Cash for spam, functionary involved? Options

[Viridae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...8#Cash_for_spam

(Perm link)

[Viridae]

This is a list of who has access to the functionaries mailing list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FUNC#functionaries-en

Might provide an indication.

[Somey]

This is a list of who has access to the functionaries mailing list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FUNC#functionaries-en

Might provide an indication.

I'm not seeing any obvious cricketers...

If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably Jimbo himself. He travels a lot, so it's likely someone in India or Pakistan or South Africa taught him the essentials of the game at some point or other.

[CharlotteWebb]

If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably Jimbo himself. He travels a lot, so it's likely someone in India or Pakistan or South Africa taught him the essentials of the game at some point or other.

I'm sure Jimbo doesn't understand cricket, I'd bet dollars to donuts. He'd have to know what a crumpet is in order to...

Anyway if this is based on checkuser data, then anybody else with checkuser rights would be able to read the log and get a pretty good idea who he's talking about. They'd be unlikely to announce who the suspect is yet but should be at least able to indicate how plausible Bling-Bling's allegation is.

Of course if read the policy correctly "undisclosed sock" by itself would only be actionable if the suspect is not only a "functionary" but a current member of arbcom. However it seems like if YellowMonkey meant "current arb" he would have said so (but hey, stranger things have happened).

I can see how stress and/or boredom associated with "functionary" work, and a reluctance to acknowledge that they feel this way (lest they have some flock of busy-bodies recommending that they resign) could entice somebody to moonlight as an article editor under a secret account, and there would be nothing inherently sinister about it. Thus I'm more curious about what leads YellowMonkey to believe this editing (or some part of it) was "paid".

Speaking in general, one can consider possible scenarios in which a single-purpose account removes dodgy information from an article (about a business-man perhaps) in the interest of upholding BLP... but in a way that is indistinguishable from doing the same thing at the behest of (and possibly in exchange for compensation from) the article subject.

That is, I think WP would expect the former motive not to mean anything to a convincingly "new" user, and be more likely to assume bad faith. Shrug.

Consider also that some "functionaries" may (based on their interpretation of the alleged reasons for the removal Jayjg's "functionary" status) feel increased pressure to refrain from using their "functionary" account to edit potentially controversial topics in a way that indicates anything other than dispassionate interest.

Whatever evidence exists, whoever reviews it should be careful not to jump to conclusions not clearly warranted by it.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: