Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: the fieryangel

MZMcBride (T-C-L-K-R-D) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WatchingWhales&diff=322482753&oldid=122543020 to WatchingWhales (T-C-L-K-R-D) , citing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop&offset=20070908011614&limit=4&action=history. He then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WatchingWhales&diff=322483031&oldid=320944008 :

Benjiboi (T-C-L-K-R-D) then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WatchingWhales&diff=322631882&oldid=322482753 from the user page and then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WatchingWhales&diff=322632466&oldid=322483031



So, this is an Arbcom approved sock? I have asked several members of the Arbcom to comment on this issue and of yet, I have had no response from any of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WatchingWhales&diff=next&oldid=322632466



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WatchingWhales&diff=322772064&oldid=322651163:



Well, does anybody have the answer to this?

Posted by: Krimpet

I think the "notification to ArbCom" is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop&diff=156390468&oldid=156389619 that MZMcBride linked to.

Posted by: MBisanz

This is one of the major issues of disclosure of socks being made to arbcom over a mailing list (or even filed on the arbwiki). Arbs age out of office and no one remembers that three years ago an unknown editor made a random disclosure on a forgotten page.

Posted by: the fieryangel

Yes, but if it's such an "open secret", then why the problem with the template?

It seems to me that MZMcBride presented it quite politely...and he did indeed have a point.

If, however, this account has some sort of special protection from ARBCOM, which allows it to operate in another manner from any other "alternative account", doesn't that put such things as the creation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Saranga&diff=prev&oldid=248524582, and the creation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=316518990in another light (just to mention two out of many similar situations)?

Posted by: LaraLove

That, in my opinion, is meaningless at this point. That was over two years ago, and his explanation was that he was using it to upload images. Looking at the contribs of the account, that's clearly not the intended use.

Posted by: jayvdb

The account WatchingWhales has not been mentioned in the private archives of the Arbitration Committee.

Posted by: Obesity

Respected editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WatchingWales has been blocked by the same admin.

Posted by: everyking

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

Posted by: LaraLove

Yes, I agree. We can't trust Jayvdb or any other arbitrator for this type of information. WE DEMAND A NON-ARB CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT ARBCOM KNEW!!!




Haha. Sorry. Too easy.

Posted by: jayvdb

I dont give a shit whether you believe me or not. If it makes you happy, you can believe that a fictitious emails exists in the arbcom archive. However, I am intrigued; why you think I would lie about this?

I'm merely reporting what grep told me because some people here are interested in knowing any facts which can help them narrow down the list of likely theories. WR often whittles the list down to a single theory, which means the community can take action to put a stop to ongoing hidden games. Simply put, it is in my best interest to tell the truth; doing so often means that problems are identified and corrected sooner without me loosing any sleep.

In this case, Benjiboi is clearly stretching the truth, which is fun and games, but he is going to get "hurt" if he starts telling porkies. Like Lara, I want evidence.
If there really was an email sent to Arbcom, he should be able to forward it to you, everyking, defender of the project against the mean and evil arbcom, and you, everyking, can then call me a liar. It'll be fun; you'll see.

Posted by: Somey

Perhaps it's best to ignore Mr. Everyking regarding these kinds of issues... Unfortunately, we've allowed ourselves to be swept into the vortex of pointless self-serving drama that surrounds Shankers pretty much 24/7 on Wikipedia, and the ArbCom is probably as much a victim of this as anyone else. The idea that anyone would "officially approve" of this particular sock-account is really a bit silly, if you ask me.

Yet another thing that's often overlooked about NPD people is that they arrange and position themselves within their peer groups so as to maximize the amount of attention they receive from others. The sad fact of it is, when it comes to doing that, Shankers is simply too clever for us, too clever for the ArbCom, too clever for all of Wikipedia. The only way to get rid of him is to completely ignore him, and Wikipedia isn't set up to allow for that. Frankly, neither are we - in fact, the entire internet isn't set up to allow for that.

He'll be around for a long time, I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: everyking

If the ArbCom started conducting its business in an honest and transparent fashion, then I suppose I'd have no trouble believing you. Until then, everything you and any other arbitrator says will be treated with extreme skepticism, regardless of the context. Sorry! Deep distrust is one of the consequences of having a history of dishonesty.

Posted by: Cla68

In contrast to Everyking, I'm still hoping that someday soon the ArbCom will conduct a palace coup and completely take over Wikipedia, set-up some more committees to govern admin and editor conduct, and complete the job of marginalizing all of the old guard admins who have done so much to keep Wikipedia from being anything more than an entertainment website and MMPORG. I suspect that one of the reasons you all haven't done it is that you're too busy to get such a thing organized. I hope you are considering it, though. All the nonsense that guys like Mr. Miller do which helps make Wikipedia such a joke must be as tiring for you all as it is for us.

Posted by: jayvdb

This arbitration committee has undertaken a lot of "change" this year, however I think there is still a lot more to be done. Some proposals failed (ACPD), and arbitrators will be unhappy with how some of them have turned out (I think BASC has a long way to go). We need to keep trying new ideas, and improving on processes. I hope that the next batch of candidates are as enthusiastic for change as the 2008 arbcom candidates were, and have the energy to implement the changes that they propose during their election bid, while also performing their normal duties of arbitration.

There is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#View_by_John_Vandenberg on at the moment to help define how the committee is structured and functions in 2010. It is because of this constant stream of non-arbitration problems that I would to see a larger committee, with non-voting seats so that arbs can rotate off the bench to focus on auxiliary tasks which keep landing in our lap.

Posted by: the fieryangel

It looks as ifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Shankbone&diff=322876954&oldid=322869376 letting the chips fall where they may....and they will...

The main problem with Mr. Miller's entire Wikipedia Career is the existence of these "COI rings", which have lead to the generate of almost enough material for him to merit an article...but not quite enough.

It's clear that the Brooklyn Rail sources are fudged, because of http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=27052&view=findpost&p=201560. The http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=26727&view=findpost&p=196652was a complete PR operation from start to finish. The press generated should be seen as an ad for the Israeli tourism industry. The CJR article, which focused on the Peres interview which Saranga set up, is also probably tainted by the possibility of a prior relationship between the author (Adam Rose) and Miller, given the connections to Columbia University.

If you take those three sources out of the picture (and there are very good reasons to do so) you're left with...nothing at all. No original content, no reviews, just a bunch of blog posts and some amateur snapshots which would be fine on somebody's screensaver, but which hardly constitute an oeuvre, as Mr. Miller likes to put it.

The idea that the Shankbone COI clique (Benjiboi performed as a DJ for several Michael Lucas benefits) is now trying to cover up the evidence of the interconnections should give everyone reason to ask the simple question "why"? The answer is clear, straightforward and not complicated at all, if one simply looks at the evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Shankbone&diff=322869376&oldid=322865536which is a very thoughtful question by ChildofMidnight (T-C-L-K-R-D) is probably a good read for anyone seriously considering these issues...

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Seriously, you're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem isn't so much the policies as it is the inability or refusal by Arbcom (and, extension, the admin corps) to consistently enforce policies.

Case in point: socking policy. It makes no sense for an arbitrator like Risker to go bananas when it was discovered that Law and The Undertow shared a toothbrush while Risker openly admits that she allows identified sock accounts to flourish.

In concept, the WP policies are sensible. In reality, either they can easily be knocked down (such as the banning policy, as proven by the adminships of Law and a certain faux pastor) or they are erratically enforced to the point that they become irrelevant (such as the aforementioned socking policy or yesterday's refusal by the admin corps to consider blocking Mr. Miller for brazen violations of NPA and Outing).



It doesn't matter how long someone is in charge -- if the wrong person is in charge, one year can seem like a lifetime. One of our visiting arbitrators has already admitted here that Arbcom routinely ignores messages that are posted by the "community" during discussions of RfArb cases -- I don't see how anyone can be comfortable having people in charge who won't listen to the voice of the "community" that elected them.

Posted by: anthony

If the list is private you shouldn't be talking about what is or isn't discussed on it. Either you're violating that trust publicly and openly, or you're lying (or being misleading). Personally I don't have any intuition if it's one or the other.

Posted by: Sarcasticidealist

Whose trust would he be violating by disclosing that this account hasn't been mentioned? The trust of all the people who didn't mention it?

Posted by: anthony

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

The irony, of course, is that the truly beautiful photo of the whale on the Watching Whales user page was taken by someone other than Mr. Whales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DSC_7334.JPG

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Alrighty then...

Posted by: Random832

It's not Fight Club. If there was a rule that nothing on the list could be made public even indirectly, arbcom couldn't make decisions based on evidence presented to the list. Or even acknowledge that evidence was presented at all.

"There are a large number of things posted to the list whose details should be kept private" is simply not the same thing as "there can be absolutely nothing said about anything"

Posted by: Cla68

Mr. Miller's "I'll eat dog food" statement means that he is disappointed that he's being treated this way by Wikipedians after making as much time and effort to support Wikipedia as he has. What Mr. Miller doesn't understand is that tying one's entire professional career to Wikipedia is a loser's game. Wikipedia doesn't have enough substance right now to support any one person's professional foundation. The thing is, Mr. Miller's actions, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, and the sketchy pictures that he has taken, is one of the reasons for this situation.

Posted by: Grep

I think I should make it clear that I have no recollection of discussing any such list with jayvdb.

Posted by: anthony

Presumably they can release information if they all agree to release it. Or if it's already public knowledge anyway.

But whatever. It's a black box. I'm not going to trust someone that something's not there. If you want to, be my guest.

Posted by: Somey

I just figured he was misusing the phrase. I've always thought "eat your own dog food" meant "use your own products internally (within your own business operation), despite their flaws or inadequacies." That would only make sense in this context if it refers to his use of Wikipedia articles (i.e., products) to promote (or "inform people about") various things he's interested in, or perhaps directly involved in.

Posted by: jayvdb

There is an expectation that private information in the archives is not released without consent from the arbitrators. In this case, nothing private is being released so I didn't bother with formalities, and instead opted to inform the committee. Here is my email, with only the quoted parts redacted:

The committee has not objected (yet?). fwiw, I have often posted information like this to WR, and never heard any complaints from either side of the fence.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=21847&hl=&view=findpost&p=146939; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=67&t=22617&hl=&view=findpost&p=153477; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=38&t=22802&hl=&view=findpost&p=155283; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=22760&hl=&view=findpost&p=155302; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=22855&hl=&view=findpost&p=155545; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=11400&hl=&view=findpost&p=165060; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=23973&hl=&view=findpost&p=170484; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=23969&hl=&view=findpost&p=170510; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=21101&hl=&view=findpost&p=174875; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=24786&hl=&view=findpost&p=179210; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=25246&hl=&view=findpost&p=184071; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=26501&hl=&view=findpost&p=193040; http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=26933&hl=&view=findpost&p=200104

Posted by: EricBarbour

I beg your pardon, sir.

Wikipedia is nothing BUT a giant Fight Club. And Shankbone is Tyler Durden--
arrogant as hell, despite being a completely fictional character.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Meta-fictional you mean?

I am Jimbo's complete lack of surprise.