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

[Peter Damian]

I put this in the 'oversighted edits' thread yesterday but no one seems to have noticed it so I will give it a whole thread in case any one is interested. I am now publishing material from private correspondence with Arbcom. Apologies to the squeamish for doing so but it is now two months since I asked them to act on this, and they are refusing even to acknowledge my mails. The excerpt is from a document put together by WJBScribe, which is remarkably accurate and candid. In it, Scribe admits that the edits had been oversighted, and mentions the name of Jimbo and Cary Bass.

I have hesitated to publish this for some time, because it shows how stupid Scribe was. He says the edits were not particularly momentous. Well, first, read the edits themselves. Second, did he not ask himself why if there was nothing wrong with them, they were being deleted so as to hide the fact that FT2 was the editor? Third, did he not see this would do nothing but inflame the situation (as it indeed did)?

Matters came to a head later when B--- claimed that edits which formed
part of his "evidence" had been deleted from the article on Zoophilia. He
had previous linked to 2 edits to that page which were no longer in the
database - as there was no deletion log entry for that page, it appeared
they had been oversighted. I was copied into an email exchange where Jimbo
asked Cary who had oversighted those edits, but did not see the reply if
there was one. I remain unaware of who oversighted the edits or why they did
so. Some have asked since why I did not pursue this matter more. The honest
answer is that by this stage I simply did not believe B--- - I had seen
the edits and did not recall them being very momentous - they merely
confirmed FT2 had edited the article [my emphasis]. The deletion of evidence I had found
utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were
better placed to investigate the matter. I had put B--- in contact with
Jimbo, it was up to him whether to pursue the matter further. Had the
oversighting been improper, that would no doubt have come to light. I never
saw it as my role to investigate B---'s claims, why I regard as
fantastical, and felt that putting him in touch with appropriate people and
preventing the matter from derailing the onwiki elections should be the
limit of my involvement.
2008/5/8 Will wjbscribe@gmail.com

Interesting that someone who claims to be a lawyer says that the deletion of evidence does not concern him much, though I suppose lawyers do see a lot of that don't they.

I have also added this to my talk page on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin...ersighted_Edits

On the talk page I have also included the reply to my March email to Flo.

[edit] Later this afternoon when unblocked I will leave a message on Wales's talk page asking him to acknowledge that this is what happened, and to admit that he was involved.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 11:37am

[wikiwhistle]

I have also added this to my talk page on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hin...ersighted_Edits

On the talk page I have also included the reply to my March email to Flo.

[edit] Later this afternoon when unblocked I will leave a message on Wales's talk page asking him to acknowledge that this is what happened, and to admit that he was involved.

If you publish private correspondence, however relevant, on WP, unfortunately I doubt you will be unblocked, or unblocked long enough to message Jimbo. Jimbo's talk page is famous for just having undesirable comments removed, anyway. If you say things of which arbs disapprove sufficiently on your talk page, I fear the page will be protected so you can't edit there either.

Oh I see that someone already removed the 'private correspondence' from your talk page.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Sun 6th July 2008, 12:22pm

[thekohser]

Peter's going to one day learn that if you have a problem with the way Enron does business, it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good taking your complaint to Kenneth Lay or Andy Fastow.

[Peter Damian]

If you publish private correspondence, however relevant, on WP, unfortunately I doubt you will be unblocked, or unblocked long enough to message Jimbo. Jimbo's talk page is famous for just having undesirable comments removed, anyway. If you say things of which arbs disapprove sufficiently on your talk page, I fear the page will be protected so you can't edit there either.

Oh I see that someone already removed the 'private correspondence' from your talk page.

That's fine. They could have said I made the email up, but the message suggests that they have contacted Scribe, so that is an admission of its authenticity (not that this would have mattered, as other trusted parties were sent copies back in May).

I now have no interest in Wikipedia. I am still a bit bothered by the way paedophiles (and others) use it for a platform for their views, but there is nothing I can do about this, at least on-wiki.

The only point of publishing the Scribe thing was to show I wasn't lying about the deleted edits. Now we know for sure.

Peter's going to one day learn that if you have a problem with the way Enron does business, it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good taking your complaint to Kenneth Lay or Andy Fastow.

Jimbo's talk page is not quite like that!

However

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pri..._correspondence

suggests this did not achieve consensus in the 'community'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 1:46pm

[Moulton]

I now have no interest in Wikipedia.

I abandoned the goal of trying to improve mainspace articles a while ago.

What's left to do is to craft an insightful model of what Wikipedia has devolved to, now that it's evidently morphing from an encyclopedia into some kind of MMPONWMG (Massive Multi-Player Online Narcissistic Wounding and Mugging Game).

[LaraLove]

Reblocked. Get over it.

[Peter Damian]

Reblocked. Get over it.

That's fine. Had no plans to continue. You guys have lied enough.

The deletion of evidence I had found utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were better placed to investigate the matter. (Wjb Scribe)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 4:35pm

[LaraLove]

Reblocked. Get over it.

That's fine. Had no plans to continue. You guys have lied enough.

The deletion of evidence I had found utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were better placed to investigate the matter. (Wjb Scribe)

Hey now. I haven't lied about shit.

[Peter Damian]

Reblocked. Get over it.

That's fine. Had no plans to continue. You guys have lied enough.

The deletion of evidence I had found utterly unpersuasive did not concern me much and it seemed to me others were better placed to investigate the matter. (Wjb Scribe)

Hey now. I haven't lied about shit.

You are helping them lie. That's fine.

[edit] Bear in mind that posting on the Hinnibilis page was a reply to an attack on me left there by FT2. It was a reply to his claim about the December block. So it's OK for him to harrass me on my page, but I have no right of reply. Right?

You will say I can write to the Arbcom list or whatever. But we have already been there:

----- Original Message -----
From: "FloNight" To: "Family" "Paul August"

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail


> Yes, evidence can be submitted privately to me. I can forward the
> material to individual arbs to read to ensure privacy.
>
> If it is something that FT2 (or anyone else) needs to see in order to
> make a response, then ArbCom can redact the name of the person
> submitting the evidence or do what ever else is needed to maintain
> privacy. In any event, we will discuss it with the person sending it
> first.
>
> I'm starting to look into the issue of oversighted edits now. I'll
> follow up with you and the other arbs, as well.
>
> Also, I'm going to go back and reread everything that has been sent so
> far to try and get a broad understanding of the situation.
>
> I'll contact FT2 and ask him to not make comments on your talk page
> per your request.
>
> Maybe you should consider achieving your whole talk page with an edit
> summary saying that you have read it. That is a suggestion not a
> request, your talk page your call. But it might help.
>
> I hope now that you are unblocked that you will go back to editing
> articles.There was much goodness in your contributions.
>
> Personally, I find it relaxing and fulfilling to write articles. It it
> is so for you as well, maybe it will help you deal with the stress of
> this situation.
>
> I'll be back in touch soon,
>
> [Flo]

Note the two broken promises. That they were looking at the issue of the oversights. And that FT2 would not be allowed to harrass me on my talk page. Absolutely outrageous.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 4:50pm

[Peter Damian]

Oh I see. Lara has also deleted the talk page with the nice message from FT2 on it. Fine. So harrass someone, wait till they speak out, then delete everything.

Lara, you are probably to young, but do you know the meaning of 'Orwellian'?

[LaraLove]

Oh I see. Lara has also deleted the talk page with the nice message from FT2 on it. Fine. So harrass someone, wait till they speak out, then delete everything.

Lara, you are probably to young, but do you know the meaning of 'Orwellian'?

I can go back and restore everything that doesn't include you violating policy, but considering the indef block it seemed pointless.

I did not know the meaning of 'Orwellian', but my hobby is editing an encyclopedia, so I looked it up. You've expanded my knowledge. Thank you.

[Peter Damian]

The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being non-favourable to the welfare of a free-society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Seems very appropriate in this case!

But there is another saying called 'a liar must have a good memory'. In this, case, you see that Flo's message refers to a message placed by FT2 on my talk page. You have managed to erase the past, but you cannot erase the email. That is why off-wiki correspondence is so important. It is the only record we have of the truth. That is why Wikipedia Review is so important.

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 6th July 2008, 6:09pm

[LaraLove]

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

I have no idea what FOB is. Actually I judge people by what they say in articles.

[LaraLove]

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.

I have no idea what FOB is. Actually I judge people by what they say in articles.

Fall Out Boy. Punk-pop band.

[Proabivouac]

I neve saw it as my role to investigate B---'s claims, why I regard as fantastical, and felt that putting him in touch with appropriate people and preventing the matter from derailing the onwiki elections should be the limit of my involvement.

Ah, but there was never any chance of "derailing the onwiki elections", only of defeating FT2's candidacy!

So Will's job was make sure this didn't happen, while your claims remained uninvestigated.

What a fine decision that was! When you look at what a great job FT2 is doing as an arbitrator, and all the fine articles promiting bestiality, pederasty and NLP he continues to protect, it's just frightening to think what might have happened if WJBscribe hadn't stepped in to save the day.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 6th July 2008, 8:34pm

[wikiwhistle]

So Will's job was make sure this didn't happen, while your claims remained uninvestigated.

What a fine decision that was! When you look at what a great job FT2 is doing as an arbitrator,

The Arbitration Committee seems so stable and it's position so secure recently, too.

[Peter Damian]

Maybe I am being stupid, but I look again here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIVATE

and it still says

This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion.

[prospero]

Oh I see. Lara has also deleted the talk page with the nice message from FT2 on it. Fine. So harrass someone, wait till they speak out, then delete everything.

Lara, you are probably to young, but do you know the meaning of 'Orwellian'?

I can go back and restore everything that doesn't include you violating policy, but considering the indef block it seemed pointless.

I did not know the meaning of 'Orwellian', but my hobby is editing an encyclopedia, so I looked it up. You've expanded my knowledge. Thank you.

Since when is damnatio memoriae a policy?

This post has been edited by prospero: Sun 6th July 2008, 10:19pm

[Poetlister]

When you look at what a great job FT2 is doing as an arbitrator, and all the fine articles promiting bestiality, pederasty and NLP he continues to protect, it's just frightening to think what might have happened if WJBscribe hadn't stepped in to save the day.

Yes, if FT2 weren't an arbitrator maybe Charles Matthews or FloNight might have written the result of my appeal for unblock. Then what would have happened?