind autocratic control as long as there is a mechanism to turn it off if necessary. I'm not afraid of Raul retaliating against me for griping about his and others treatment of this Scibaby issue, I currently have a main page request for an article (did I make the request because I feel self-important or because I think it's an interesting topic that others might want to read about? Probably a little of both, right?), and I expect Raul to put it on the main page if it isn't replaced by a higher "pointing" article.

I think Eric's point is valid, in that, why is CHL the only prominent admin who has said something about this lately? Why hasn't the arbitration committee told Raul, WM Connolley, and, Stephen Schulz to back off of this Scibaby crusade? Reverting any edit they don't like as a "Scibaby edit" and blocking the entire IP range of the University of Colorado's science department are just absolutely ludicrous. Someone who can do so needs to stop it. Do I need to go through the motions of opening an RfC or making an ArbCom request?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[RMHED]

Easily the most annoying person I met at Wikimania 2006, and that's saying something considering that Jtkiefer was there.

If you should ever meet him again then you'd be doing humanity a favour if you booted him in the balls, make sure you're wearing steel toe cap shoes mind.

[Abd]

I was going to find the applicable case then request a motion that ordered Raul654 to cease and desist with any further actions related to Scibaby, but couldn't find a related case. I'm posting a link here to the pertinent discussion for reference. Have there been any RfCs on Raul's actions regarding this issue?

Scibaby was blocked by William M. Connolley first, after WMC had been edit warring with him, as I recall. Then the alleged sock that Scibaby was accused about was, some months later, blocked by [[wpu]Raul654[/wpu] for some reason, then again as indef, because some socks had been discovered. The socks came very late in the game, this is a quite clear example of the m.o. of the cabal: insult a naive editor, and tag-team revert him. Then block him if he responds in kind. And if he does the obvious when one is an isolated editor being tag-teamed, you can ban him and make an entire industry out of playing Whack-a-Mole with his socks.

Because Raul654 has so blatantly mooned the jury in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, and he has claimed, based on one effing revert I made, that I'm a meat puppet for Scibaby (I don't even agree with the Scibaby POV, I'm not at all a global warming skeptic, the opposite), it's possible that Raul could be sanctioned out of this RfAr. I may put up some proposed findings, etc, but it's awfully difficult with the cabal jeering. ArbComm will, I'm sure, factor for that, but it can be quite difficult in real human politics. I expect that ArbComm will start drafting results soon.

On the other hand, ArbComm may decide to focus narrowly, which wouldn't surprise me, I might even recommend it. However, enough material and attention has been generated that an RfC is possible, and from there to ArbComm is a simple step.

(Theoretically, there should be other steps before that, there must be some attempt to "resolve the dispute." But because all this is before ArbComm right now, there is an opportunity. I do think it would not be difficult to get cert on an RfC, though. GoRight certainly tried!)

Anyone confronting Raul had better be prepared for the cabal piling in, big time. Until and unless the cabal is defanged. If I survive the RfAr, those teeth will have been dulled a bit, if not, they will have been sharpened.

This post has been edited by Derktar:

[tarantino]

I think Eric's point is valid, in that, why is CHL the only prominent admin who has said something about this lately?

Look again at the ANI thread that CHL mentioned. What appeared to have happened was, there was a long discussion of the subject on functionaries-l and Raul654 did not participate. Frustrated by his lack of response, Newyorkbrad brought it to the drama board with the help of Fred, Bastique, FloNight and Thatcher. Raul could not as easily ignore this, so he showed up and whined a lot.

We'll see if this results in any long term modification of behavior. It seems unlikely.

[Kato]

Look again at the ANI thread that CHL mentioned.

Here's a great solution.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Why not contact the ISPs Scibaby is using and demand that they take action within some reasonable time (e.g. they could warn Scibaby to stop or else he'll lose his internet access)? If the ISPs do not act, then Wikipedia could simply block access to everyone attempting to log on from the ISPs Scibaby is using, not just for editing but also to simply read Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to hear that conversation between the Wikipedio and the ISP.

ISP: What has this guy done that we should remove his internet access?

Wikipedio: He's been creating accounts on Wikipedia to remove unsourced statements from science and healthcare articles, and has an alternative view of global warming.

ISP: gasp

[Cla68]

I think Eric's point is valid, in that, why is CHL the only prominent admin who has said something about this lately?

Look again at the ANI thread that CHL mentioned. What appeared to have happened was, there was a long discussion of the subject on functionaries-l and Raul654 did not participate. Frustrated by his lack of response, Newyorkbrad brought it to the drama board with the help of Fred, Bastique, FloNight and Thatcher. Raul could not as easily ignore this, so he showed up and whined a lot.

We'll see if this results in any long term modification of behavior. It seems unlikely.

OK, I stand corrected. Some action has been taken lately by some people who can do stuff. I hope somebody follows-up on it and makes sure something definite gets done.

Note that most people said to remove the rangeblocks and ask for volunteers to watch the global warming articles. That seems more reasonable to me than blocking the University of Colorado's science department.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[everyking]

I think most of Raul's decisions about running the main page are fine, and, like Kato, I don't mind autocratic control as long as there is a mechanism to turn it off if necessary.

So are you saying you mind? Because in this case, there is no mechanism to turn off the autocratic control. He simply appointed himself and operates regardless of whether people approve or disapprove. Almost everyone agrees that the main page FAs should be semi-protected, but Raul refuses to allow it.

[Derktar]

Look again at the ANI thread that CHL mentioned.

Here's a great solution.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Why not contact the ISPs Scibaby is using and demand that they take action within some reasonable time (e.g. they could warn Scibaby to stop or else he'll lose his internet access)? If the ISPs do not act, then Wikipedia could simply block access to everyone attempting to log on from the ISPs Scibaby is using, not just for editing but also to simply read Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to hear that conversation between the Wikipedio and the ISP.

ISP: What has this guy done that we should remove his internet access?

Wikipedio: He's been creating accounts on Wikipedia to remove unsourced statements from science and healthcare articles, and has an alternative view of global warming.

ISP: gasp

Haha, this guy is a devious mastermind!

Perhaps one should create a copy of Wikipedia on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Wikipedia. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Wikipedia to let it look like the real Wikipedia. It must also be synchronized with the real Wikipedia from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Wikipedia for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[One]

I think Eric's point is valid, in that, why is CHL the only prominent admin who has said something about this lately?

Look again at the ANI thread that CHL mentioned. What appeared to have happened was, there was a long discussion of the subject on functionaries-l and Raul654 did not participate. Frustrated by his lack of response, Newyorkbrad brought it to the drama board with the help of Fred, Bastique, FloNight and Thatcher. Raul could not as easily ignore this, so he showed up and whined a lot.

...Uncanny.

EDIT: Oh, I see that FloNight explained that. Yes, Raul seemed to notice and participate when the ranges started being unblocked. I think it will be somewhat more normal in the future--which is about damn time.

This post has been edited by One:

[Somey]

Haha, this guy is a devious mastermind!

Apropos of nothing, the article on Count Iblis (T-H-L-K-D) on Wikipedia is longer than the articles for some countries.

He was a terribly devious character on the original Battlestar Galactica series, but what really surprises me is that there's no user account for John Steed (T-C-L-K-R-D) on WP, even though that was the more famous role Patrick MacNee role by far. There's no Emma Peel (T-C-L-K-R-D) account either... Maybe if they'd named the show The Revengers, they would have appealed more to Wikipedians! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Cla68]

I think most of Raul's decisions about running the main page are fine, and, like Kato, I don't mind autocratic control as long as there is a mechanism to turn it off if necessary.

So are you saying you mind? Because in this case, there is no mechanism to turn off the autocratic control. He simply appointed himself and operates regardless of whether people approve or disapprove. Almost everyone agrees that the main page FAs should be semi-protected, but Raul refuses to allow it.

If Raul screwed up and enough people wanted to remove him from his position, it would happen. First, however, I think people would want to be sure that his replacement would be someone who could run the main page as reliably as he does. The main page management isn't perfect, but it's working. Remember, if it isn't broken...

I'm ambivalent about semi-protecting the FA of the Day article. I think around five articles that I was the primary editor of have been on the main page. A couple of them got torn to shreds and took a few minutes of work to restore, but for the most part they survived their day in the spotlight ok.

[Moulton]

Why hasn't the arbitration committee told Raul, WM Connolley, and, Stephen Schulz to back off of this Scibaby crusade? Reverting any edit they don't like as a "Scibaby edit" and blocking the entire IP range of the University of Colorado's science department are just absolutely ludicrous. Someone who can do so needs to stop it. Do I need to go through the motions of opening an RfC or making an ArbCom request?

Yet another instance of lunatic social drama.

[Grep]

Why hasn't the arbitration committee told Raul, WM Connolley, and, Stephen Schulz to back off of this Scibaby crusade? Reverting any edit they don't like as a "Scibaby edit" and blocking the entire IP range of the University of Colorado's science department are just absolutely ludicrous. Someone who can do so needs to stop it. Do I need to go through the motions of opening an RfC or making an ArbCom request?

Yet another instance of lunatic social drama.

But leading to hilarity at the Abd-William_M._Connolley Workshop where it is proposed that Raul be given a mentor in range-blocking.

[Kelly Martin]

But leading to hilarity at the Abd-William_M._Connolley Workshop where it is proposed that Raul be given a mentor in range-blocking.

Another Wikipedia idiocy: the idea that mentoring can cure any problem.

[Cla68]

But leading to hilarity at the Abd-William_M._Connolley Workshop where it is proposed that Raul be given a mentor in range-blocking.

Another Wikipedia idiocy: the idea that mentoring can cure any problem.

Again, Wikipedia is a volunteer organization. It needs dedicated volunteers to progress and survive. If a dedicated volunteer runs off the rails, then some kind of remedial action needs to be taken to bring them back on line, because who knows if they will be replaced by someone as dedicated and dilligent? Does mentorship work? If it doesn't, then Wikipedia is probably in trouble because it seems to be running low on dedicated volunteers who don't cause any trouble.