| |
|
  |
 User:Chase me ladies, I'm the cavalry, Another member of the military moonlights as an admin and makes a fool |
|
|
| Heat |
|
Tenured
Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined:
Member No.: 1,066
|
User:Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry is a member of "The Armed Forces of the Crown" (ie the Royal Navy) and a wikipedia admin on OTRS duty. He seems to have cocked this one up by taking at 100% face value an OTRS complaint by professional conspiracy theorist Isreal Shamir that User:RolandR was using Wikipedia to try to get him assassinated. Can you really enforce BLP by libelling an editor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heat |
|
Tenured
Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined:
Member No.: 1,066
|
He strikes me as the type who is too immature to handle authority. He reads an OTRS complaint, lacks the capacity or intellectual tools to deal with it critically and instead identifies completely with the complainant. He then exceeds his authority and violates the rights of others and uses his secret and privileged knowledge of the content of the OTRS letter to justify everything. Trust me, I'm an admin, I can't tell you the reasons for my actions except in enough detail as to completely bias the discussion. And, of course, he can't resist lording it over mere editors and trumping up the fact that he's a member of the elect trusted with TOP SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL information. Another admin, Jayjg, no friend of RolandR has looked at the OTRS complaint. This is his verdict on it: QUOTE Well, I think I can say that I've read the OTRS ticket-based accusations raised against you in that thread, and they appear run the gamut from unbelievable to laughable, consisting of the same kinds of non-factual conspiratorial inventions that are often advanced by the subject of the article. I don't know what User:Chase me ladies, I'm the cavalry does in the military but I certainly hope, for the sake of Her Majesty and all, that he's not in military intelligence since a) he obviously lacks the critical thinking skills needed to assess information and b) he obviously lacks discretion and doesn't know how to handle "confidential" information. He'd rather gossip scandalously in order to let everyone know that he has authoritay (as Cartman in South Park would say) then actually be mature and keep confidential information confidential if, for no other reason, than not to spread gossip and slander. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
I'm redundantly repeating myself again for the umpteenth time, but this is a classic example of why an opt-out policy would be good for Wikipedia - there's no reason why someone who calls himself something as silly as "Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry" should be dealing with this, or should even be allowed to deal with this, other than to ask this person, "do you want the article deleted, with no chance of it ever being restored while you're alive"? And if the person says "yes," that's it - clean break, end of discussion. Nobody loses, not really. Instead, we get incidents like this one, which only make Wikipedia look even more stupid than it actually is. If Shamir says, "no, I don't want the article deleted," then they simply say, "sorry, but in that case your options are to let people smear you, or try to fix the article yourself, or find out who's smearing you and sue them, at least until such time as you can sue the Wikimedia Foundation for hosting the article." What would Shamir's choice likely be? Does anyone know? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) If he's at least partially sane (which does seem arguable), IMO he'd probably want it deleted. From what I gather, the only real purpose for this article is to further demonstrate that there are still people in the world who don't like Jews for reasons that are at best incoherent, and at worst, stupid and hateful - and that some of those people are in positions where they could conceivably influence others, assuming the word "others" means "a bunch of gullible idiots." But the article only makes him look more influential, probably more than he actually is, and certainly more than he deserves to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Basil |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 38
Joined:
Member No.: 8,782
|
Do they really allow naval ratings to sport such a haircut? In my day you would have been sent straight to the barbers and then some. I guess he's really a wannabe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heat |
|
Tenured
Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined:
Member No.: 1,066
|
QUOTE(Basil @ Sat 14th August 2010, 6:10pm) 
Do they really allow naval ratings to sport such a haircut? In my day you would have been sent straight to the barbers and then some. I guess he's really a wannabe.
Those are definitely naval regulation blue jeans. Surely, you're not suggesting that a Wikipedia admin, let alone a Wikipedia editor, would fake their bio in a quest for respect, buy a surplus navy shirt and head down to his local dock to get some pics taken in front of a submarine? Isn't it a violation of military discipline to be half in uniform like that? His user page has a picture of him sporting shorter hair and (apparently) firing a gun - or at least posing with a gun. Unclear to me if he's wearing proper naval attire. Could be worse though. At least he's not eating a cheese sandwich. This post has been edited by Heat: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Emperor |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,871
Joined:
Member No.: 2,042
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 14th August 2010, 12:31am)
I'm redundantly repeating myself again for the umpteenth time, but this is a classic example of why an opt-out policy would be good for Wikipedia - there's no reason why someone who calls himself something as silly as "Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry" should be dealing with this, or should even be allowed to deal with this, other than to ask this person, "do you want the article deleted, with no chance of it ever being restored while you're alive"? And if the person says "yes," that's it - clean break, end of discussion. Nobody loses, not really. Instead, we get incidents like this one, which only make Wikipedia look even more stupid than it actually is.
Encyc has no BLPs. Let Wikipedia deal with that godawful mess. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Heat |
|
Tenured
Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined:
Member No.: 1,066
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 14th August 2010, 7:10pm) QUOTE(Heat @ Sat 14th August 2010, 1:17pm) Could be worse though. At least he's not eating a cheese sandwich. Particularly if the cheese sandwich was Photoshopped in later on - that would be terrible!QUOTE(Horsey) Can anyone guess where that photo was taken? It looks a lot like the HMS Ocelot, an Oberon-class sub that's in drydock in Chatham (and pretty much a museum piece at this point), but I wouldn't swear to it. I might swear at it, though, if it surfaced too close to my rowboat while I was fishing or something. So is this guy really in the Royal Navy or is he a bike messenger with a Walter Mitty streak? |
|
|
|
|
|
| A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 14th August 2010, 6:25pm) QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sat 14th August 2010, 3:04pm) Well, that Panwyn chick found him amusing -- remember they were editing together on a date? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) That's Panyd, silly boy. Panwyn, Panyd, Panovision, Pandemonium...eh, you can't tell these characters apart without a program. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Heat @ Sat 14th August 2010, 3:43pm) So is this guy really in the Royal Navy or is he a bike messenger with a Walter Mitty streak? Generally speaking, if a person's claimed backstory is fairly plausible, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some of you might recall that I even wanted to give Essjay the benefit of the doubt at first, after seeing his Wikia-staff user page. It does seem as though an active-duty submariner would be too busy, uh, submarining to be a Wikipedia admin, but to his credit, he does take signifcant amounts of time-off from WP activities, most recently from July 1 to July 20. The username tends to suggest someone who's trying a bit too hard to be clever, but that's not proof of deception, nor is the fact that he's photographed here in front of an all-but-mothballed submarine in drydock rather than one that's in regular use. (It's possible the HMS Ocelot is still used for training, I suppose.) I'm also reasonably certain that there's no law, even in the UK, against appearing in public wearing only part of one's uniform - though I doubt they encourage it, of course. Still, to me that's actually the biggest question here: Why not the whole uniform? Even on Wikipedia it would be nothing to be ashamed of, and if he's concerned about being identified (though he already has been), you'd think he'd avoid posting any photos of himself whatsoever. And as Mr. Ba - oops, Basil points out, his hair is too long even for the Royal Nay-vee ( hey man, it's something other than else!). But hair grows back, and the "partial uniform" thing is probably nothing - maybe he just doesn't think he looks good in it. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 14th August 2010, 4:26pm) I still haven't figured out the need to air out his navel, as he's holding up the shirt to do. I guess this really is navel duty. It's possible that he's only realizing that his shirt isn't tucked in as he sees the camera is being pointed at him, and he's reaching down to do that, sort of as a reflex or whatever. But if that were the case, you'd think he wouldn't be so fond of the photo that he'd upload it onto Wikipedia and put it on his user page...? Anyhoo, he does seem to be an odd sort of character, but I'm far from ready to say his backstory is bogus. After all, if it isn't bogus, then to say otherwise might easily be taken as disrespectful to the entire Royal Navy Submarine Command, a fine group of brave and sharp fellows if ever there was one, who are serving their country honorably and (in most cases) quite selflessly. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Skinny87 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 12
Joined:
Member No.: 8,963
|
That is indeed Chatham Dockyard - you can recognize HMS Cavalier in the background, the Second World War British Destroyer Memorial, I used to volunteer there.
Oceolt is in permanent drydock and certainly isn't used for training; it's been a few years, but if memory serves she's been welded to the drydock and wouldn't be able to go out to sea even if she wanted to. As an aside, if anyone ever can get to the Dockyard, it's a great place to explore, if a little pricey. The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtle Bee |
|
melli fera, fera...
Group: Inactive
Posts: 340
Joined:
Member No.: 17,787
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th August 2010, 9:54pm) QUOTE(Skinny87 @ Tue 17th August 2010, 4:27pm) The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around. Thank goodness I'm an admin here, and therefore I would never dream of quoting something like that out-of-context! QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 17th August 2010, 9:51pm)
Also, I'm interested in getting my hands on anything you've been ingesting orally...
Yup. It's a good policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Skinny87 |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 12
Joined:
Member No.: 8,963
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 18th August 2010, 5:54am) QUOTE(Skinny87 @ Tue 17th August 2010, 4:27pm) The Ocelot is a tight squeeze to get into, but quite impressive to go around. Thank goodness I'm an admin here, and therefore I would never dream of quoting something like that out-of-context! Of course you wouldn't - think of WR's reputation! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted. QUOTE Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old. Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English). Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism. For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive. Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site. He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free. That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects. That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 16th January 2011, 3:42pm) Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted. QUOTE Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old. Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English). Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism. For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive. Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site. He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free. That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects. That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601[edit] Oh yes and he is not working 'for free'. Presumably is work on Wikipedia is being funded at the taxpayer's expense, i.e. at my expense. Outrageous. Get a job (and a life). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Heat |
|
Tenured
Group: Regulars
Posts: 726
Joined:
Member No.: 1,066
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 16th January 2011, 4:12pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 16th January 2011, 3:42pm) Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted. QUOTE Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old. Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English). Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism. For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive. Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site. He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free. That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects. That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601[edit] Oh yes and he is not working 'for free'. Presumably is work on Wikipedia is being funded at the taxpayer's expense, i.e. at my expense. Outrageous. Get a job (and a life). Hm, he says ArbComm deals with "content disputes". This post has been edited by Heat: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 16th January 2011, 6:41pm) QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 16th January 2011, 10:42am) Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site.
He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free. Uh, so what happened to the Royal Navy? I thought he was out doing the Rule Brittania routine on the choppy waves. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) And that video on the BBC web site is hilarious. He looks and sounds like the gecko from the GEICO commercials that run on US television. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) QUOTE I am in the Royal Naval Reserve, occasionally full-time and occasionally part-time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chase_me...27m_the_CavalryOccasionally none of the time, I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
|
| RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 16th January 2011, 3:42pm) Bumping this with the recent newsround piece on the BBC, for your interest. Warning: pictures of a Wikipedian's bedsit, not for the faint-hearted. QUOTE Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, is 10 years old. Since its launch in 2001, the site has grown from nothing to around 17m articles (3.5m in English). Its open style, with most articles available to be edited by anyone, has attracted controversy and criticism. For some, the ability to update and contribute to the site is addictive. Richard Symonds is one of the UK's top "Wikipedians" and spends up to eight hours a day working on the site. He is currently unemployed, so is working full-time for free. That dedication has led to Richard becoming one of only 18 "Arbitrators": high-end users voted onto a committee that decides on the most controversial subjects. That role can also attract unwanted attention, as he explains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12181483See also here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=265601That whole interview was a real cringe-fest. Am I the only one who feels embarrassed on his behalf? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
