Admit it Greg, you're shagging Iridescent on the side. He certainly has a hard on for you.
A selection for your morning funnies (I assume we've all caught on, so I've snipped a wee bit):
*****************************************************************
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 23:42
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Request
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Iridescent Wikipedia
<iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Unsurprisingly, I support this baby-steps approach with a view either to
> kicking him back out if he acts up, or a lifting of the ban if he behaves.
> Given the number of genuinely toxic personalities Wikipedia tolerates, I
> didn't feel giving Ottava the same treatment we give to Abd or Poetlister
> was justified at the time and I don't feel it now.
Ottava is at the other end of the spectrum of Poetlister; neither are
desirable on Wikipedia.
IMO Ottava is less capable of restraint compared to
Abd, or even
Gregory Kohs.
I recuse, stocking up on popcorn, and want some of the happy pills going around.
--
John Vandenberg
*****************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:40
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] My email to Coren over the Santorum RFAR
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I think Coren's framing of the case has understood what a lot of people on both sides haven't really grasped; the fate of this particular article is almost irrelevant. Regardless of the intention of Cirt and co, this case has exposed a gaping security hole in Wikipedia with no obvious easy means of mending.
Every day this saga drags on, we're effectively writing a "how to" guide on how to use templates, DYK (which generates buttloads of automatically created internal links) and strategically placed links on external sites to manipulate Wikipedia's relationship with Google to game the PageRank system. Making [[Criticism of (insert politician/celebrity/rival product)]] the first hit on Google for a search on said politician/celebrity/rival product's name is a service for which companies would pay a fortune (if you were a sugar producer, how much would having [[Aspartame controversy]] be the first Google result for "artificial sweetener" be worth?), and we've now created a join-the-dots guide
which every aspiring Squeakbox and Kohs can follow.
We need to create a protocol now—ideally by "community consensus", but if necessary by Arbcom ruling or even WMF tablets of stone—for how we react to these situations in future. If "community consensus" is to delete this page (or more likely, retitle it to prevent it becoming the first Google hit), we decline the case and everyone feels a warm glow that the Wikipedia process has worked. If there's a "no consensus", we take the case and decide it comes under BLP special enforcement and force a rename ourselves, and a few of the usual suspects whine for a couple of days until they find something else to bitch about. (As I've previously noted, the deadline on the Ireland compromise is about to expire, and the shitstorm when that reopens will be so spectacular that all this will be forgotten.) In the unlikely event that there's an overwhelming consensus to keep then yes, if need be we overrule a content consensus on BLP grounds. Virtually everyone whose opinion actually matters is in the "delete" or "rename" camps; the "information has a right to be free" hardliners all hate us anyway. Do you (Brad) really care what Protonk-and-whoever-he-happened-to-round-up-on-IRC think of you?
***************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:08
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Link to the 'liar' thread
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Meh. If someone asks me a reasonable question and there's no good reason not to answer it, I'll try to answer it; Arbcom is a dispute resolution body on a website, not the Bilderberg Group. Treating "WR" as a monolithic entity is falling into the same trap Peter Damian and co fall into in their perception of Wikipedia.
Equating the thoughtful and intelligent people there who want to discuss Wikipedia but aren't in a position to do so on the main site—Kelly Martin, Somey, even Greg Kohs and Abd when they're not off on a tangent—with the Joe Hazeltons and Poetlisters, is like equating Brad and Roger with TreasuryTag and Baseball Bugs because they're "all part of Wikipedia". If your congressman/MP told you they personally planned to support a bill, you wouldn't immediately presume that support for it was the policy of the entire government.
*****************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 at 17:30
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Is Peter Damian's latest request still unfinished business?
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
No. Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand; a state of limbo probably suits all three of Arbcom, Wikipedia and PD himself better than a "yes you can come back" and the inevitable flareup between PD and his detractors, or formally declaring him a nonperson and creating
Greg Kohs 2.0 lobbing grenades at us. Wikipedia's bureaucracy sometimes seems curiously unwilling to learn the lesson that ignoring is generally more effective than banning at shutting people up, especially in an environment in which attention is the only significant reward for most people's behavior.
******************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 at 17:47
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Continuing threats of extreme disruption by Abd
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
As with most of these people,
Abd is a lot more cover than book. I very much doubt he'll ever rise above the level of "vague background nuisance", and he'll probably get bored fairly quickly;
unlike Kohs and Moulton he has no deep ideological dog in this fight.
Greg Kohs makes a valid point in that thread. Legal action against Morrow would be recognized as a last resort action against a seriously mentally ill person who poses a clear and present danger to individuals.
Legal action against Abd would be ridiculed as a massively powerful global organization using the law to shut up a minor crank, and both the tech press and the information-wants-to-be-free Assangists would (correctly) gleefully point out the many cranks and crackpots who have been tolerated or openly welcomed on Wikimedia projects over the years. Would you want to be Sue or Jimbo on the day the guy from Wired calls for a quote on why we're taking legal action against Abd, while turning blind eyes to multiple Baxter incarnations?
*******************************************************************
From: Jonathan Hochman <jehochman AT gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:24
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Please remove falsehood on Wikipedia
To: Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com>
Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Dude! That's exactly what happened. If you want me to remove comments, I am glad to do so because
Wikipedia has no interest in you at all.On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132609389>
> Jonathan Hochman falsely states as fact that "A company called [[User:Wikipedia Review]] was permanently banned for selling articles to clients."
>
> We all know that
User:Wikipedia Review was never permanently banned (that account was blocked so as not to cause confusion with the account User:Thekohser). And the account User:Thekohser was banned for reasons other than "selling articles to clients". That account was banned once for daring to say it was not interested in litigating User:Durova, even though she libeled me. Then after being unbanned by the Arbitration Committee, it was banned again for daring to call for the release of an audio file that recorded a 2-hour Q&A session with Wikimedia Foundation board candidates.
>
> Meanwhile, this is also false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=365989803 ... unless there is such a thing as "banned by Jimbo", which seems to be the false dogma documented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lis..._banned_users#M>
> I won't have falsehoods spread on Wikipedia about the nature of how I came to be a "banned" person on Wikipedia, because it materially affects my ability to support my means of income. Please redact your falsehood, Jonathan, before Monday.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Greg
********************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:27
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Jack/Barong and respect
To: "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "marc@uberbox.org" <marc@uberbox.org>
I'm sure of it.
Aside from the outright nuts like Amorrow everyone here for any length of time,
even the hasten the day hardliners like Kohs, thinks they're doing what's best. Our job is ultimately to prevent the disparity between all the different opinions from ripping the thing apart.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>;
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Jack/Barong and respect
Sent: Wed, May 11, 2011 7:38:42 PM
On 11/05/2011 3:34 PM, Risker wrote:
I now note Jack claiming that his use of socks that ultimately got him banned in the first place was actually "defending the project" against White Cat, and that everything he does on Wikipedia is solely to improve the project, as if being unable to have sockpuppets is adversely affecting his ability to do that. Even if I was inclined to bite the bullet, his escalation and revision of history here is becoming increasingly concerning.
Was there ever any doubt that Jack (perhaps entirely sincerely) believes he is a maligned hero and that we're all idiots for not seeing it?
-- Coren / Marc
*************************************************************************
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 3, 2011 at 14:18
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Board candidacy
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Telepathically?
-x
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:13 PM,
Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How does one "submit your summary" for the WMF board elections, if the account to use is blocked on Meta (but not blocked on Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Commons, or Wikisource)?
>
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011>
> Greg
*********************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:21
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Favor - BLP cleanup needed
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Done a possibly-out-of-process oversight on the offending additions, since if you can look up his history so can he, and I doubt we want a judge
(or Greg Kohs) ever finding out that such content sat on Wikipedia for a week unnoticed. If anyone thinks I overstepped the mark, feel free to unrevdelete (is that a word?).
________________________________
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tue, 26 April, 2011 17:16:40
Subject: [arbcom-l] Favor - BLP cleanup needed
[[Stephen Victor Wilson]] is a U.S. federal judge whose biography urgently needs BLP cleanup. I argued a case yesterday in front of this judge (this is what led me to happen to look up his article), so I cannot edit the article myself or post about it on the BLP noticeboard as I otherwise would. If someone could give this prompt attention, I would appreciate it.
Newyorkbrad
************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 21:06
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Followup request
To: "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "jayvdb@gmail.com" <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Likewise. If [Durova] wants to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds, she's just another
Peter Damian without the defence of the bad treatment PD received. If we take her ransom note demands seriously we just feed her ego. At the moment
she's just a low rent Greg Kohs.
************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:52
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Secret plans for Pedro Re: Proposal for unblocking
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Ottava bitched and appealed, but didn't (AFAIK) do them both at the same time; plus, Ottava was happy to follow the "I don't agree that I was the problem but I understand why other people got pissed off and will try to stop it happening again" formulation, while right now PD doesn't look like he'll settle for anything less than
FT2 being battered to death with a spoon. As you know, I'd ideally like to see them both get a second chance to sink or swim on their own merits, but as it stands, not for PD. (Some of the points in his article are actually valid, but they're mixed in with liberal doses of
Kohs-ese. Besides, I can't take any "scientific journal" that uses the Comic Sans font seriously.)
************************************************************************
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 19:20
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban Appeal
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he shows up. Are you suggesting we should have an increased registration fee for banned users? ;-)
(In all fairness, though,
Ottava is fairly harmless as far as banned users likely to show up in person go. I'm more concerned that
Kohs will drop by.)
Kirill
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Just as a complete aside, will we see everyone in Washington DC in August 2012? They're going to host Wikimedia. See you there, Kirill - but I wonder if Ottava will be there...)
>
> R
>
**************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 13:18
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] An issue in the Noleander case
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
And nobody will listen. It's hard to exaggerate both how unpopular RH&E made himself, and how overwhelming the support for that decision was. Virtually everyone likely to have a complaint taken seriously anywhere—right across the spectrum from Bishonen to
Greg Kohs to Slimmy to Baseball Bugs—has personal experience of being on the receiving end of RH&E's "everyone agree with me or I'll have you all banned" bullying. (We're talking about someone who indefblocked Larry Sanger for disagreeing with him, for heaven's sake.) Some people might have complained about the process, but I can't recall ever seeing either a desysopping or a ban of a long time editor provoke so little dissent.
If SS tries to play the "martyr to Arbcom" act, he's in for a rude shock. Giano, Malleus, even Kelly Martin can get away with it because they genuinely do have the history of high quality positive achievements to point to, and can legitimately argue that they bring far more to the table than they take. SS's main contribution appears to be annoying a lot of people with "information has a right to be free" posturing at various Wikileaks-related pages, and having an edit history (spike–one year gap—spike–two year gap–spike) that's pretty much a textbook example of a sockmaster having their primary account banned and reverting to their old identity, and it's a safe bet that Slim and Jayjg won't be shy in pointing that out.
**********************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 15:26
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Suggestion
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Yes and no. From the Wikipedia point of view we should be looking forward not back, but if this isn't addressed in some way it will keep being the skeleton in the corner. It is not a great secret that Wikipedia's internal administration was seriously messed up in 2007 and a lot of people (including PD) were caught in the crossfire from the internal skirmishes, and that the problems caused back then have never satisfactorily been addressed. (The fallout from Durova v Giano, Epbr123 v Malleus, PD v FT2, Majorly's sockfarm v Lara and Slimvirgin v everyone else, all of which happened around that time and none of which were properly resolved, are all still poisoning internal relationships on the project to this day.)
A form of words like "we recognize that the process was flawed" doesn't point fingers at any one individual, but makes it clear that this is an offer of reconciliation, not a presidential pardon. (In legalese, I guess it would be the difference between "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "absolute discharge".) The form of words used doesn't affect Wikipedia either way, but how PD interprets it could be the difference between us getting a productive and worthwhile editor or getting
Greg Kohs 2.0.
***********************************************************************
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:25
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Suggestion
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
You make entirely reasonable points, and I do not disagree with you. I'm hoping we don't see the "clever" edit summary issues that ultimately undid Kohs. To be honest, having done some further research about a year after the fact,
I was quite shocked at the level of obsession Kohs has about Jimmy Wales, to the point that I was kind of surprised it hasn't come back to bit him in other aspects of his (Kohs') life. Much as PD seems to be obsessed about FT2, I don't think it's really in the same ballpark.
Risker/Anne
************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 06:54
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (from RH&E)
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
By continuing to reply to him, we've given him the impression that we realise how important he is and are trying to find a way to allow him back while covering up just how evil we were for upsetting him in the first place. His next step will be a ransom-note style list of unreasonable demands, as conditions for his deigning to return.
You have to bear in mind that, as far as he's concerned, he's the single most important person on the internet; as it's now been a month, by now we should all be realising that the place is falling apart without him and be begging for him to come back, and he's probably genuinely baffled as to why his inbox isn't full to the brim with grovelling apologies from Arbcom, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner. If you've ever had any dealings with
Abd, Kohs, Durova, FT2 or Poetlister, this will all seem wearily familiar.
************************************************************************
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 17:51
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] The Jagged85 affair
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
me too.
I found Peter Damian alot more reasonable than Kohs, Ottava, and many othersCas
************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:59
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Email to Malleus Fatuorum
To: "arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org" <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "jayvdb@gmail.com" <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Wikisource does seem to have supplanted Simple as en-wiki's penal colony lately...
The frustrating thing with M is that almost all she does is good quality. The problem is, the remaining fraction is so utterly toxic it massively outweighs the positives.
Poetlister, Peter Damian and Kohs are the same.************************************************************************
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Mon, 14 March, 2011 21:31:55
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] RH&E quick question
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> wrote:
>
> My take on such discussions is that if we don't have such debates ahead of time, we may do stupid things when forced to react unprepared. I'd rather see such possibilities discussed openly yet privately among ourselves than left unspoken.
>
...and on that note, I think that we should probably still seek comment from RH&E about these postings (after the case is closed), in case he ever runs for re-adminship, or in case the postings are ever found independently and brought up to us.
-x
Concur. As per my previous comments, simple Googling of the terms on the early versions of his userpage brings up the material in question among the first or second hits. Given that this case has raised RHE's profile, assuming he remains active
it's only a matter of time before Usher (or Durova, or Probey, or Kohs, or any of the other self-proclaimed super-sleuths) stumble across it as well. "Duty of care" cuts both ways; we ought to be thinking both of the impact on Wikipedia, and the impact on RHE, if one morning Seth Finkelstein and Larry Sanger have plastered
"Self-confessed sex offender is active on Wikipedia!!!" across the tech pages of the Guardian. (Cynically, the best solution would be if RH&E had a temper tantrum during this case and conducted a RTV—we could then delete the entire history of his userpage without the sudden disappearance raising eyebrows.)
***********************************************************************
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 09:36
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Mathsci and IP editor again
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
I wish I had stalkers so benign. Frankly, I think his stalker feeding off of Mathsci's annoyance--Mathsci is reverting perfectly valid edits because of this. I don't know if A.K. is like WR denizens, but
they tend to get a kick out of having their good edits reverted (see Kohs, for example). I usually think DENY is a better strategy.
As for the block, it's never that soft a block when account creation is blocked. The site is dead to new editors in that range. On the other hand, I suppose this range has been a problem in the past, presumably because it's crazy dynamic. But then again, isn't most of Britain? In sum, I don't have strong feelings about it, but I don't think this is the best approach.
Frank
***********************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 14:20
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] WR
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
For those who aren't au fait with the ins and outs of WR, a good guideline is that anything Somey or Kelly Martin says should be taken seriously (even if one doesn't agree);
anything Greg Kohs says is usually worth reading (he's surprisingly good at spotting genuine gathering storms before they break, no doubt owing to five years of Jimbo-watching); anything anyone else says can be safely ignored.
************************************************************************
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 14:51
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] WR
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I take Kohs more seriously than I do most of them. He was treated appallingly at the time by Wikipedia (he's one of the few people who's ever managed to wring a written apology out of Jimbo for the way he was treated), and at least he's made an effort to put his alternative vision into practice, rather than just sit round engaging in "if I were in charge" bitching (that MWB sucks like an electrolux is neither here nor there). In real life he's some kind of bigwig in his local church—I always wonder what the congregation must make of what comes up if you google his name.
***********************************************************************
From: KnightLago <KnightLago@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:53
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Upcoming unblock of Comcast Center building
To: Barry Kort <barry.kort@gmail.com>
Cc: Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com>
Greg,
When you create a sock, and I find it, I will block it. If you are using that IP again, I will block it as well. As for duration, it will be longer than the last time.
We have not had any problems granting IP block exempt as needed.
--KnightLago
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Barry Kort <barry.kort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
It's the hard-block life for Kohs!> It's the hard-block life for Kohs!
>
> 'Steada treated, he gets kicked!
> 'Steada kisses, he gets licked!
>
> It's the hard-block life!
> Got no edits to speak of, so,
> It's the hard-block, don't you know!
>
> It's the hard-block life!
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Kohs <thekohser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Knight...
>>
>> I'm just curious, when the IP-blocked 68.87.42.110 comes up for unblocking on the English Wikipedia in less than two months, when I make a new sockpuppet account but don't do anything with the account that would even remotely suggest that it's me behind the account, are you going to just block the sockpuppet, or are you going to block the sockpuppet and also re-block the IP address? If the latter, how long will the re-block of the IP address last?
>>
>> Note, about 3,000 employees and contractors use this IP address. Apparently, you are not flooded with requests from "genuine" editors who need to use the IP.
>>
>> Greg
>>
************************************************************************
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 08:35
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Unblock-en-l] Comcast Corporation Request
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
This is just FYI. An account was created for this individual through unblock-l, so there's nothing for us to do here, but I wonder if Greg Kohs will appreciate that we didn't tell this executive just who the problem user is at [business name] that probably caused the block.
Newyorkbrad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <redacted>
Date: 2010/12/21
Subject: [Unblock-en-l] [business name] Corporation Request
To: "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org" <unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
My name is <redacted> and I am Director of Corporate and Financial Communications for [business name]. There are inaccuracies in our CEO’s Wikipedia profile as well is in our company’s profile. I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia so I can correct the inaccuracies. The IP address that is being blocked is 68.87.42.110.
Here is what the Wikipedia site says when I try to edit the pages to correct them:
“Account creation from this IP address (68.87.42.110) has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access.
To enquire about the block or request that an account be created for you, please send an e-mail to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org with details of your IP address, the administrator who blocked you and the reason they gave (this information is available below). If you are requesting an account, please include in your e-mail the account name you wish. We apologise for any inconvenience caused to any innocent users.
Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (68.87.42.110) was blocked by KnightLago, who gave the reason If you are a bona fide user on this IP range, and affected by this, please request unblocking, and ask for checkuser and IP block exemption.â€
Please unblock me as soon as possible.
Thank you.
**************************************************************************
Date: Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 13:56
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Mike Godwin / "Read only" access to Functionaries
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Cool Hand Luke
> <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I don't recall an admission of wrong-doing. The brokered
> > solution was passed without dissent precisely because we didn't admit
> > anything (and weirdly, we didn't even explain why dozens of revisions on
> > numerous pages were oversighted).
>
> There was an explanation of sorts:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ement_by_ArbCom>
> "Although arbitrators were worried that a Streisand-like effect would
> occur, this suppression was the desire of David Gerard, who felt
> defamed by the comments, and it is proper under the oversight policy
> ("Removal of potentially libellous information")."
>
> Carcharoth
>
>
Oh yeah. I remember contributing some of that language. "Streisand-like effect" is something I would write.
Coren may have also been referring to the revision that NYB proposed. We posted the revision, but David insisted on a full retraction and apology, which an apparent majority of the committee was not willing to provide. That's the bit I was thinking of.
Thanks for your point-by-point. I don't have anything to add except that I remain convinced that functionaries has and may still have no less than three discrete leakers ("Wikileaker," the Register leaker, which Wikileaker disclaimed, and at least one additional leak to Kelly Martin--I am also convince that someone leaked items to MZMcBride during
the Kohs experiment, but no one seems to agree with me on that point).
Frank
********************************************************
And I've tired of copying and pasting. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) Next up: script to dump results with bbcode.
Kohs/MyWikiBiz, The Arbitrary Committee is not amused
