Cool3/Cool three (13 Jan - 8 Feb 2010) Options

[thekohser]

In a private message a couple of days ago, Shalom threatened to call me on the telephone.

I replied that I'd welcome a call from him, and he said that he would call.

Still no call, though.

What will it take? Should I threaten to publish here his personal message to me that was very, very bossy in tone?

[No one of consequence]

In a private message a couple of days ago, Shalom threatened to call me on the telephone.

I replied that I'd welcome a call from him, and he said that he would call.

Still no call, though.

What will it take? Should I threaten to publish here his personal message to me that was very, very bossy in tone?

Ignore him?

(It's not libel unless his statement is false and also made with fault -- meaning negligence -- meaning that, based on the publicly available facts, the conclusion he draws is so irresponsible that no reasonable person with access to the same information would draw the same conclusion. Just stop feeding the drama beast.)

[Kevin]

Oh for fuck's sake. Laughably toothless libel threats on Internet fora are so the '90s.

Or not. I spent last week in court defending myself against a butthurt individual with whom I share membership of another web forum. I'd never seen a judge facepalm before

[SpiderAndWeb]

Oh for fuck's sake. Laughably toothless libel threats on Internet fora are so the '90s.

Or not. I spent last week in court defending myself against a butthurt individual with whom I share membership of another web forum. I'd never seen a judge facepalm before

Wow... is a transcript available somewhere?

[John Limey]

Mr. Kohs acquired the account from the person then in control of it at about the time identified to ArbCom. At no time did he hack anything or act unethically and suggestions to the contrary are completely unfounded.

[Retrospect]

Mr. Kohs acquired the account from the person then in control of it at about the time identified to ArbCom. At no time did he hack anything or act unethically and suggestions to the contrary are completely unfounded.

Hey, how come it's taken you a year to say that? Been too busy playing with something?

Of course Mr. Kohs broke all sorts of bloody WP rules but say, on this site we don't call that unethical due to our superior moral stance!


This post has been edited by Retrospect: Wed 8th August 2012, 11:51am

[Ottava]

Mr. Kohs acquired the account from the person then in control of it at about the time identified to ArbCom. At no time did he hack anything or act unethically and suggestions to the contrary are completely unfounded.

Couldn't the act of "acquiring" be deemed unethical? After all, there is the one user per account rule and it seems to be deceitful if it switches hands.

[Fusion]

Couldn't the act of "acquiring" be deemed unethical? After all, there is the one user per account rule and it seems to be deceitful if it switches hands.

To some, breaching Wikipedia rules may not be considered as unethical.

[Ottava]

Couldn't the act of "acquiring" be deemed unethical? After all, there is the one user per account rule and it seems to be deceitful if it switches hands.

To some, breaching Wikipedia rules may not be considered as unethical.

Doesn't matter. You are taking an identity and committing fraud. If you sold your real life identity to someone else, and someone else bought it, both are acting unethically.

[The Joy]

Couldn't the act of "acquiring" be deemed unethical? After all, there is the one user per account rule and it seems to be deceitful if it switches hands.

To some, breaching Wikipedia rules may not be considered as unethical.

Doesn't matter. You are taking an identity and committing fraud. If you sold your real life identity to someone else, and someone else bought it, both are acting unethically.

It shows the absurdity of what Wikipedians call "trust." How can you trust someone named "Cool3" or any anonymous/pseudonymous person, for crying out loud, with handling important administrative functions of the world's most popular online reference site? How does anyone know this sort of thing of giving outsiders access to administrator accounts has not gone on since Wikipedia's beginning? CheckUsers have better things to do than check every single editor with administrator functions or higher all the time and even CU is "not magic pixie dust," as Wikipedians say.

Good gravy, we spent years on this forum thinking a hot-looking blonde statistician eating a sandwich was really a hot-looking blonde statistician eating a sandwich. We gave "her" staff powers and trusted "her"judgment. Guess how that turned out? Remember Essjay, the Ph.D. theologian as well? Wikipedians still have not learned. Heck, Web 2.0 still hasn't learned!

[culeaker]

How does anyone know this sort of thing of giving outsiders access to administrator accounts has not gone on since Wikipedia's beginning? CheckUsers have better things to do than check every single editor with administrator functions or higher all the time and even CU is "not magic pixie dust," as Wikipedians say.

I doubt that it has gone on since Wikipedia's beginning. nobody would have bothered in the early days. Still, it has doubtless happened a few times. I agree that it is often very difficult to detect, and there would frequently be "false positives", when an admin moved or switched ISPs for example. But any strange behavior by an admin is usually enough to set alarm bells ringing.

[Ottava]

It shows the absurdity of what Wikipedians call "trust." How can you trust someone named "Cool3" or any anonymous/pseudonymous person, for crying out loud, with handling important administrative functions of the world's most popular online reference site?

How can I trust you with the ability to criticize such a person? You can't apply a standard that they need to be such and such while you refuse to abide by it yourself. You lack the moral high ground here.

[The Joy]

It shows the absurdity of what Wikipedians call "trust." How can you trust someone named "Cool3" or any anonymous/pseudonymous person, for crying out loud, with handling important administrative functions of the world's most popular online reference site?

How can I trust you with the ability to criticize such a person? You can't apply a standard that they need to be such and such while you refuse to abide by it yourself. You lack the moral high ground here.

As do you, "Ottava Rima." We're all mad here.

[Ottava]

It shows the absurdity of what Wikipedians call "trust." How can you trust someone named "Cool3" or any anonymous/pseudonymous person, for crying out loud, with handling important administrative functions of the world's most popular online reference site?

How can I trust you with the ability to criticize such a person? You can't apply a standard that they need to be such and such while you refuse to abide by it yourself. You lack the moral high ground here.

As do you, "Ottava Rima." We're all mad here.

Um, my real identity is well known and has been plastered here by many users no longer allowed to post here. If you are going to try and be clever, at least attempt to be accurate.

[The Joy]

But any strange behavior by an admin is usually enough to set alarm bells ringing.

Or ignored by the community. Essjay, SlimVirgin, JzG, etc. come to mind. Some like Chris0 (now Prioryman) and Tony Sidaway get caught only to come back and act like silly with impunity. Your social reputation on Wikipedia outweighs any injustices you commit.

[The Joy]

It shows the absurdity of what Wikipedians call "trust." How can you trust someone named "Cool3" or any anonymous/pseudonymous person, for crying out loud, with handling important administrative functions of the world's most popular online reference site?

How can I trust you with the ability to criticize such a person? You can't apply a standard that they need to be such and such while you refuse to abide by it yourself. You lack the moral high ground here.

As do you, "Ottava Rima." We're all mad here.

Um, my real identity is well known and has been plastered here by many users no longer allowed to post here. If you are going to try and be clever, at least attempt to be accurate.