Cla68 blocked for 24 hours, Don't cross Jimbo Options

[Derktar]

ANI topic started by Dtobias
Block Log
The statement that got Cla68 the block:

Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same? [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It bears repeating, even if you contribute a great deal of information, copyediting work and time and don't get a single cent for your work, don't you dare ask for clarification or even think about crossing Jimbo because some "editor" ( using the term loosely) who is more concerned with wikipolitics than the goal of the project will come along and knock you out. The irony is that those saying that the block was justified have done relatively little to aid Wikipedia in terms of content than Cla68.

And maybe someone should let Durova know that to this day POINT still isn't a policy, simply a guideline. I'm considering e-mailing Cla68 at this point.

EDIT: Apologies to Kato, didn't see him bring it up here, though hopefully more people will be able to see and comment on the whole situation.

This post has been edited by Derktar: Tue 29th January 2008, 2:43am

[Kato]

From my point of view, this is similar in some ways to the latest LaRouche case. Where certain figures (King, Berlet) are given strange protection by admins in large part due to the participants, not due to the content. If these naive protectors actually read or understood the content disputes, they'd be appalled. The ongoing Weiss case is probably more shifty and corrupt because the orders to protect Weiss come directly from Jimbo, and relate to the presentation of dubious practices on the U.S. markets.

These episodes are clearly corrupt.

You couldn't get better examples of how corrupt WP has become and you'd have to be so ignorant or unworldly not to realise this. It is bewildering to see how group think is spiralling WP off into newer more destructive realms. And every action Wales himself makes now seems to be another blow to his own project.

The key questions to ask are:

Q. Why are the Naked Short Selling/Weiss and LaRouche articles such a mess?
Q. What do these two areas have in common?
Q. What is the root problem here?

Answer: They have both been heavily edited by notable individuals (Gary Weiss, Chip Berlet, Dennis King) with a clear Conflict Of Interest to promote a particular view from near inception. Protected by a small group of the same WP admins. The rest is history.... including the increasingly desperate and aggressive efforts of a growing number of others to stop this....

[Jonny Cache]

What do all of these cases we keep seeing have in common?

That's a darn good question.

I keep trying to share what clues I've gathered, but folks at The Wikipedia Review are as just as blind as folks at Wikipedia and all the clueless InterNeuts in the Wowie-Zowie-Web-O-Sphere.

Maybe folks didn't read the same books My Generation did in school and college. The scenario was laid out clearly enough in all of those Prophetically Dystopian novels of my childhood, and the basic principles of media dynamics that are involved in Wikipediac Devolution were all laid out by Marshall McLuhan so long ago that they passed from Archetype to Cliche when I was an Undergrub, and apparently into Oblivion now.

You all keep being distracted by one damn Message after another when you ought to be looking at the kind of Medium that is being so craftily crafted under your very noses.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 21st October 2007, 2:00am

[Kato]

Different heads for different threads, Umberto.

[Jonny Cache]

For example, people on all sides waste so gawdawful much time trying to figure out what side the Cabal is on — when it comes to this or that economic, political, religious, or scientific tiff.

The Cabal is not on any side but the Cabal's side.

Sure, maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today, but it can just as easily shift to taking the side of Southerly Eurasia any time that it becomes convenient to do so.

What does that mean for the Media Operating Characteristic (MOC) that will selected as their Most Favoured MOC?

It means that their Most Favoured MOC cannot allow itself to get phase-locked forever into any one POV. More precisely, it must be agile enough to shift its phase 180° in a period of time just ε-greater than the modal attention span of the viewing public.

How long is that?

Your Mullage May Vary, but if we look at the US case in the last Dubya-Dubya Police Action, the US media were reporting on the Future Sea Battle for just about 6 months before it started to look downright silly not to go ahead and have it.

Six months is not exactly turning on a dime, and I think that the Powers That Bee are probably trying to get that down to a temporal turning radius ≤ 6 weeks.

For now …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 9th March 2008, 1:30pm

[everyking]

Kirill seems curiously sane in the ANI discussion: "It seems a rather peculiar block. Lèse majesté is not a blockable offense; neither is asking ill-considered questions, when done in good faith. While Cla68 may well view the matter as something of a personal one, for obvious reasons, the situation seems hardly so urgent or so critical that a few quiet words could not have served just as well as a block. I would suggest that Durova lift the block, as I can't really see any benefit from keeping it in place at this point."

It contrasts quite sharply with his behavior of a few days ago, when he blocked me for a week with no warning at all for restoring a comment to my own talk page, something I was specifically allowed to do by the WP:BAN policy. He must be an interesting character.

[alienus]

King, most admins are relatively sane most of the time, at least when not defending their turf. It's only when someone dares edit an article they WP:OWN or mess with one of their lackies that they get violent.

Al

[everyking]

King, most admins are relatively sane most of the time, at least when not defending their turf. It's only when someone dares edit an article they WP:OWN or mess with one of their lackies that they get violent.

Al

My talk page is Kirill's turf? And to think, I didn't even ask his permission before I blanked it the other day.

[alienus]

My talk page is Kirill's turf? And to think, I didn't even ask his permission before I blanked it the other day.

Assholes have strange ideas of territory. It's part of what makes them assholes.

Al

[everyking]

My talk page is Kirill's turf? And to think, I didn't even ask his permission before I blanked it the other day.

Assholes have strange ideas of territory. It's part of what makes them assholes.

Al

I think I figured it out, actually. Kirill and Cla68 seem to be pals. On Cla's user page, we see him thanking Kirill for his advice and a barnstar awarded to him by Kirill. Apparently they work together in the Military History WikiProject. So the reason for the starkly contrasting approach probably lies in that friendliness and in the customary loathing of arbitrators for yours truly.

This post has been edited by everyking: Sun 21st October 2007, 7:23am

[guy]

maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today

You mean - Canada?

[Jonny Cache]

maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today

You mean — Canada?

Sorry, the wind's all wrong today — I can't tell a hawk from a hernshaw.

Jonny

[alienus]

I think I figured it out, actually. Kirill and Cla68 seem to be pals. On Cla's user page, we see him thanking Kirill for his advice and a barnstar awarded to him by Kirill. Apparently they work together in the Military History WikiProject. So the reason for the starkly contrasting approach probably lies in that friendliness and in the customary loathing of arbitrators for yours truly.

I think you've got it. As I said, if you "mess with one of their lackies" or allies, you will be singled out for special treatment.

Al

[Piperdown]

Jimmy Wales and any servants that have dared peep at the "Odious Moral Depravity" of antisocialmedia.net has now decreed that anyone who questions the issues raised has been brainwashed by Judd Bagley. Hilarious. Jimmy, you are just making it worse. Haven't you learned anything from essjay? The things that you "don't have a problem with" until you get bad press on them are amazingly consistent.

Do you really think people, ones who aren't worried about the WP banhammer, who have progressed beyond their teenage years, attained college educations in curriculums that require a level of critical and/or scientific thinking beyond childish namecalling are going to take that as a satisfactory conclusion? Do you really think that Dan Tobias, Cla68, G-dett, and others less willing to stick their wikinecks out more than once, are brainwashed? Or did they just bother to read some IP and WP editing trails? Funny, no one (publicly) on WP have any responses to the evidence presented (most of which are simply WP edits themselves). Calling names and banning people does not a good accounting make. Privately you're being made a joke of, Jimmy.

Let's try and summarize. What started this thing is no longer the issue at hand. What is at hand is the repeated occurence on WP of allowing some people to break the rules and others who aren't your friends to not be allowed to even question, not to mention remedy, that situation.

1) A person who began, after first edit-warring using an IP address, as TomStoner, then preceded to deploy a prolific sock show that continues to this day. Acknowledged of this behaviour by "arbcom" was downplayed. Using socks to create consensus and entrap "opponents" into 3RR blocks, and provoke bans via antagonization of that absurdity on the befuddled is OK on WP.

2) "Personal attacks" are OK on WP. Slandering real names if you are able to ban their purported account pseudonyms is OK. Make sure you get that ban first. Requires a friend with the admin tools and the apathy of anyone else who would care. Easy! Crying harrassment helps too.

3) Checkuser: you don't have to actually do it on WP to use it as purported "evidence" to ban someone who you don't like. Just saying you did suffices. We don't need no stinking checks and balances on WP, we are ethically unquestionable, and everyone knows that power doesn't ever corrupt. Now just where is Jayjg these days? Hmm.

4) When an equivalent of checkusering is actually shown off-site (because it will not be addressed/allowed on-site) to prove abuse on WP, it's "harassment", "stalking", and "odious". Nevermind the facts. It can also be called "drinking the cool-aid of banned users" if you are a Queen of WP. The important part is that you got the message insubmissable by getting the messenger(s) declared odious. You know that evidence that didn't get a warrant first? Damn it, this is wikilawyering, not the truth.

5) Showing edits where a user forgets which sock he has on, those 2 socks (and more) held "conversations" on article talk pages to create consensus, that's OK on WP. Wales "does not have a problem with that". IAR!

6) It's OK to put reliably sourced "negative" information in BLP's of people you don't like, while censoring it from other BLP's you do like. For BLP's of Gary Weiss, George Soros, or any other BLP/Autobiography/Promo that Mantanmoreland, Samiharris (who if tables were turned, would be banned as a spa meatpuppet), and Christofurio" (confessed real-world journalist for a hedgefund trade pub that writes favourable articles on the defendants in lawsuits initiated by Byrne because they are the customers of his pub) - it's not OK to include any "negative" information, no matter how sparse the BLP is in the first place and in need of reliably sourced material that isn't self-sourced. The other 99% of BLP's of people who don't edit WP themselves and don't cry harrasment to Jimmy are open-season for any weighting or inclusion of reliable source material of any kind. Contest it and a 3-ring sockcircus will 3RR you.

7) If you want to remain on WP farm after seeing Paris, then renounce what you have learned with your own eyes, and come crawling back with a vague apology for something you didn't do wrong. Subservience uber demonstratable truth.

8) Cla68, give it up. You are not going to ever be an admin on WP as long as it is run by Wales. You applied Wales's own WP rules to situations that required IAR as Jimmy semi-randomly decrees its use. What kept you from being an admin on your first RFA is not going to change. They don't like you or the conflicts of logic, rules, and evidence that you allowed to be brought up in any of your attempts to resolve why you were not allowed to be an admin. Your contributions, problem resolution methodolgy skills, level-headedness, are not important. While you exhibit greater talent for the skills required for collaborative publication administration, arbitration, and child behaviour management, you aren't going anywhere on WP. Good luck with that fact.

9) G-dett - ditto. Just ignore all facts and you'll do fine on WP. Thanks for your outing of Ryulong's incompetence. I'm sure you've noticed a pattern of it and so have others that decline to mention it in wikiwriting.

10) You can get your way on WP if you make friends with admins and learn how to cry "harassment!" It works wonderfully. It that fails, threaten Jimmy with barrells of negative ink or last-resort, scary legal letterhead and you too can be blessed with IAR status in your WP campaign.

Folks, Jimmy is right, it's time to put this to bed. Gary, his buddies, and many other COI warriors have licence to IAR on WP, and there's nothing you can do about it. Don't even try the Catch-22 game that is outing a COI on WP, unless you clear it with Jimmy first to see if they're on the untouchable list. If you're hoping any consistency of rules on WP to come about, it will only be on a case-by-case basis where those cases are brought up in major media publications that directly address them. The Essjay Lesson. Unless that reliable source is the New York Times. That gets negated because they must have been brainwashed by Rasputin Bagley. From now on, it takes 3 articles from the New York Times on you before it can be included in your BLP as a reference.

As in most "scandals", the cover-up was the bigger problem, not the relatively minor injustices that started them. We've all learned a lot about WP, its leadership, and its trickle-down effects on normally rationable people who will submit when their addictions are threatened with discontinuation or negation.

Let the COI'ed have their wikifun; in this particular case, the Commissioner of the SEC, the procession of several major lawsuits through high courts in the U.S, and the circus ring of "journalism" surrounding these issues have already made their "Campaign" to portray Patrick M. Byrne as nuts, Naked Shorting a myth started by conspiracy theorists, and the illusion of NPOV on WP BLP's to be revealed for what it is; unsuccessful and making WP out to be the fool.

Give it a rest, everyone, the issue that started that wikiwar has already taken on a life of its own and doesn't need anyone "harassing" poor Jimmy Wales and his friends with it anymore. The issues with WP that arose in its midst are not going to change.

Good luck, Jimmy, you continue to astound.

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Sun 21st October 2007, 6:47pm

[thekohser]

maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today

You mean - Canada?

No, remember that North Africa is a mandatory part of "West Eurasia", so North-North-West Eurasia would be father south than the whole of Canada. I believe Jonny is actually pointing specifically to Newfoundland when he refers to North-North-West Eurasia.

We may have to consult the Wikipedia article to be sure.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

maybe the Cabal is taking the side of North-North-West Eurasia today

You mean — Canada?

No, remember that North Africa is a mandatory part of "West Eurasia", so North-North-West Eurasia would be father south than the whole of Canada. I believe Jonny is actually pointing specifically to Newfoundland when he refers to North-North-West Eurasia.

We may have to consult the Wikipedia article to be sure.

Greg

Just going by the smell of it — now that the wind is ripe — I'd have to say more like Danmurk.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 22nd October 2007, 12:06am

[everyking]

I noticed this comment from Gerard on the mailing list: "Precis: Cla68 has been a dick about this for quite some time, knew *precisely* how much of a dick he was being, and thoroughly deserved
the block, and probably a longer one. He's not here to write an encyclopedia."

It's unbelievable. Cla68 has sixteen FAs listed on his user page. This guy is absolutely one of the finest editors on the project, light years beyond Gerard, who mainly specializes in tormenting his fellow editors. I never cease to be amazed by this crap.

[Derktar]

It seems he's looking into Veropedia, and I don't blame him with the absolutely asinine comments made by Gerard.

[The Joy]

Didn't Fred Bauder say on the mailing list that this kind of stuff is making him close to quitting the project?

Even he grows weary of this. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to correct minor things on the site, especially knowing what kind of people are in charge.

[Jonny Cache]

I never cease to be amazed by this crap.

Amazement Anonymous meets here every Tuesday morning, 3 AM (Season of the Greenwich). They helped me recover from my Amazement By Crap (ABC) Addition, and they can help you, too.

Y'know, one daze at a time …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 24th October 2007, 11:48am