|
|
|
The TimidGuy case, aye, there's the rub |
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
TimidGuy is appealing his ban, which was executed by Jimbo in a GodKingly fashion at the request of Will Beback, who sent Jimbo a private email in which he alleged that TG was a paid advocate for the Transcendental Meditators. This situation raises numerous questions. 1. TG and WB have been going at if for a while as WP:ADVOCATES on opposing sides of the Transcendental Meditation issue. For argument's sake, let's assume that Will's allegations are correct, and TG is a paid advocate for TM. Does that make his editing more disruptive than that of Will, acting as an unpaid advocate against TM? Will's fanaticism on the topic is well known, and that fact that he is presumably doing it without compensation makes him possibly the more disruptive of the two, because he is so consumed with zeal to expose and discredit the meditators (misusing Wikipedia as a soapbox for that purpose), that he does it for free. 2. If Will has in fact acquired private information about TG's pay stubs and what not, is that not WP:WIKIHOUNDING? 3. How does WP:COI come into play when allegations are made based on evidence that is not in the public domain? Doesn't such an allegation axiomatically violate WP:OUTING? The Arbs are already neck-deep in conundra over this. It should be interesting to see how it plays out. My personal take on it causes me to ask this: why is Will Beback still allowed to be editor, let alone an admin?
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
I have not checked every one of TG's edits in detail, but the ones I did check looked okay, reasonably neutral. The thing is, in typical McWhiney fashion, TG has spent most of his recent time not editing, but fighting off Will and his cronies on the TM space.
That's how Will works: get someone else to do the nasty stuff. It helps to explain why there are so few RFCs or RFArbs about Will. He's sneaky.
Think on this: TG has been editing TM articles since 2006. He looks like a good contributor, to me anyway.
But he's making Will angry, and for that alone He Must Be Destroyed? If he's been doing this for FIVE YEARS, why all of a sudden must he be permabanned?
This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 20th December 2011, 10:49pm) QUOTE(iii @ Tue 20th December 2011, 2:41pm) Having seen the hatchet job that TimidGuy and his allies have perpetuated at various articles suggesting evidentiary support for the various wacko beliefs promulgated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi If you've got links to support this, please post them! I don't really care about TM, and I generally regard the Maharishi and his acolytes as a bunch of flakes. But this is only incidentally related to TM---it does also relate to the slimy way Will controls the argument in any number of cases. He's a manipulator, and one can make a case for Will's repeated violation of many WP rules. The problem is, he's getting away with it. Will Beback is an agenda-driven editor who, like SlimVirgin used to be, will use anything and everything to try to win a content dispute. He understands that in order to get the content you want to stick, if it isn't otherwise very NPOV, you have to remove the editors, like TimidGuy, who might dispute your "consensus". For example, when I was challenging some of Will's preferred content in the LaRouche articles, he added something about global warming and then tried to get me banned for that, with funny results. That reminds me, I probably should go mention this in the evidence section for this case. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
FUCK YOU, Mr. McWhiney.
Because I remember this. I will not forget it, little man.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 20th December 2011, 5:49pm) If you've got links to support this, please post them!
I don't really care about TM, and I generally regard the Maharishi and his acolytes as a bunch of flakes. But this is only incidentally related to TM---it does also relate to the slimy way Will controls the argument in any number of cases. He's a manipulator, and one can make a case for Will's repeated violation of many WP rules. The problem is, he's getting away with it.
We're at cross-purposes here. You can muddle through the links posted by Fladrif and Kww if you're at all interested in seeing backstories. That there are corrupt and slimy individuals working behind the scenes at Wikipedia is par for the course. QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 20th December 2011, 6:23pm) Will Beback is an agenda-driven editor who, like SlimVirgin used to be, will use anything and everything to try to win a content dispute. "Used to be"? I guess she won you over with her charms, did she?
|
|
|
|
that one guy |
|
Doesn't get it either.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined:
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 8:59am) Here's what I don't understand - why would there be any need to pay anyone to push a pro-TM viewpoint on WP? It seems like all other religions and/or cults have plenty of people who will do it for free. Is this a case of someone editing WP as part of their job, because that happens all the time with businesses?
I have no clue, but it reminds me of what jclemens said at the start of the case: QUOTE The reason we're going to hold this on-Wiki is that we can stipulate to the private evidence, and then reason through the principles on-wiki. Remember, neither paid editing, having an undisclosed POV, nor being paid AND having an undisclosed POV is documented as against policy anywhere other than a Jimbo pronouncement. WP:OUTING, on the other hand, is bannable. Thus, while it's entirely improbable based on what evidence I've seen so far, it's entirely possible that Will will be sanctioned and TG unbanned. If this were an open-and-shut case, we wouldn't be here now. Jclemens (talk) 1:46 am, 13 December 2011, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−6)
|
|
|
|
that one guy |
|
Doesn't get it either.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 231
Joined:
From: A computer somewhere in this world
Member No.: 5,935
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 11:14am) I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) I was looking at that link too and thinking the same thing. While the neutrality of the TG's edits may be in the eye of the beholder, they are sourced.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 12:14pm) I haven't really followed arbcom cases in the past, but this is fascinating. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) I'm curious though, is this really a "legal threat"? Some person named fladrif seems to think so, but hey, what do I know? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) When your only allowable weapons are the blunt instruments of the Wikipedia community, you learn fast to use WP:NLT, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING, WP:SOCK, and WP:NPA often and without prejudice. Those policies are the only ones that arbitrators will use as a justification to disappear a user. That TimidGuy deigns to say on the wiki that "fraud is a very serious allegation" is close to what has gotten some indefinitely banned in the past. It only takes one arbitrator/administrator overreacting to win.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
The thing about Transcendental Meditation is, why would any truly neutral editors be working in that topic? I imagine that the only editors interested in it would be followers of the philosophy, and those that hate it like a bad burrito. So the question is, who in that topic area is behaving the worst? I think the answer to that question is clear.
Since the last TM ArbCom case closed last year, the supposedly "pro" TM editors have carefully been trying to toe the line. Will Beback, however, can't abide that. So, he goes out and, at least twice that is known of, has discovered personal, private info about his TM editor adversaries that he believes proves an unacceptable COI on their part. He has emailed the information to admins who he believes are sympathetic to his cause, hoping that those admins will block or ban those editors and thereby get them out of his way. I believe at least one of those admins is a regular contributor here at WR.
Will Beback is the Oliver North of Wikipedia.
This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 24th December 2011, 10:49am) I wonder what Will Beback's actual motivation is. His cup runneth over with spite, and it's interdenominational spite -- he couldn't possibly be an ex-adherent to the broad array of religions and political groups he demonizes.
Some people are motivated by a desire to destroy that with which they disagree. A kind of moral panic regarding minority ideologies can develop especially when one holds to a mainstream ideology that has similar features to the minority ideologies that one is opposing. On the other hand, it is very easy for someone who is a true believer to mistake a person who is just dismissing favored arguments for one who is trying to rape, burn, pillage, and salt the earth. My advice is to try not to take things too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(iii @ Sat 24th December 2011, 1:47pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 8:06am) The thing about Transcendental Meditation is, why would any truly neutral editors be working in that topic? I imagine that the only editors interested in it would be followers of the philosophy, and those that hate it like a bad burrito.
In spite of claims to the contrary, there are academics who study religious movements who don't hate the subjects they study "like a bad burrito", and they do write scholarly articles and books about these subjects. More often than not, though, followers don't appreciate anyone who isn't a follower saying anything about their religion that doesn't toe their line. There will always be people (often they tend to be ex-followers) who will act out of spite wherever mention of a particular religion is found, but it is a huge oversimplification and basically an act of drinking the religion-in-question's Kool Aid to claim that the only people interested enough in a religion are either the adherents or detractors. It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 11:26pm) It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away. You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(iii @ Sun 25th December 2011, 5:27am) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 24th December 2011, 11:26pm) It has been my experience that neutral editors with an interest in the subject depart when they have their edits reverted and observe the battles between the pro and con editors on the talk page. This is the reason why I believe there aren't too many neutral editors involved in the Intelligent Design, global warming, TM, Lyndon LaRouche, Sarah Palin, Israel/Palestine, and other contentious topics. That's one of the reasons for enforcing the BATTLEGROUND policy, because battleground tactics by editors drives newcomers away. You seem very swayed by argumentum ad temperantiam. It's as though you cannot conceive of how to find "neutrality" other than by searching for the middle ground between the personalities of the anonymous nitwits who argue on that website. Believing that "neutrality" is "between the pro and con editors" is a very wikiality-based idea and is nothing more than a hallmark of shitty scholarship and academic myopia. But this is your particular brand of advocacy. That others involved with Wikipedia actually take your fallacious claims of being able to see "neutrality" seriously is just a symptom of how fucked up Wikipedia is. I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 12:32am) I didn't say that neutral editors fall into the middle-ground between pro and con editors. Denied implication, thy name is Cla68. QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 25th December 2011, 11:22am) That's right, he didn't. I think that the responsible way to run an encyclopedia (assuming that that were the actual objective of WP) would be to simply exclude dubious and contentious material, and concentrate on that which is indisputable. For every idea, you can find a nutjob who finds even the most mundane of content to be dubious, contentious, and disputable.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 3rd January 2012, 10:01pm) I can't believe how much I used to care about this stuff.
And they are mystified by their editor retention problem?
One of WP's worst problems is dealing with established, agenda-driven editors. It's time-consuming, frustrating, tedious, and unrewarding. I know, however, this isn't the only reason people leave Wikipedia, as there are plenty of other problems as well. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 3rd January 2012, 11:37pm) I just noticed Jimbo has been weighing in on the workshop page as an "arbitrator". Shouldn't he actually be weighing in as a "party"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) This is a function of the fact that Jimbo's role is still (presumably intentionally) ill-defined. Originally, Jimbo was a one-man ArbCom. He set ArbCom up to share the load, and as far as I know he can still set aside any decision it makes. But has he ever said that he won't act as a member if he feels like it? Has anyone else ever told him he can't? Is NewYorkBrad reading?
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th January 2012, 3:34am) I am fascinated by this guy Fladrif. He is so eager to hang TimidGuy that makes a proposed finding of fact that " Arbcom may not second-guess Jimbo's decisions." Then there is a big dogpile where even Jimbo condemns his proposal. The interesting thing about that case is how Fladrif and Jmh649/Doc James (shouldn't he be added to the tag team nomination?) have somehow managed to come across as less neutral and relaxed about TM than the presumably conflicted TM guy they want to see pilloried and banned; a fact that does not seem to have been lost on a few arbs.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 12th January 2012, 3:55am) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 12th January 2012, 3:34am) I am fascinated by this guy Fladrif. He is so eager to hang TimidGuy that makes a proposed finding of fact that " Arbcom may not second-guess Jimbo's decisions." Then there is a big dogpile where even Jimbo condemns his proposal. The interesting thing about that case is how Fladrif and Jmh649/Doc James (shouldn't he be added to the tag team nomination?) have somehow managed to come across as less neutral and relaxed about TM than the presumably conflicted TM guy they want to see pilloried and banned; a fact that does not seem to have been lost on a few arbs. I think it's called hubris.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 4th February 2012, 1:45pm) And the bigger is, why is POV-pushing from someone with identifiable COI any worse than POV-pushing by a free-lancer? Indeed. Reviewing the case, I found this telling: QUOTE Reviewing editors not content
The unresolved status of paid editing, existence of anonymous editing, outing and harassment policies, and difficulties in verifying real life circumstances mean that investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is highly vexed and controversial. Furthermore, there is no consensus for the degree to which editors may edit subjects they may have personal involvement in (apart from extreme cases). Hence review must by necessity focus on editing patterns of editors in whom problems are claimed. Let me see if I get this straight. I read it like this: "We are unable to resolve the issues of paid editing, etc., and there is no consensus about what is best, what is permitted, and what is discouraged or prohibited. Therefore we will not establish or state principles in this area. Instead, we will examine the behavior of editors and judge it independently of established standards, we will decide what is Good and what is Bad, and we will sanction accordingly. It does make sense, given an impossibility of setting standards. But it's not impossible, merely difficult or controversial. Until standards are set and actually enjoy consensus, behavior will always violate this or that faction's idea of what's not allowed. If the sanctions were limited to future behavior, if they clearly specified the behaviors to be avoided (and what is allowed), then this would, indeed, be a sane approach, at least at the beginning. However, in practice, ArbComm does punish. It doesn't recognize that editors have not been properly warned, against specific behaviors, which they may well believe are allowed (either by specific guidelijnes, prior ArbComm restrictions, or, even failing that, under IAR.) It issues topic bans and site bans, which become arbitrary restrictions, since the guiding behavioral principles are not established. Sad to see Cla68 going a bit overboard in this case. Cla68, have you ever attempted to communicate and establish rapport with Jmh643, i.e., Doc James? He's a real doctor and generally knows what he's talking about. Contrary to one submission to this case, he's not an administrator, and has not, in my experience, been aligned with a cabal. But, to be sure, I haven't reviewed much of his behavior with respect to this case. Wikipedia's reaction to paid editing is similar to its real reaction to experts. Topic experts are frequently SPAs, and tend to have and "push" strong points of view. Paid editors, if they are worth their salt, will seek consensus. There are potential problems with paid editing, almost all of them dissolved if actual practice encouraged and protected paid editors who dislosed the COI and followed COI guidelines. Most of the discussion of this assumes that paid editors conceal their status unless outed, and assumes that problem editing is editing of articles, not the making of suggestions on Talk, with actual article editing limited to what is reasonably expected not to be controversial (having disclosed the COI). That an editor is paid is probably a sign of competence, other things being equal. The idea that paid editors want to bias the article is based, perhaps, on experience with naive COI editors, not with true professional editors. Professional editors, serving their clients, would want to create a stable article, which requires a reasonable approach to neutrality. Given the dysfunctional community, however, paid editors are motivated to conceal their COI, and are restrained only by the possibility of blow-back, where an article which has been biased, outrageously, by stupid COI editing is then flipped to an opposite condition. It's a bit like some AfDs, where the existence of excessive non-reliable source citations can result in deletion, where a less-sourced stub might survive for improvement. Wikipedia punishes. Dysfunctional communities punish, it's quite human, but ordinary human communities don't create neutral encyclopedias, it would take innovative process to do that with any reliability. Neutrality cannot be measured if factions are excluded from the process. (Most Wikipedians, I think, assume that neutrality is an attribute of text, whereas it is much better understood as a relationship between text and the whole human community. When text is maximally neutral, a maximal number of informed people will agree that it's neutral, and those people may well be from opposing factions. Wikipedia, so accustomed to being a battleground while it denies being a battleground, tends to assume that "POV warriors" will never agree with anything short of blatant and biased statement of their own POV. It has a generic, overall, ABF position with respect to "POV-pushers." The result is that experts, or "amateur experts," who tend to have points of view different from the general public, it would be an "expert point of view," are effectively excluded. I'd argue that topic experts shouldn't be making the decisions on articles, period. However, they should be actively consulted, asked for advice and criticism, and, with that, the stupendous blunders that are sometimes found in articles on difficult subjects could be avoided. Experts tend to know the literature far better than the ordinary editor. Wikipedia harnessed crowd-sourcing, but discarded the best of it, because the project came to be dominated by "general purpose editors," those fired up by the idea of the project, but without expertise in the topics they often ended up controlling, and often unwilling to listen to experts who held different opinions from them. Since those editors disagreed with them, they assumed those editors were "POV-pushers," out to pull the wool over their eyes, pretending to know more. Sometimes an expert knows stuff that isn't easy to find in reliable source. Wikipedia must be based on what is verifiable, that's in the design, and it's not a bad idea at all. However, there is lots of room in how the verifiable material is presented, to accommodate what experts will tell the community. Part of the trick would be to seek and solicit comment from experts with differing opinions, and seek to facilitate consensus among experts. The role of actual article editors as consensus facilitators has not been sufficiently appreciated. Instead, a "neutral editor," in practice, is someone who knows little about the topic. With scientific topics, where one may need background to be able to understand the sources, this can lead to major misunderstandings.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 4th February 2012, 1:45pm) And the bigger is, why is POV-pushing from someone with identifiable COI any worse than POV-pushing by a free-lancer?
2 policy abrogations > 1 policy abrogation. In the past, Wikipedia bureaucracy was generally willing, all else being equal, to come down harder on a user who was shown to be associated with a special interest group as opposed to a user who was just in it for the anonymous good times. If Will Beback goes down it won't be because of a violation of neutrality. Even though neutrality is considered a "pillar" of Wikipedia, the definition of neutrality provided by that website is insipid and provides no guidance, so the policy is impossible to enforce in any direction.
|
|
|
|
tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th February 2012, 7:47pm) … have you ever attempted to communicate and establish rapport with Jmh643, i.e., Doc James?
It's Jmh649Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th February 2012, 7:47pm) Contrary to one submission to this case, he's not an administrator … Yes he is. I surprised myself by reading so far in to one of your posts. I petered out though after finding those errors.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
Here's a shadow of a clue: QUOTE Agree with Will Beback. My suggestion (which is outside of ArbCom's remit) is for the COI guidelines to grow teeth. A respectable, neutral encyclopedia doesn't let random people write themselves into it. ThemFromSpace 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) A "respectable encyclopedia", what a concept! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 4th February 2012, 10:16pm) Here's a shadow of a clue: QUOTE Agree with Will Beback. My suggestion (which is outside of ArbCom's remit) is for the COI guidelines to grow teeth. A respectable, neutral encyclopedia doesn't let random people write themselves into it. ThemFromSpace 06:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC) A "respectable encyclopedia", what a concept! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I thought about responding to that with, "Who said that Wikipedia is a respectable, neutral encyclopedia?"
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 4th February 2012, 4:36pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th February 2012, 7:47pm) … have you ever attempted to communicate and establish rapport with Jmh643, i.e., Doc James? It's Jmh649 (T-C-L-K-R-D)
QUOTE(Abd @ Sat 4th February 2012, 7:47pm) Contrary to one submission to this case, he's not an administrator … Yes he is. I surprised myself by reading so far in to one of your posts. I petered out though after finding those errors. Yes, errors. I'm surprised to find Doc James is an administrator, and has been one for a long time. I worked with him for quite some time, and he simply didn't behave like one.... I knew him as Doc James. Sorry about the error. 643/649, well, I was over 94% correct. That's better than usual!
|
|
|
|
It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Sat 4th February 2012, 5:10pm) QUOTE In what way is the practice of COI editing actually discouraged? It's beginning to look like this COI guideline is an empty and unenforceable suggestion rather than a useful guideline. Will Beback talk 05:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Isn't this something that we on WR have known for years? Identifying a COI with someone who doesn't identify themselves inherently requires "outing". All a person has to do to get away with a COI is not identify themselves and know how to play the game. I remember back when Chip Berlet was editing Wikipedia, Will Beback was against the COI policy, saying that inhibited "experts" from making a grand contribution to the project. And I see that Jimbo just came to Will Beback's defense.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE [edit] Will Beback: desysopped
2.1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, Will Beback is desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.
Support:
Roger Davies talk 15:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Courcelles 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC) For specifically losing sight of Wikipedia's norms and policies in his attempt to fight what he considered an attempt to slant articles. SirFozzie (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, boys'n'girls, place your bets......
|
|
|
|
Ego Trippin' (Part Two) |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined:
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 20th February 2012, 5:47pm) Mr. Beback, who normally edits around the clock, ceased editing 11 minutes after leaving this comment. He may be seeing the handwriting on the wall. This is rich. That was some "typo"!
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 20th February 2012, 5:21pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 20th February 2012, 5:47pm) Mr. Beback, who normally edits around the clock, ceased editing 11 minutes after leaving this comment. He may be seeing the handwriting on the wall. Good gravy, they're even considering whether to ban him. If arbcom keeps this up, we'll run out of things to talk about around here! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) The Encyclopedia Eats Its Own Children
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(radek @ Tue 21st February 2012, 12:12am) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 20th February 2012, 5:21pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 20th February 2012, 5:47pm) Mr. Beback, who normally edits around the clock, ceased editing 11 minutes after leaving this comment. He may be seeing the handwriting on the wall. Good gravy, they're even considering whether to ban him. If arbcom keeps this up, we'll run out of things to talk about around here! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) The Encyclopedia Eats Its Own ChildrenThey'll need a lot of ketchup with Will to mask that bitter taste.
|
|
|
|
Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 21st February 2012, 6:32pm) Yep Admin bit gone. Meanwhile teetering on TM ban, site ban climbing.
It's so funny how Catholic-esque(medieval) wikipedia is. The self flagellation, the kissing of the ring, the confession, the scourging, etc. WP:ANI is the starting point and the I stands for Inquisition rather than Incidents. WP:AnotherNastyInquisition The choir boys are sent home from confessional with 10 Hail Marys, the "currently-out-of-favor" are excommunicated and flogged while the "not-of-the-body" are crucified. The whole thing is The Children's Crusade done online.
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 21st February 2012, 6:51pm) QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 21st February 2012, 6:32pm) Yep Admin bit gone. Meanwhile teetering on TM ban, site ban climbing.
It's so funny how Catholic-esque(medieval) wikipedia is. The self flagellation, the kissing of the ring, the confession, the scourging, etc. WP:ANI is the starting point and the I stands for Inquisition rather than Incidents. WP:AnotherNastyInquisition The choir boys are sent home from confessional with 10 Hail Marys, the "currently-out-of-favor" are excommunicated and flogged while the "not-of-the-body" are crucified. The whole thing is The Children's Crusade done online. (IMG: http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/saving_souls.jpg) Shall we see if we can save him, for old times sake?
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Vigilant @ Tue 21st February 2012, 10:51am) It's so funny how Catholic-esque(medieval) wikipedia is. The self flagellation, the kissing of the ring, the confession, the scourging, etc.
And all of it long after the actual sins were committed..... the hellstorm happens, and Arbcom sits on their hands, until years later. QUOTE 3) The community is encouraged to open a Request for comment on the "Conflicts of Interest" guideline with a view to reconciling some of the apparent contradictions discussed in the applicable finding of fact above. Oh yeah, that's a great idea. QUOTE He would, of course, be welcomed here as a member. Of course, although I think the likelihood of that happening is on a par with the chances of the sun exploding in the next 5 minutes. He is, unquestionably, one of Wikipedia's most intractable, evil content-controllers. His history needs to be preserved so others can see what being a manipulative, obsessed maniac actually accomplishes. Now I have to go and update his wiki article. (You folks do realize he's just going to go back to the same old thing, pwning the same articles, once this blows over? He's still fucking around on the Lyndon LaRouche talkpage. He needs to be locked up, not "topic-banned".) This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 21st February 2012, 1:56pm) He is, unquestionably, one of Wikipedia's most intractable, evil content-controllers. His history needs to be preserved so others can see what being a manipulative, obsessed maniac actually accomplishes. Now I have to go and update his wiki article. (You folks do realize he's just going to go back to the same old thing, pwning the same articles, once this blows over? He's still fucking around on the Lyndon LaRouche talkpage. He needs to be locked up, not "topic-banned".) Memo to any Arbs who are reading this -- if it's not too late to modify the text, it would make a ton of sense for the proposed topic ban on "New Religions articles, broadly construed" to be expanded to include "LaRouche-related political articles," because Will exhibits exactly the same sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND and gaming-the-system behavior there as he does with Prem Rawat etc.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 21st February 2012, 5:12pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 21st February 2012, 1:56pm) He is, unquestionably, one of Wikipedia's most intractable, evil content-controllers. His history needs to be preserved so others can see what being a manipulative, obsessed maniac actually accomplishes. Now I have to go and update his wiki article. (You folks do realize he's just going to go back to the same old thing, pwning the same articles, once this blows over? He's still fucking around on the Lyndon LaRouche talkpage. He needs to be locked up, not "topic-banned".) Memo to any Arbs who are reading this -- if it's not too late to modify the text, it would make a ton of sense for the proposed topic ban on "New Religions articles, broadly construed" to be expanded to include "LaRouche-related political articles," because Will exhibits exactly the same sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND and gaming-the-system behavior there as he does with Prem Rawat etc. They're probably saving that for the ban discussion after people get used to him not being Super Mario any more.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 21st February 2012, 10:43pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 21st February 2012, 5:12pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 21st February 2012, 1:56pm) He is, unquestionably, one of Wikipedia's most intractable, evil content-controllers. His history needs to be preserved so others can see what being a manipulative, obsessed maniac actually accomplishes. Now I have to go and update his wiki article. (You folks do realize he's just going to go back to the same old thing, pwning the same articles, once this blows over? He's still fucking around on the Lyndon LaRouche talkpage. He needs to be locked up, not "topic-banned".) Memo to any Arbs who are reading this -- if it's not too late to modify the text, it would make a ton of sense for the proposed topic ban on "New Religions articles, broadly construed" to be expanded to include "LaRouche-related political articles," because Will exhibits exactly the same sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND and gaming-the-system behavior there as he does with Prem Rawat etc. They're probably saving that for the ban discussion after people get used to him not being Super Mario any more. The discussion here is too weird for me for the following reasons: - Will Beback is a Wikipedian not unlike any other Wikipedian on Wikipedia. He may be more adept at game-playing than others, but he's still a Wikipedian. Just a Wikipedian.
- There is this weird attribution of superpowers to Will Beback which I can't follow. It's like he single-handedly made Wikipedia suck for a good portion of people active here. While I sympathize with those who dislike their nemeses, the guy is still just one Wikipedian (see 1).
- There is this assumption that Arbcom is somehow sympathetic to the peanut gallery's analysis here. I think arbcom is just upset that Will Beback discovered a loophole and cleverly exploited it. If they had any courage, they'd have made a finding that criticized Jimbo Wales handling of the case. Instead, there's this weird "principle". This rather strikes me as similar to the ineffectual rulings made by some disenfranchised judge in a corrupt banana republic.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 5:57am) QUOTE(iii @ Tue 21st February 2012, 8:20pm)
Will Beback is a Wikipedian not unlike any other Wikipedian on Wikipedia. He may be more adept at game-playing than others, but he's still a Wikipedian. Just a Wikipedian.
Granted, but he has worked hard to attain the celebrity status that he enjoys at the Review. He's not the only one -- you can glance over the past several years of pageants to see some of the truly stellar Wikipedians that we have honored here. You should have been here during SlimVirgin's heyday. But regarding Will, it's not just that he is a clever game-player. It's that he does it with such inimitable panache. Will Beback will often do whatever it takes to get his way in a topic or article. See, for example, how he tried to manipulate my Climate Change ban here to get me kicked off the LaRouche articles because I was getting in his way. In my opinion, Will Beback is one of the last of WP's old guard cabal whose defining characteristic was that they believed that their way, or their content, were the best things for Wikipedia and were willing, and often able, to do whatever it took to get their way.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 12:57am) But regarding Will, it's not just that he is a clever game-player. It's that he does it with such inimitable panache. You're positively gushing. It's almost like, wait... could it possibly be?... are you jealous? Nah.... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 22nd February 2012, 3:05am) Will Beback will often do whatever it takes to get his way in a topic or article. But can you blame him? I mean, the goal of Wikipedia is to win, isn't it? If that means stretching a ruling to the point of its breaking to aid in your victory, that's what it means, right? This post has been edited by iii:
|
|
|
|
Ego Trippin' (Part Two) |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined:
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413
|
Lest it be overshadowed by the infighting here on WR. The desysop has been passing for a few days now, but as of today so is the topic ban from new religious movements. And, astonishingly, the indefinite site-ban is only two votes away from passing. It probably wouldn't have gone this way for Will if he had admitted the impropriety of his actions the way Cirt did.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 24th February 2012, 6:58pm) He made a bad tactical decision to go with a "Mea culpa lite," where he admitted only to being "overzealous on COI issues." Over the years he has perfected his passive-aggressive battlefield style, where he never gives a straight answer to any question, let alone admits to anything. And in the end, it has proved his undoing.
Is it better to be in a self-imposed box of shame or a bureaucratically-imposed one? I honestly don't know the answer when it comes to Wikipedia. I guess we'll discover it together when we see whether Cirt or Will Beback comes out on top in a few years.
|
|
|
|
Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE 1.1 TimidGuy: site ban vacated 10 0 0 PASSING 1.2 TimidGuy: advised 10 0 0 PASSING 2.1 Will Beback: desysopped 8 0 1 PASSING 2.2 Will Beback: admonished 9 0 1 PASSING 2.3 Will Beback: new religious movements topic ban 8 0 1 PASSING Of all these remedies so far, the most important is the last. It removes Will Beback as a persistent POV-pusher and BLP guilt-by-loose-association editor. Those actions persist much longer than his use of tools. This post has been edited by Zoloft:
|
|
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Sat 25th February 2012, 8:38pm) Even more impressive is that "Will Beback: banned" is now at 7 votes, one vote away from passing.
I bet you're going to have a little party Herschelkrustofsky, aren't you, .....The Larouche cult ( more) seems no better than Scientology in how they attempt to destroy their enemies in any way possible, I hope someone else picks up after him on that at least even if he's a dick in other ways. I didn't realise just how creepy an organisation it is and wish I had looked into it before (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) QUOTE QUOTE(Emperor @ Fri 24th February 2012, 2:07pm) Funny thing is that sockpuppetry really does destroy forums, as in nobody wants to have a conversation with two accounts/one guy.
A lot of times around here I get the impression just like on Wikipedia I'll start a good conversation, then some dimwit charges in with a cavalcade of socks and makes it all about their pet issue.
Other examples around here include HK with his LaRouche stuff and the Overstock.com crew.
Moderators don't think it's a big deal if it's someone they like. Basically no integrity whatsoever. It's all just a power struggle, now Selina tipped the balance a little bit and they're screaming bloody murder.
I thought I should come out and say this again, as I previously said to Hersch in private, and earlier in this thread, one of the things really bothered me for the integrity of WR was finding out that Hersch posted from the Party office of the larouche organisation, Hersch has not denied this and we've always ignored his POV on that because the amount of time he is able to spend on moderation outweighed the negatives — But then I thought, well, if he's being paid for actually helping use WR as a propaganda tool.... that makes me feel a bit sick, as if any political organisation had a semi-official foothold in WR when its meant to be a neutral watchdog really (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I think bringing the issue of his mass-sockpuppeting on Wikipedia is what really turned him against me, but I felt I had to ask if he was sockpuppeting here, he has vehemently denied it, but of course we have no way to know when its someone who's demonstrated expertise in it. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It just made me feel like WR had been "invaded" really. I never really looked into Larouche much before, but I have been reading up since finding out that Hersch was a heavy sockpuppeteer and the things I read troubled me a lot, it seems rather cultish in a way that reminds me of Scientology It just made me feel dirty that we are basically hosting subsections dedicated to " fair gaming" of " Suppressive Persons" who stand up against exactly the same attempts at whitewashing campaigns that Scientology has attempted on Wikipedia. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) QUOTE this is coming a few days after mentioning his "Grand Theft Socking" on Wikipedia and asking if he had any here too, and whom I commented, to just a couple of hours earlier, that he has occasionally posted from the offices of the Larouche Party, which he didn't comment on but seems like it really annoyed him being found out. QUOTE Needed to be said in public so people know what they are dealing with... I never really looked hard into who they were really before either, I thought just another crazy american political group, and that if people like Will Beback who went around bullying everyone hated them they can't be all that bad but they are pretty damn creepy. I didn't know for 6 years that Hersch actually worked for the larouche Party and had never told us til I did some digging. He didn't deny it, but it's the fact that he never told any of us, and worked himself into a position of trust here to further his agenda in the same way he manipulates people on Wikipedia - that is what sickens me.This: It's kind of a shame, because in the light of reading more about the Larouche party's neo-nazi version of scientiology-like loveliness, it seems like it was all just another case of the occasional bad people fighting other bad people and evening things out, and now I am figuring this is going to be like open season for the Party's sockpuppets now who have also apparently been using WR as a platform for years without telling us. I hope they let other rabid admins loose on organisations that employ POV-pushers armed with the P words really, because that's about all that works against those kind of people - and at least puts the crazies and manipulators somewhere useful, fighting each other instead of hurting everyone else. I just feel like it hurts others' rights too when hydras are used to drown out free speech - I accept it, and I'm not going on any kind of war, this is the end of it - as I said, the nature of the internet is vulnerable in a way that trying to fight it is literally pointless - corporations and PR companies know this, and we are going to see more and more taking advantage of this, as well as governments, in the future, but that is my prediction — and I'm not happy about making it, that is the way things are going, and will go unless some organisation like the EFF or something comes up with a bright idea on how to stop that "industry" growing and growing ... But I am not sure if there is anything that can be done to stop it. Sites like Wikipedia Review, Anonymous, Wikileaks, any watchdog will not be able to fight the highest bidder in a few years as the technology improves, I am sure of it (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It may not be too bad now as it is mostly amateurs and "enthusiasts" (and illegal if caught in both the US and UK) for now though, and you're right that as long as there is enough scrutiny on what all of us say, and we keep a grain of salt rather than "good faith", we're probably ok, but yeah, it's for that same reason I was pretty uncomfortable with keeping it to myself too, I really had to get my concerns off my chest there.
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sat 25th February 2012, 2:53pm) So which of the remaining monkeys has been lined up to deliver the Coup de Grâce?
The arbs who have yet to vote are AGK NYBrad Elen David Fuchs Hersfold Coren Actually, I'm not sure about Coren and AGK since they're nowhere on that page. Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. On the other hand Risker is listed as "Inactive" but she voted in some the earlier proposals. AGK is not on the page either. So maybe it's the other four + Risker, who, I'm guessing is going to try and stay "inactive" for as long as possible. It must suck to be the "pivotal voter". I betcha all of them are thinking of ways they could recuse this late in the game. The "equilbrium" now is to wait for another person to vote first, since at that point your vote doesn't matter and if it's ever thrown in your face in the future you can point that out. So, barring a brave soul, I think we're gonna hafta wait for that next vote for awhile (and I expect there will be at least one more "Oppose" or "Abstain" (under some sketchy reason) before a "Support", if any, votes are cast.
|
|
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
Herschelkrustofsky , ever since I brought it up with you with the other mods you've been constantly attacking me, and when I started going after sockpuppets you just plain freaked out. Did you really think your attempts at smearing me for banning what seemed like a sockpuppet would intimidate me into silence? Yeah, I think I was wrong on that one, but when people like you deliberately go through such effort to manipulate people I know sometimes there is very little to go on. Like I said to you before, whatever, I'm not going to even bother trying since Wikipedia can't stop you apparently either, but the public deserved to know who is running your pet subforum projects attacking people who dare challenge the larouche cult on Wikipedia... I doubt if you had not worked yourself into a position of trust here we would have them, because most people either don't care enough to read about it (like I did originally) or when they do actually read impartial sources about it, find out what a racist creep organisation it is... It needed to be said, so people know though. Cedric, I'm glad that he told you at least then, I knew he was a POV warrior on it, but he never once mentioned that he worked for them to me, or in group conversations... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) I'll stop, for the kitty.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Selina @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:54pm) the public deserved to know who is running your pet subforum projects attacking people who dare challenge the larouche cult on Wikipedia... I doubt if you had not worked yourself into a position of trust here we would have them, because most people either don't care enough to read about it (like I did originally) or when they do actually read impartial sources about it, find out what a racist creep organisation it is... I joined WR knowing the Hersch was a LaRouche acolyte. It took about 5 seconds of searching to figure that out. More than that, he hardly has kept this a secret here and had rather consistently toed the LaRouche-party line. Good on him, I'd say. Points for non-hypocrisy and all that. I've made it clear in many different places what kind of low-regard I have for LaRouche's ideas and platforms, but, in a testament to the integrity of this community and Hersch as well, I have received nary a finger-wag for my troubles. The hands-off moderation at this site ensures that WR really does welcome all-comers -- unlike the website that it ostensibly reviews. That Hersch is able to moderate and make useful contributions just shows that painting people with a broad brush of condemnation is not justifiable no matter how nutty their beliefs. As far as the larger question of Wikipedia content, I've intimated this before but will come out and say it: in terms of the intelligence of ideas, Will Beback has more-or-less been on the right side of content in every conflict in which he's taken part. The Scientologists, LaRoucheans, or the Transcendental Meditators got burned because they all ended up in the same trap: trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising outlet for their cause. If they were smart, they wouldn't have done this because the free-for-all atmosphere and juvenile bureaucracy at Wikipedia more-or-less invites the kind of backlash brought upon their heads. In the wild world of anybody-can-edit, creating extensive content on your pet subject is liable to get you into trouble as people begin to dig up distasteful and defamatory material out of spite or simply out of trollish glee. Removing such material from Wikipedia when you've tried to include alternate material based on insular sourcing and down-the-rabbit-hole designs is almost impossible since the argument ultimately boils down to a he-said-she-said of referencing credulity. It's par for the course: expect that your new idea will be thrown through the ringer if you manage to get it included in Wikipedia at all. If these groups were smart, they'd use their networks to work tirelessly to delete most of the articles on the subjects near-and-dear to their hearts, in the style of Daniel Brandt. I've observed however, that intelligence does not positively correlate with the membership of these groups. This post has been edited by iii:
|
|
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
Radek: I know who you are getting at there, and my point it is relevant, and it did needed to be said in this conversation, as Will Beback was the main one tracking Herschelkrustofsky/the Party's scientology-like efforts on Wikipedia, it's very much on topic. Even when I first brought it up with the other mods a couple of weeks ago, before I even started checking for sockpuppets, Herschelkrustofsky/the Party blamed the tracking of his sockpuppets all on Will Beback personally as if he was some kind of victim whilst openly engaging in attempted manipulation - they seem both obsessed with watching each other as much equally. Hersch/the Party's main tactic seems very similar to Scientology in that they attempt to defame anyone criticising or attacking them, in the public eye in whatever way possible. For years I was tricked us into thinking the larouche party was some kind of repressed underdog because known otherwise-corrupt admins like Will Beback in other ways fought them amongst their other POV battles - and I hope that serves as a lesson really to other administrators on Wikipedia that when you act in scummy ways to other people like Will Beback, and that nearly all that people hear about you is bad, then everyone is less inclined to believe anything you say even on the few occasions when you're actually doing something right. I feel like an idiot for not reading up more on the Party at the time now... I am sickened that I actually defended the Party's representative on this stuff after having read the links I gave above, and I deliberately didn't do my research from Wikipedia - the only link there other than WP that is actually on WP also is the lyndonlarouchewatch.org one - those sites seem pretty reliable with 2 of those sites are actually jew sites themselves the ADL I've even heard of in the UK so yeah — but of course I know they are all part of the "British Jew Empire World War 3 conspiracy" against the Party, of course. He may have not openly used staff powers corruptly on that account, but certainly steered the forum the way he wanted it to be - I doubt we'd have a forum for someone like Chip Berlet if he wasn't an enemy of the Party because most people either don't care about larouche or when reading it, like every mainstream source that writes about it, finds it a thoroughly unpleasant racist conspiracy theorist cult/Scientology-like organisation... And yeah, that's enough, but I thought I should explain why I was posting it here in public as it needs to be a matter of historical record that I said this, and when someone operating this site is actively working for a political party it should have been openly said years ago. I knew he was a POV pusher yeah, but that's very different because there's plenty of amateur POV pushers and they're relatively harmless, so like many people couldn't give a crap about larouche until I read more on it recently. Way before I started looking for sockpuppets, finding out about their sockpuppet web is what caused this whole thing, the other mods know I posted after I found just how insanely manipulatively creepy Herschelkrustofsky/the Party's sockpuppet web on Wikipedia was that I raised it with him in private as the other mods know — and seeing how large it was, and the ease he changes his IPs is what made me concerned that we might have similar problems here, since it seemed a bit like we put a Fox in charge of the chicken coop being allowed to approve new registrations like he did with "It's the blimp, Frank" — that's JUST like what happened with Michael Baxter/Poetguy) If you genuinely didn't know why I was posting that here, I hope that helps, it was very much on the topic. I'll try not to cause an argument for the the sake of Cedric and kitties, but it needed to be public as Wikipedia Review is supposed to be an independent site, and Herschelkrustofsky knew that, and should have made it public instead of me having to find out 6 damn years later... If it hadn't been for the drama surrounding Will Beback I wouldn't have even known to look.
|
|
|
|
Ego Trippin' (Part Two) |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined:
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413
|
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) The arbs who have yet to vote are AGK NYBrad Elen David Fuchs Hersfold Coren Actually, I'm not sure about Coren and AGK since they're nowhere on that page. Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. On the other hand Risker is listed as "Inactive" but she voted in some the earlier proposals. AGK is not on the page either. So maybe it's the other four + Risker, who, I'm guessing is going to try and stay "inactive" for as long as possible. It must suck to be the "pivotal voter". I betcha all of them are thinking of ways they could recuse this late in the game. The "equilbrium" now is to wait for another person to vote first, since at that point your vote doesn't matter and if it's ever thrown in your face in the future you can point that out. So, barring a brave soul, I think we're gonna hafta wait for that next vote for awhile (and I expect there will be at least one more "Oppose" or "Abstain" (under some sketchy reason) before a "Support", if any, votes are cast. According to this list, Risker and Coren are active on the case, while AGK and Hersfold are not. So now that David Fuchs has opposed the ban, that leaves Risker, NYB, Elen of the Roads, and apparently Coren as the arbitrators who can cast the decisive vote. However, Coren has made just one edit in the past month, so listing him as "active" might be an oversight. If they were to remove Coren from the active list (which makes sense if he's not going to participate), the majority would be 7 instead of 8, which means that Mailer Diablo's already-on-the-record vote to ban would be decisive. QUOTE(Selina @ Sat 25th February 2012, 6:16pm) For years I was tricked us into thinking the larouche party was some kind of repressed underdog because known otherwise-corrupt admins like Will Beback in other ways fought them amongst their other POV battles - and I hope that serves as a lesson really to other administrators on Wikipedia that when you act in scummy ways to other people like Will Beback, and that nearly all that people hear about you is bad, then everyone is less inclined to believe anything you say even on the few occasions when you're actually doing something right. I feel like an idiot for not reading up more on the Party at the time now...
Well, I wouldn't say that the content of the LaRouche articles is dictated by HK and Nobs01, would you? This post has been edited by Ego Trippin' (Part Two):
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications!
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(iii @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:48pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications! It's marked as passed in the motion to close. Jimmy actually was a victim, but only because he's an easy mark for the cabalists.
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(iii @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:48pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications! It's marked as passed in the motion to close. Jimmy actually was a victim, but only because he's an easy mark for the cabalists. Remember, Jimbo was a member of at least one of those mailing list that the main cabal used to operate.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 26th February 2012, 8:31am) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(iii @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:48pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications! It's marked as passed in the motion to close. Jimmy actually was a victim, but only because he's an easy mark for the cabalists. Remember, Jimbo was a member of at least one of those mailing list that the main cabal used to operate. I would have loved to see an argument over whether they wanted to "remind" or "admonish" Jimbo. Super Mario status indeed!
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 26th February 2012, 8:31am) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(iii @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:48pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications! It's marked as passed in the motion to close. Jimmy actually was a victim, but only because he's an easy mark for the cabalists. Remember, Jimbo was a member of at least one of those mailing list that the main cabal used to operate. Right, but my point was that Jimmy seems to instinctively trust the cabal people. Perhaps he has great faith in the mechanisms that select people for membership in the cabals, or maybe they just kiss up to him and he assumes that anyone who thinks he's great must be right about other things too. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)
|
|
|
|
Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(iii @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:48pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sat 25th February 2012, 7:39pm) I wasn't expecting the indef ban to pass, but it now has the required eight votes. It's still not quite passing yet, however, since John Vandenberg is making it his second choice. I won't opine on it until the case officially closes, which might be in about 24-hours from now. It looks like it will pass on the basis of the moral outrage of the new crowd. Still, it amazes me how many are willing to say that Jimbo was the victim in their justifications! It's marked as passed in the motion to close. Jimmy actually was a victim, but only because he's an easy mark for the cabalists. Jimbo Wales, the equivalent of a retarded five year old with a shotgun being egged on by third graders who want the poor kid to shoot the second grader who refused to give up his lunch money...
|
|
|
|
lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. Ya think MyWigiBiz might be a kewl name?
|
|
|
|
Vigilant |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined:
Member No.: 8,684
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Sun 26th February 2012, 3:53pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 26th February 2012, 11:08am) QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. Ya think MyWigiBiz might be a kewl name? I think myGiggityGiggityBiz is the way to go.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
[ Fast-develping tangent about Larouche moved here. Movie after the late late late show. ]
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 27th February 2012, 2:16am) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 26th February 2012, 6:11pm) Shouldn't be comrade Jimbo be desysoped and/or site banned (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) too? After all it was he who banned TimidGuy with no reason? I'll buy that for a dollar. What this idiom means? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Manning Bartlett |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 59,115
|
It's a reference to a line used in the song "The Girls of Porn" by the band Mr Bungle. The line itself was sampled from the movie Robocop.
I think it means something you'd like to either have or see.
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(radek @ Sat 25th February 2012, 4:14pm) Coren is listed as an arbitrator pro tempore. I get a little giggle every time the Arbs throw in a bit of courtroom Latin to make themselves seem more official. The WMF should provide powdered wigs, assuming that Jimmy has a friend in the wig-making biz. QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 20th February 2012, 8:21pm) This sort of thing amuses me. I have no idea about the merits of mbz1's case against the administrator, or the case against mbz1 for bringing the case, although I have my suspicions. But is it really possible for anybody in his right mind to get all broken up about being kicked out of the Wikipedia insane asylum? I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders. And then, if you really want to keep working on the wiki, nothing is stopping you from making a new account and getting back to work, instantly, as everybody knows. It's ridiculous. In fact, the complexity of the ridiculousness is mind-boggling, and would take a very complicated essay to tease out. Evidently mbz1 isn't actually upset about being blocked, and is taking a sensible attitude. I was blocked, and voted to be blocked myself, but they voted to unblock me anyway. Go figure!
|
|
|
|
Ego Trippin' (Part Two) |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 47
Joined:
From: Ohio
Member No.: 42,413
|
Off2rioRob praises ArbCom for desysopping Will Beback, Cirt, William Connolley, and Durova: QUOTE This seems to be a watershed in wikipedia history - the power users and content controllers that entrenched before policy developed are mostly gone now - User:Cirt - User:WMC and User:Will Beback - all deysopped - sanctioned - add User:Durova to the group and we are in a new era. All users should follow NPOV or they can and should expect similar sanctions. The Cabal is dead. - Youreallycan 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
...and predictably gets censored by a "clerk" named Guerillero. ArbCom officially recognized that those four admins had engaged in major misconduct, but apparently you're still not allowed to talk about it on Wikipedia. The more things change...
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |