Rlevse returned, Has Rlevse returned to plague FAC? Options

[everyking]

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims. I hope Rlevse is able to find a way to continue contributing to the project.

[mbz1]

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.

Don't hold your breath on this. As one of my friends said :"Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying "

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 3rd February 2012, 3:20pm

[Abd]

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims. I hope Rlevse is able to find a way to continue contributing to the project.

Every enduring Wikipedia problem results from lack of a reliable, efficient, fair decision-making process.

Lot's of people know this, few understand how to do it differently, and fewer still will actually do what would be necessary: set up such process, demonstrate it, and use it to beneficial effect. Instead, it's much easier to just complain about what *they* do.

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.

Don't hold your breath on this. As one of my friends said :"Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying. Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying "

That's fairly accurate.

[A Horse With No Name]

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, but the Delanoy Brothers' connection came out here on WR - straight from the Horsey's mouth, too!

Have they actually outed themselves on WP? Or is MBisanz just repeating what he read here?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Meanwhile, it seems that at least one of the arbitrators might see this as the last straw. I was just starting to wonder why we hadn't heard about the Timidguy/Beback thing, but apparently there was more evidence coming in.

That looks pretty serious. Is Davies an Arb? I guess he must be.

[chrisoff]

Well I'd like to know how PumpkinSky (apparently Rlevse) visited all sorts of HELL on FAC as SandyGeorgia claims and destroyed the moral at FAC and the "collegial" atmosphere. Is someone just questioning the fossilized procedures of FAC or daring to vote against Raul's "Director for Life" RFC enough to decimate the place?

SandyGeorgia is blaming Sue Gardner, Elen of the Roads, Risker, an arbitration in 2009 (or 2010, she can't remember which) as well as Rlevse, Rlevse's wife, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt, TCO, Alarbus‎, Matisse, Arbcom, Ched (am I forgetting someone?) Oh, yeah, various arbs.- all these for the current malaise at FAC.

If SandyGeorgia had just shut her mouth and not posted everywhere about all of this, there won't be any fuss or demoralization at FAC.

Maybe she's (successfully) distracting the Arbcom and wasting their energy, so they'll never get it together to post a decision on Malleus's cunt arbitration. All the trouble she causes makes Malleus look like an angel!

He doesn't try to viciously destroy "enemies" as she does. He just spouts off a little.

[iii]

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.

Wikipedia is pretty efficient at turning bullies/blackmailers into victims and vice-versa. Rlevse may be a prime example of this having bullied plenty of people himself while he occupied the upper-echelons of the star chamber.

[radek]

Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if it gave the boot to its veteran bullies and blackmailers, instead of their victims.

Wikipedia is pretty efficient at turning bullies/blackmailers into victims and vice-versa. Rlevse may be a prime example of this having bullied plenty of people himself while he occupied the upper-echelons of the star chamber.

+14334534

[EricBarbour]

SandyGeorgia is blaming Sue Gardner, Elen of the Roads, Risker, an arbitration in 2009 (or 2010, she can't remember which) as well as Rlevse, Rlevse's wife, BarkingMoon, PumpkinSky, Wehwalt, TCO, Alarbus‎, Matisse.....

You're one to talk......

I would have talked about the TimidGuy case, but I'm not ADHD enough to understand it.

DO NOT feel sorry for Randy Everette. He has abused process many, many times in the past.
This is what happens to a dysfunctional organization--it becomes more dysfunctional, not less.
The trolls and bullies force out the honest people, and then they fight among themselves.

I would dare to predict that, if they can't deal with Will decisively, the whole thing will start to decay.
Any little shreds of "civility" on AN will disappear, and the POVers and patrollers will start battling in earnest.
And away will go the remaining content-writers.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 4th February 2012, 1:06am

[The Joy]

When Daniel Brandt "outs" Wikipedians for a good cause, he gets banned.

When Will Beback "outs" Wikipedians out of pure spite, he gets praised.

I don't get it, Big Dan.

[melloden]

This is a risk we have in permitting husbands and wives to edit, other couples, Lar/Josette, Balloonman/Ginko, J.delanoy/Thingg (brothers) all come to mind. MBisanz talk 02:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, but the Delanoy Brothers' connection came out here on WR - straight from the Horsey's mouth, too!

Have they actually outed themselves on WP? Or is MBisanz just repeating what he read here?

Interesting question.

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a Bastard. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.

Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.

from his admin stats; Users blocked -- 13216

[Abd]

Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a Bastard. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.

Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.

from his admin stats; Users blocked -- 13216

Okay, now something good about Tnxman307. He actually engaged in an on-wiki discussion with me after I'd been indeffed. My edit to his Talk page had been reverted by Kww, and he restored it, then he responded. That was fair enough. There was, out of this sequence, review of RevDel policy, there had been creeping use of it to remove edits by banned editors from all public view, and while that wasn't totally ruled out, it was discouraged.

There is a substantial contingent of administrators who want to use RevDel to completely hide edits by banned editors, because it, they think, will discourage them from editing. Maybe. More likely, it will simply increase public distrust of the administrative corps.

Revision deletion is increasingly being used with vandalism, mentioned here. That's proper under certain circumstances, and this should be spelled out in policy, not left to discretion, because the tool is dangerous to open governance. Indeed, edits of the form "So-and-So is gay," where So-and-so appears to be a real name, or may be an identifiable person, I'd agree, should be Rev-Del'd, and I think I did that some on Wikiversity. I'd never use RevDel to hide a good faith edit that doesn't violate privacy policy or break, say, copyright laws. History is public, and true copyvio in history is still copyvio, if it's publicly available through a link.

I'd stopped using self-reversion because of the escalating sanctions. The implications of this have never been examined by the community. Self-reversion by a banned editor was originally suggested for use with ScienceApologist, was explicitly approved by an arbitrator, was formally proposed on WP talk:Ban, with little negative comment. It was only rejected when I used it for a harmless edit, rejected by editors who were searching for anything to throw at me.... It's been proven to work, elsewhere, to benefit the project and sometimes to pave the way for unban. That's exactly what the abusive administrators don't want. They want "a ban is a ban is a ban." And they absolutely don't want to look back.

(An explanation of self-reversion as it was originally recommended by me, used by several editors, and then as actually practiced by me: Editor who is banned or topic-banned makes edit and adds to summary "will self-revert per ban." (or block) If they are blocked and are editing IP, they add "of [blocked username]." Then they promptly self-revert. The proposal was that self-reverted edits which were not positively harmful in themselves would be considered non-abusive and would not lead to the sanctions that would be normal for block or ban evasion. If an editor abused this, the escalating sanctions could still apply. Example of abuse: a self-reverted edit that was grossly uncivil, or seriously misleading, as with lying about what's in a source -- intentional deception, not merely some error --, or other major violations of trust. I was never accused of any of these things, by the way. It's been claimed that topic-banned editors could make suggestions to other editors, who would then make the edits on being personally satisfied of their value. However, that's highly inefficient for both parties. Originally, self-reversion was suggested for spelling corrections -- ScienceApologist was making them in an attempt to troll admins into blocking him for a harmless edit. They weren't taking the bait. I suggested a way that, if he actually wanted to make corrections without complicating enforcement, he could self-revert as suggested. Since his goal was, in fact, to complicate enforcement, he rejected the suggestion, rather strongly. His friends thought I was harassing him.... No. I was just offering an option.)

Since an editor using self-reversion is wasting his time if no active editor reverts the edit back in (or otherwise incorporates what they approve of, from the material), self-reversion sets up conditions where a banned editor may develop cooperation with editors "on the other side," and I saw it work that way, with PJHaseldine. See my coverage of self-reversion history on Wikiversity. At least as long as those pages stand!

To complete this discussion, I did not actually stop editing because of the escalating sanctions. I simply evaded them. Once IP editing with disclosure that I was Abd was interdicted, by the edit filter, and when Range blocks were raised, I then created a normal sock, and did not disclose identity, and freely violated my abusive bans. To the benefit of the project, always. From my point of view, my obligation to respect community process ceased once I was banned, when due process had been exhausted. That sock was detected when an arb used checkuser, apparently on his own initiative, though he may have been prompted privately. I hadn't taken evasive action. With that sock, anyway!

I know enough, as do many banned editors, to be able to create undetectable socks. Whether it's worth the trouble or not is another story. Mostly, Wikipedia isn't worth it, it's a dying project. Its bones may still be useful, though.... People like Scibaby don't bother with "undetectability," because they really don't care if they are detected, they like the fuss that's made. This is *created* by the banning practices.....

Wikipedia utterly failed to value editor labor. Any idea how much time has been wasted finding and dealing with over a thousand Scibaby socks? Thank Raul654! The "community" is still dealing with the consequences of that, one of the "defacto bans" that were created by the cabal. Scibaby failed to cooperate, eh? He certainly wasn't invited to, the message was simply "Go Away! You are Bad!" Funny, that doesn't seem to inspire cooperation in people. Who'd a thunk it?

[chrisoff]

Geormetryj guy makes fun of the accusations that Rlevse was thought to be a German-speaking sockpuppet when he doesn't speak German in the Mattisse/Rlevse/BarkingMoon SPI case

This case was never resolved: BarkingMoon was not found to be a sockpuppet of anyone.

[Abd]

Meanwhile, it seems that at least one of the arbitrators might see this as the last straw. I was just starting to wonder why we hadn't heard about the Timidguy/Beback thing, but apparently there was more evidence coming in.

Look, it's open and shut, Will Beback is blameless, we have it on the authority of the Featured Article Coordinator:

Will's actions were entirely appropriate and above board. Thank you Will, for your yeoman's work. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember Raul saying stuff like that about William M. Connolley.

Good work, Cla68, I think you've nailed him. Be careful, of course, your goal should be to back off and let the rest of the community chew him up. Just a nudge here and there, if you are breaking a sweat, you are working too hard. I worked way too hard, I wanted to present clear evidence, and realized only too late that ArbComm Didn't Need Any Stinkin' Evidence. The trick is to lure the abusive administrator into demonstrating it so even a Compleat Idiot can see it. This filing on Rlevse's wife was beyond the pale. There was no legitimate cause for that, no Need to Know, except Rlevse's refusal to cave to his blackmail. Which, of course, isn't legitimate.

Looking at the AN discussion, what an incredible waste of time, over something of practically no importance, i.e., whether or not Rlevse is Barking Moon. That's only of interest for highly technical reasons, and the whole purpose of identifying socks has been lost if you have to argue about it. The purpose is efficiency! I.e., if someone is a sock of someone whom the community, at great expense with silly monstrous discussions like this has been found to be a problem, if you show that a new account is the same person, done. No discussion needed. If you have to have another monster discussion, what's the point?

I am so glad, I want to thank the abusive administrators for blocking me. I used to be in the middle of this crap!

Rlevse I found to be a helpful arbitrator, as I recall, but not deeply so. No comment on the rest. He's obviously pissed.

[mbz1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well.

[SB_Johnny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well.

[chrisoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._return_request And rejected. Sometimes the community could be so cruel. He was down, he offered a repeated apologies, he offered a humiliating unblock conditions, but everything was rejected. I feel sorry for him, and I wish him well.

Really, everyone will be banned sooner or later. Returning as a sock is the only option if the community won't allow a "controlled return" i.e. under supervision. The banned/blocked indefinitely response is just not realistic. So wiki get bundles of new editors who leave shortly after. It's only the vested editors like Rlevrse who actually "care", hang around and keep trying.