Dirty tricks cabal or just idle talk? Options

[carbuncle]

There are some strong accusations being thrown out about members of a certain closed mailing list.

Concentrated stalking and attacks against Russavia

Yesterday a member of a closed e-mail list named "Wikipediametric" forwarded me their archive asking me to do something about it. Out of the 3000+ emails more than a half is filled with discussion how "to get" and "attack" Russavia. Among the suggested methods were stalking Russavia edits, carefully crafted edit warring (making sure that no member of the group would make more than one or two reverts), low level personal attacks designed to engineer civility blocks for Russavia's responses, block shopping, attempts to out Russavia. "Friends of Russavia", particular User:PasswordUsername, User:Offliner, User:YMB29 as well as User:Anonimu were also under similar attack. The group was also discussing ways to plant their own checkusers, methods of creating sockpuppets untraceable by checkusering, etc. So far I have not found a single discussion or even kudos for creating noncontroversial wiki content but long series of joy on every block for the people listed as their enemies, particular Russavia. They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies. Among the most active members are User:Digwuren, User:Biophys, User:Piotrus, User:Molobo, User:Radeksz. The emails are almost certainly genuine. It looks like for at list half a year Russavia was a target of constant coordinated attacks by a group of active wikipedians quite skillful in the art of achieving victory by banning their opponents. I am not sure he was aware of this particular group but the editing history of articles touched by Russavia is quite telling by itself. I do not think it is in the project best interest to let them succeed.

I am not sure what to do about this archive. I will forward it to the Arbcom and I could provide it to any administrator I trust. I would not give it to nonadmins (including Russavia himself) or anybody else (unless the authors give me permissions) as it contain a significant amount of personal information that might be abused. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[LaraLove]

And the plot thickens. Some Wikipedians are dropping bricks from their bums today, I bet.

Someone grab the popcorn. This, my friends, should be a good show. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[MBisanz]

It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at least a colorable claim to the allegations: WP:AC/N#Eastern European mailing list.

This post has been edited by MBisanz:

[Nja247]

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

[thekohser]

Here is the full disclosure:

Wikipedia is a multi-player role-playing game, disguised as an encyclopedia. Anyone who seems shocked or disturbed when this truth is empirically revealed has either lost the game or is feigning their shock or distress.

[LaraLove]

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.

[No one of consequence]

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.

If there really are 3000 emails it would be pretty impractical to release a redacted copy and not make any mistakes. If this ends up being the evidence used for permanent desyopping and sanctions, I would like to see disclosure and discussion of redacted examples as part of Arbcom's formal decision.

Folks shouldn't hold their breath, though. This could take a while.

[carbuncle]

I say let there be full disclosure and then let the community decide.

No. Personal information need not be released like that. However, I agree with whoever suggested that certain emails be posted with personal information and email addresses removed. It was also suggested names be removed, but that's just silly.

If admins were participating in these threads and plotting to attack or harass an editor, the evidence should be presented and they should be desysopped. Past that, community discussion should take place with the incriminating emails (personal info removed) released to determine what actions should be taken otherwise, up to bannings.

I don't recognize most of the names in this drama, so I don't remember who posted and I don't care to go find it now, but one of the accused said he does not give permission for anything he said on the list to be revealed. Period. Then went into some legal bullshit and crybaby whining about how things were said with the expectation that they would remain private. Boo hoo. Good job at admitting guilt, though.

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[LaraLove]

If there really are 3000 emails it would be pretty impractical to release a redacted copy and not make any mistakes. If this ends up being the evidence used for permanent desyopping and sanctions, I would like to see disclosure and discussion of redacted examples as part of Arbcom's formal decision.

Folks shouldn't hold their breath, though. This could take a while.

No, no. Not the whole archive. I mean certain emails. The most damning. This way the community knows what went on.

Releasing them all would be... well, it reminds me of when Kelly Martin was releasing early ArbCom-l emails individually. I forget who it was, but someone described it best as "intensely boring." It would probably be much like that to go through them all.

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

Are you one of the accused? If not, your AGF is staggering.

[carbuncle]

Releasing partially redacted info would certainly give people something to occupy themselves with, but as Piotrus says "Russavia was not that often discussed" and "list contains a ton of private information" and "the group archive was hacked" and the real villain will not "hesitate to adjust their 'evidence' to make it more appealing" and people on the list made "comments would prefer they don't get back to people with admin/arbcom power" and "it is inherently impossible to judge whether the alleged archive is real or not ". Obviously the only thing to do is deleted these fake, hacked, personal, compromising, yet still fake, emails and forget about the whole thing.

Are you one of the accused? If not, your AGF is staggering.

I'm practising up for my RFA. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

[Cla68]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Moulton]

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

[Backslashforwardslash]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia?

He's Australian, but that doesn't mean he hasn't got Russian heritage.

This post has been edited by Backslashforwardslash:

[LaraLove]

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

Yes, we get it. Game. Gangs. Players. MMPORG. Leveling up. We got it, Moulton. We got it.

[Cla68]

A case has been opened.

[Nevo]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

Oh, common! Russians got the whole state behind them with internet brigades and Historical Truth commissions funded by the Kremlin. If someone needed that badly to gang up against them, there was a reason why they couldn't be dealt with otherwise.

[EricBarbour]

FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponents have gained infamy
for idiotic editwarring over articles related to Russia and the Baltics.

Digwuren can claim this mess as his very own. A lousy Arbcom decision, if I did say so myself.

(Oddly, WR people thought Piotrus was a good guy, earlier this year. A guy
pushing a pro-Polish POV, in apparent violation of WP rules, is a good guy? Really?)

As Everyking said 2 years ago:

East European political articles, particularly regarding the Soviet era, are infested with extreme nationalism, Russophobia, and history distorted to the point of comedy. The worst ones I've seen pertain to the Baltic states. From what I've seen, it is not a case of warring POVs nearly so much as it is one POV exercising almost absolute control.

This makes one wonder: are there other mailing lists that assholes use to
secretly coordinate slimy attacks on their WP opponents??.........
golly, isn't this familiar sounding???.......... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And I notice they were talking about the mailing list contents being posted online
somewhere, openly readable by all. Wonder where. Yeah, I'm a sickie.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[victim of censorship]

FWIW, Russavia and some of Russavia's opponents have gained infamy
for idiotic editwarring over articles related to Russia and the Baltics.

Digwuren can claim this mess as his very own. A lousy Arbcom decision, if I did say so myself.

(Oddly, WR people thought Piotrus was a good guy, earlier this year. A guy
pushing a pro-Polish POV, in apparent violation of WP rules, is a good guy? Really?)

As Everyking said 2 years ago:

East European political articles, particularly regarding the Soviet era, are infested with extreme nationalism, Russophobia, and history distorted to the point of comedy. The worst ones I've seen pertain to the Baltic states. From what I've seen, it is not a case of warring POVs nearly so much as it is one POV exercising almost absolute control.

This makes one wonder: are there other mailing lists that assholes use to
secretly coordinate slimy attacks on their WP opponents??.........
golly, isn't this familiar sounding???.......... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(And I notice they were talking about the mailing list contents being posted online
somewhere, openly readable by all. Wonder where. Yeah, I'm a sickie.)

You mean, an attack like this?
(IMG:http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7455/wikifish.jpg)

[MBisanz]

So, has anyone attempted to make sense of the underlying dispute here? It looks like Russavia (T-C-L-K-R-D) is Russian and pro-Putin, and to some extent pro-Serbia (in line with the traditional Russian support of Serbia), whereas the people on the mailing list in question are... anti-Russia? Or just anti-Putin, or against pro-Russian attempts to whitewash Soviet history? Piotrus claims to be from Poland, and went to the University of Pittsburgh, so that would tend to reinforce that notion (i.e., he's likely to have a Western-influenced view of Soviet history).

Most of Russavia's edits are "wikignoming," adding categories and some rather unfortunate mass-stubbings of politician BLP's and the like, but I saw a few diffs in there like this one, the likes of which apparently led some of these mailing-list folks to accuse him of being a "neo-Nazi."

Sooo.... putting their tactics aside for the moment, I can't say I blame these mailing-list folks all that much for their dislike of Mr. Russavia. Then again, it's probably also true that a lot of the Russia-bashing that occurs on WP in general is unfair and inaccurate. Hence the problem, eh?

This is one of the long running trends I have seen. Basically there is an unreasonable editor pushing a POV or some other wiki-crime. But the other side facing them wants so complete a POV victory and lacks the range of skills of debate required to show the POV pusher is wrong, that they resort to the heavy handed tactics documented in so many cases (Cold Fusion, WMC-Abd, JzG-Abd, Homeopathy, etc).

I would imagine 90% of the people in this forum are closer to "the house's" view of Scientology than the COFS' view of its own religion, but objected to the way in which "the house" handled the cases over the years.

So I would not be surprised at all to learn that Russavia has an extreme POV or that he is pushing a POV. Just that his opposition couldn't articulate it to the satisfaction of the community and turned to these alleged mailing list shenanigans to accomplish the same result.

[GlassBeadGame]

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

Yes, we get it. Game. Gangs. Players. MMPORG. Leveling up. We got it, Moulton. We got it.

Not really, if you "got it" you would leave. Not try to improve it, quietly work on articles, cut back on your editing or make the best of a bad situation. You would leave. It is not a trivial criticism if you really understand it. Any honest criticism can only be made from outside.

[Abd]

This is one of the long running trends I have seen. Basically there is an unreasonable editor pushing a POV or some other wiki-crime. But the other side facing them wants so complete a POV victory and lacks the range of skills of debate required to show the POV pusher is wrong, that they resort to the heavy handed tactics documented in so many cases (Cold Fusion, WMC-Abd, JzG-Abd, Homeopathy, etc).

Right. Alternative explanation: The "House" is wrong, i.e., the minority view is better supported in the sources. And to resolve this (which is it?) takes actually finding consensus, it can't be fixed by right/wrong judgments, blocks and bans. One of the most pernicious concepts invented is "Civil POV-pusher," because it leads to sanctions for proper behavior, based on an alleged "agenda." ArbComm has fallen into this trap a number of times, and I've only reviewed relatively few cases. People with a POV can be expected to "push" it, and if they are experts, it's normal that they will push hard, because experts tend to have a strong POV, they didn't invest years in study and developing experience for nothing! An editor who actually researches an article, becoming very knowledgeable on a topic (though perhaps still being short of "expert,"), has made a decision that the topic is worth the time, and that points to one of two likely motives: passionate opposition or passionate support, the "I just like being knowledgeable" position is more rare and haphazard.

What happens is that someone who becomes passionate on the minority side gets banned, much more rarely someone on the majority side, it's natural to the politics of it. Minor misbehavior on one side results in blocks and bans, it takes truly spectacular misbehavior on the majority side to end up with the same. That creates a serious systemic bias. Majority POV-pushing, which can generally be accomplished without blatant rule violations, is, in the end, more dangerous to neutrality than minority POV-pushing, because the latter is much more easily restrained.

[Jim]

Not really, if you "got it" you would leave. Not try to improve it, quietly work on articles, cut back on your editing or make the best of a bad situation. You would leave. It is not a trivial criticism if you really understand it. Any honest criticism can only be made from outside.

See, that's true wisdom.

You can't criticise the rules of a game you're playing, while you're playing it, while you've repeatedly accepted those rules, and continue to play them.

.... and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Get outside the game and criticiise from there - you're pretty well placed for that.

This post has been edited by Jim:

[LaraLove]

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

Yes, we get it. Game. Gangs. Players. MMPORG. Leveling up. We got it, Moulton. We got it.

Not really, if you "got it" you would leave. Not try to improve it, quietly work on articles, cut back on your editing or make the best of a bad situation. You would leave. It is not a trivial criticism if you really understand it. Any honest criticism can only be made from outside.

Blah, blah, blah.

I was saying that we get Moulton's view. GBG. I'll choose to loathe Wikipedia in my own way, kthx.

[Jim]

I was saying that we get Moulton's view. GBG. I'll choose to loathe Wikipedia in my own way, kthx.

Can I loathe it in my own way, and still appreciate the extra ways you've offered ?

Just asking...

[Friday]

The Russia vs Poland vs Serbia vs Georgia vs Chechnya vs Azerbaijan vs Armenia vs the Bolshoi vs everything else related is one of the most ridiculously adversarial areas in Wikipedia.

Ridiculous, if Wikipeida were an academically grounded encyclopedia. But not so ridiculous if Wikipedia were an MMPORG inhabited by rival gangs of players.

Yes, we get it. Game. Gangs. Players. MMPORG. Leveling up. We got it, Moulton. We got it.

Not really, if you "got it" you would leave. Not try to improve it, quietly work on articles, cut back on your editing or make the best of a bad situation. You would leave. It is not a trivial criticism if you really understand it. Any honest criticism can only be made from outside.

I don't buy this at all. There are any number of people who attempt criticism from the inside. Whether it's accomplishing anything or not, is of course debatable. But the same exact thing can be said of the criticism from the outside.

[LaraLove]

I was saying that we get Moulton's view. GBG. I'll choose to loathe Wikipedia in my own way, kthx.

Can I loathe it in my own way, and still appreciate the extra ways you've offered ?

Just asking...

You surely can, but rest assured I won't spout my ways off in every other thread.

[Moulton]

There are any number of people who attempt criticism from the inside. Whether it's accomplishing anything or not, is of course debatable. But the same exact thing can be said of the criticism from the outside.

Constructive criticism, analysis, diagnosis, and proposed remedies have been offered both inside and outside.

When it's done on the inside, it generally precipitates a warlike response, including transparent attempts to dismiss, marginalize, silence, or eject the critic. External reviews have the advantage that they are unlikely to be summarily erased by overzealous defenders of the wiki. At best, Jimbo and his minions can attempt to suppress references to such external reviews from within Wiki projects.

[Friday]

There are any number of people who attempt criticism from the inside. Whether it's accomplishing anything or not, is of course debatable. But the same exact thing can be said of the criticism from the outside.

Constructive criticism, analysis, diagnosis, and proposed remedies have been offered both inside and outside.

When it's done on the inside, it generally precipitates a warlike response, including transparent attempts to dismiss, marginalize, silence, or eject the critic. External reviews have the advantage that they are unlikely to be summarily erased by overzealous defenders of the wiki. At best, Jimbo and his minions can attempt to suppress references to such external reviews from within Wiki projects.

I mostly agree.. altho I would suggest that this means more criticism from the inside is a good thing. The more people engage in these transparent attempts to dismiss or silence the criticism, the more unreasonable they make themselves look. Eventually, it'll become fairly clear to most people what's going on. That's my (probably naive) perspective, anyway.

It's also worth pointing out that someone on the "inside" is not necessarily an "insider". I've been around the Wiki for a couple years, but I doubt anyone would consider me an insider.

[Cedric]

There are any number of people who attempt criticism from the inside. Whether it's accomplishing anything or not, is of course debatable. But the same exact thing can be said of the criticism from the outside.

Constructive criticism, analysis, diagnosis, and proposed remedies have been offered both inside and outside.

When it's done on the inside, it generally precipitates a warlike response, including transparent attempts to dismiss, marginalize, silence, or eject the critic. External reviews have the advantage that they are unlikely to be summarily erased by overzealous defenders of the wiki. At best, Jimbo and his minions can attempt to suppress references to such external reviews from within Wiki projects.

I mostly agree.. altho I would suggest that this means more criticism from the inside is a good thing. The more people engage in these transparent attempts to dismiss or silence the criticism, the more unreasonable they make themselves look. Eventually, it'll become fairly clear to most people what's going on. That's my (probably naive) perspective, anyway.

Correct. You are being naive, in that many people figured out years ago what is really going on, but nothing of consequence changes.

[Kelly Martin]

This is one of the long running trends I have seen. Basically there is an unreasonable editor pushing a POV or some other wiki-crime. But the other side facing them wants so complete a POV victory and lacks the range of skills of debate required to show the POV pusher is wrong, that they resort to the heavy handed tactics documented in so many cases (Cold Fusion, WMC-Abd, JzG-Abd, Homeopathy, etc).

I would imagine 90% of the people in this forum are closer to "the house's" view of Scientology than the COFS' view of its own religion, but objected to the way in which "the house" handled the cases over the years.

So I would not be surprised at all to learn that Russavia has an extreme POV or that he is pushing a POV. Just that his opposition couldn't articulate it to the satisfaction of the community and turned to these alleged mailing list shenanigans to accomplish the same result.

How many times have I said that Wikipedia is largely inhabited by people motivated by a desire to forward an ideology? Virtually all conflicts are either ideological clashes between issue champions, or stupid interpersonal squabbles. (And many of those that appear to be the latter end up being just personalizations of the former.)

[One]

How many times have I said that Wikipedia is largely inhabited by people motivated by a desire to forward an ideology? Virtually all conflicts are either ideological clashes between issue champions, or stupid interpersonal squabbles. (And many of those that appear to be the latter end up being just personalizations of the former.)

True, as always. Non-ideological editors aren't motivated enough to fight these conflicts; they just move on to other subjects where they aren't harassed.

[TungstenCarbide]

It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at least a colorable claim to the allegations: WP:AC/N#Eastern European mailing list.

Looks like someone included Ikip as an involved party - though there doesn't seem to be any reason why. Not only can Ikip put on a great arbcom case but I suspect he can deviously funny when the mood strikes; "you arbs are so helpful"

[One]

It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at least a colorable claim to the allegations: WP:AC/N#Eastern European mailing list.

Looks like someone included Ikip as an involved party - though there doesn't seem to be any reason why. Not only can Ikip put on a great arbcom case but I suspect he can deviously funny when the mood strikes; "you arbs are so helpful"

Everyone mentioned at ANI was listed as a party. It's a very rough list, and I have not doubt that he will be removed from it very soon. That said, I'm sure that he would produce a good independent evidence section if he were so inclined.

[MBisanz]

It would appear that Arbcom finds that there is at least a colorable claim to the allegations: WP:AC/N#Eastern European mailing list.

Looks like someone included Ikip as an involved party - though there doesn't seem to be any reason why. Not only can Ikip put on a great arbcom case but I suspect he can deviously funny when the mood strikes; "you arbs are so helpful"

Regardless of why he was added (I don't know either), it really doesn't matter who is actually on that list, other than to let people know when looking back at a later date who the biggest issues were with (personal opinion preceding). More pointedly, if someone is involved in an area and is lucky enough to not be named, and subsequently arbcom passes one of those broad "all are admonished"/"parties restricted"/general sanctions and the person not named goes around flaunting their luck by violating the sanctions, they are basically taking their editing life into their own hands.

[Cla68]

I would imagine 90% of the people in this forum are closer to "the house's" view of Scientology than the COFS' view of its own religion, but objected to the way in which "the house" handled the cases over the years.

That goes for me. I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intelligent Design theory was a bunch of hooey but I just couldn't abide the bullying tactics they were using.

[don fugazi]

Regardless of why he was added (I don't know either) ...

Possibly purely because of his interest in things Eastern European via his sockpuppet account User:Odessaukrain

[Moulton]

I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intelligent Design theory was a bunch of hooey but I just couldn't abide the bullying tactics they were using.

The practices of IDCab were so atrocious, I found it necessary to lampoon them with atrocious song parodies.

[Lar]

I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intelligent Design theory was a bunch of hooey but I just couldn't abide the bullying tactics they were using.

The practices of IDCab were so atrocious, I found it necessary to lampoon them with atrocious song parodies.

That worked really well.

[Moulton]

I actually agreed with the IDCab that the Intelligent Design theory was a bunch of hooey but I just couldn't abide the bullying tactics they were using.

The practices of IDCab were so atrocious, I found it necessary to lampoon them with atrocious song parodies.

That worked really well.

Hey, it got Jimbo's attention. He not only came to Wikiversity to shut it down on behalf of IDCab, he personally contacted me about one of the parodies I had posted on my personal blog. It was the one that lampooned Filll. That was before FeloniousMonk got smacked down by ArbCom for egregious abuse of power. But it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt where Jimbo's loyalties and machinations were aligned.