DennyColt's "Wikipedia talk:Attack site" up for arbitration, DennyColt's "Wikipedia talk:Attack site" up for arbitrat Options

[bernie724]

Mangoe wants to block himself and three users from the article. Linking WR seems to be a major reason for his request.

Should be interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...lk:Attack_sites

[guy]

Mackensen, the well-known RfB candidate, rejects the case.

[anon1234]

Mackensen, the well-known RfB candidate, rejects the case.

FloNight will reject it out of hand as she is a major Slimvirgin supporter.
Jayjg, a former arbcom member, is still on the arbcom mailing list will surely agree and together they will present a formidable force.

First one, one should understand that when it comes to Wikipedia, I'm in the habit of assuming that truth and fairness rarely win out over determined biased editors. That colors the below. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I worry that Mangoe jumped the gun and was provoked into doing so by the harsh behavior of the opponents on that page. It is too soon to go to ArbCom, later would have been better. Mangoe seems like a naive fellow and I wish her/her the best. This individual is going to be made to suffer now at the hands of those he/she has angered. I recommend Citizendium rather than Wikipedia to Mangoe, the politics aren't as screwed up.

Also, I should say that we here at WR can handle ourselves, no need for hail mary passes. We've wanted a page in Wikipedia for a time, and having our own draconian Wikipedia policy is even better. I think of all this as a multilevel chess game, of which banning WR is just a move, and not a particularly strategic one at that. I think there will be a lot of innocent casualties as a result, such as Mangoe, not all of which are apparent just yet, I suspect some who have been involved will suffer unified opposition at future RfA, RfB votes for expressing the wrong opinions.

This feels like a lot of drama over nothing, but hey, if they want to ban WR, might as well go out with a bang! ;-)

[anon1234]

DennyColt did something weird in order to distract from the core accusations. The initial complaint as filed by Mangoe only listed User:Mangoe, User:MONGO, User:SlimVirgin and User:DennyColt. DennyColt added a ton of others for no good reason, see this modification by DennyColt. DennyColt, via this massive addition, attempted to muddy the waters for this case and he tricked me initially. That is an interesting technique to keep in mind.

The original case seemed strong before DennyColt made a mess of it. I think that a case on this topic will become more worthy as time passes and more of the opponents are banned by the small band of aligned editors here.

[BobbyBombastic]

good job pointing that out. when i saw the arbcom and all those named i began to think that mangoe was designed to present the opposition as you put it naive or irrational. the information you just gave changes my opinion.

edit:
interesting



This post has been edited by BobbyBombastic: Thu 12th April 2007, 2:18pm

[Jonny Cache]

good job pointing that out. when i saw the arbcom and all those named i began to think that mangoe was designed to present the opposition as you put it naive or irrational. the information you just gave changes my opinion.

edit:
interesting

Yeah, DC has gotten so blatulant now that I can't figure out who he-she wants to get revenge on most, WP or WR. Who knows, maybe both. That again points to Essjay.

Jonny

[Somey]

edit:
interesting

Ahh, now this is why everyone here is so "interested" in the Dennybot! It's totally inappropriate for someone who doesn't even have access to blocking tools to be changing key official policies unilaterally like that. And that's a significant change, too, even if you agree with the general (though rather fascistic) idea that so-called "attack" sites shouldn't be linked to from WP.

It's a little like putting Monica Lewinsky in charge of US education policy, isn't it?

[Jonny Cache]

It's a little like putting Monica Lewinsky in charge of US education policy, isn't it?

So many jokes ...
So little time ...

¤ Sigh ¤

Jonny

[Somey]

And it looks like he was getting ready to violate 3RR in his efforts to enforce his and Slimmy's preferred version, even though the people who removed the section are admins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122217180

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122218161

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122236711

Only now User:Deskana has protected the page. Dang! I would've liked to have seen that.

[anon1234]

Response by arbitrators

The decision in MONGO is intended to apply to harassment of individuals on sites which are not making a good faith effort to engage in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia or those associated with it, simply smearing Wikipedia and its users. Sites which make some attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to. Many of those who have been banned by the arbitration committee or by the community have ended up there, and continue to voice criticism of our decisions and practices. These criticisms are occasionally useful.

It is inappropriate to attempt to generalize principles expressed and relied on in arbitration into policy. We have make it very clear that we neither honor nor set precedent. This matter nicely illustrates why. The facts and users the "policy" would apply to, often differ sharply from those presented in the arbitration case. I would make this comparison: imagine a meeting, one person comes in and loudly denounces the others attending the meeting. He shouts, gives everyone the finger, and stamps his foot. Contrast this with a situation where a person comes in and dumps a bag of shit on one of the others attending the meeting. One situation is difficult, the other utterly unacceptable, MONGO addresses the unacceptable situation. Fred Bauder 17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:If anything, Wikipedia Review is worse then ED, Fred. ED has a policy of not outing people. They don't always follow it, but it's in place, and if an admin sees a real name in an article, they tend to remove it. They also allow anyone to sign up for an account and edit. WR outs people regardless of any consequence, no matter whether the information is good or bad. If they're asked to take material down, they ignore or ridicule the request. Anyone who objects too loudly with an account is banned. SlimVirgin (talk)

::ED has abandoned that policy. In line with my goals as an anti-Wikipedia troll </sarcasm>, I've removed names pretty much anywhere I see them (on articles related to WP and those not) and have been blocked for it, twice now. It's even part of the reason I ditched.
::And as long as I'm making a legit comment, I might as well take a sec to register my dismay that, once again, ED is being made a big deal out of by people who are pretending to want to limit its influence. Milto LOL pia 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I think the point here is that direct linking to harassment is unacceptable. ("Hey Thatcher, did you see what WR says about you [link]? Ha ha.") Linking to other comments on such sites is not included in the scope of RFAR/MONGO and should be worked out in the normal way on the proposed policy talk page. Thatcher131 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[Somey]

Not that it's surprising that Slimmy would not know this, but we don't allow just "anyone" to sign up and "edit" here, actually. We actually require a non-free e-mail address to register here, which is of course much more stringent than Wikipedia's own requirements - i.e., nothing whatsoever. Our members are therefore less anonymous than Wikipedia's (though only slightly).

Wikipedia, I should point out, also lacks a policy against naming people who do not wish to be included on their website, or providing personal details regarding them.

I know of no requests to take any material down from this website that have been submitted since I've been promoted to staff, other than two which, in fact, both resulted in the material in question being taken down. (Unless such requests have been submitted via "back-channels" I'm not aware of.) If Slimmy wants to make such a back-channel request, she or anyone else can e-mail it to me via my Uncyclopedia account.

However, we'll only take those requests seriously if Wikipedia follows suit, and allows Wikipedia Review members who do not wish to be named or otherwise included on their website to be removed from it.

Thanks!

[Uly]

Not that it's surprising that Slimmy would not know this, but we don't allow "anyone" to sign up and "edit" here, actually.

She was talking about ED, not here.

[Somey]

Oh, and we have, to my knowledge, never banned anyone for objecting to the posting of personal information here. That claim is just ridiculous!

We did ban a couple of people recently for arguing rather too vehemently about the Israeli-Palestine conflict, though. I thought we'd un-banned them, but they haven't been back regardless.

She was talking about ED, not here.

Oops - sorry, Slimmy! I guess I just assumed that allowing anyone to start an account and insert nasty stuff about people (with only an IP address) was worse than requiring a verifiable, non-free e-mail address, but I guess I forgot who I was responding to a little bit there.

[taiwopanfob]

Fascinating reading. I'll agree with Somey: Mangoe is a way cool editor.

Unfortunately, that isn't exactly true. The very deletion that brought this to my attention was done following the MONGO decision, referring to WP:BADSITES, which in turn invoked the MONGO case (diff). And the remedies of that case make reference only to Encyclopedia Dramatica. A strict constructionist reading of the case would lead me to say that the only deletions they authorize are those of references to EB; the remedies do not mention Wikipedia Review, nor do they propose a dragnet deletion of any site that someone deems to be an attack site. Your reading of the matter is an act of hotly contested exegesis, which is precisely why it is reasonable to ask arbcom to clarify whether it may be acted upon. Mangoe 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SV's response is essentially "We've made it up as we go along before, ArbCom says what we made up was ok, and I'll continue to make it up in the future". All these problems would not exist if she and others would not cite ArbCom in their little threats. But I guess that's the problem: if she doesn't, her threats look empty. Like David Gerard, it's all "we are right, and when we are wrong, we are still right anyways".

Mangoe also says he monitors the expert retention page, and it was changes there which triggered this whole clusterfuck for him. It's very clear he is well above average in intelligence, education and experience -- easily surpassing SlimVirgin, who knows:

The point of course is that the discussion in WP:BADSITES is essentially a review by the community of the elevation of the finding into policy on the one hand, and a review of the actual nature of what is posted on the Unspeakable Site. If arbcom is willing to affirm your authority to make such excisions, I'll join Dtobias in asking what process there is to overturn the whole thing; but until then, I do not recognize your authority to damage my arguments. Mangoe 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation: "There is no merit in my position, so I fall back to the grade school dimwitted bully tactic, try to shift the battle to a field I can win, and accuse you of being obtuse."

I'm guessing he's beyond a BS (or equiv) and, well, an expert that needs to be retained.

[BobbyBombastic]

this may belong in the other thread but as many of you already know dennybot went absolutely bonkers yesterday, bordering on becoming a nuisance for even his "supporters."

if this is a sock it is a very good one...if it isn't then this guy does not seem to have the endurance to put himself in the middle of arguments. he seems very fragile. these recent incidents have to push back any successful RfA.

[taiwopanfob]

if this is a sock it is a very good one...if it isn't then this guy does not seem to have the endurance to put himself in the middle of arguments.

Yesterday, people were speculating on his meta-identity. I don't know if I should repeat them, so I won't, but what was said there is consistent with yesterday's freak-out and DennyColt's other late behavior, and my pet theory as well:

DennyColt is a "wikicide bomber", well into the "victim gathering" stage. Consider, as one example, the RfAR Mangoe filed the other day, and Denny bringing in almost everyone he could think of. Consider his flat out insane policy proposals, designed to get a reaction out of people than actually solving a real problem. Most wikicide bombers are nobodies who direct themselves at other nobody-editors who can't remain cool -- easy targets. If my model is right, DC would be the first to penetrate the security barrier, and if successful could do harm not only to his immediate victims but the political structure at WP too. (Coincidently, some guy blew himself up in the Iraqi government buildings yesterday. Dead people are bad, but that wasn't the message of that particular bomber...)

One suspects that Fred Bauder is onto the same idea, but because of the restrictions on "good faith" and "civility" he can not explicitly voice it (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/068483.html). Maybe others are too. Can the DC be defused? The job will be much easier if he predetonated yesterday.

[Jonny Cache]

I think the main thing we learn from all this hoo-ha is that Wikipedia is a place where vastly more amounts of heat than light are generated over issues that should have been no-brainers from the get-go, at least, to folks who have any experience at all and who could take a few moments of their time to think about the differential consequences of the various courses of action.

Like we didn't already know that ...

In the mean time, that whole sum of human knowledge thing fades ever more distantly toward the vanishing point of their neutered point of view.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 13th April 2007, 2:45pm

[papaya]

Fascinating reading. I'll agree with Somey: Mangoe is a way cool editor.

Oh, stop it! I'm blushing.

Actually, I have a MS in CS. And I confess- I lived in my parents' house after graduation, though I didn't live with my parents at the time-- they were in California on a temp assignment.

[Somey]

Actually, I have a MS in CS. And I confess- I lived in my parents' house after graduation, though I didn't live with my parents at the time-- they were in California on a temp assignment.

Well, there you go! (And I wasn't going to point you out or anything, but you just know they'll throw this back in your face...)

Anyway, I'd just like to personally thank you for all you've done over there in the past few days to help balance the "Attack sites" debate. But the fact is, nobody here wants you to get blocked over that issue, and if you decide to bow out of it because of whatever pressure they may be putting you under, nobody is going to blame you for that.

I mean, the fact is, WR really is an "attack site." What they aren't admitting, though, is that they (and by that I mean people like SlimVirgin, MONGO, Mantanmoreland and the rest of them) have a tendency to make a lot of people really, really angry, and in some cases, outright hateful, and in a lot of cases it's just not necessary. More importantly, they don't seem to think that's a problem. But at the same time, if we didn't allow people to vent their frustrations here, they'd just go elsewhere and do it, and if I or one of the other admins/mods tried to censor that stuff, we wouldn't have any members left.

And frankly, I don't blame them for not wanting to allow users to link to us. I think it's rather dumb, and that they should really listen to User:Miltopia a little bit now and again, but most of the rationale centers around "stalking" of "innocent victims," and with maybe one or two (maybe three) arguable exceptions, these people are just not anywhere near as innocent as they'd like us to think.

We're going to be discussing whether or not to tighten our current limitations (and yes, there are some) on just how far people should be allowed to go with the bitter/hateful stuff, but as I've suggested many times, Wikipedia really needs to provide a way for people to well and truly vanish from Wikipedia first - and by that I mean biography subjects as well as ex-users. As far as overall human impact is concerned, it's like comparing Godzilla to a termite. They're by far the bigger problem, and too many of them just don't seem to care.

[BobbyBombastic]

i'd like to thank Mangoe too and congratulate him on how he handled himself...be careful though

but i also wanted to point another beautiful dennybot quote out, from http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ril/068478.html :

>Is this a good idea? Put up a warning for all new registrations that your
privacy is not/cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia? If there will be no policy
to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing our
identaties this may be required. If the press got hold of this...

[...]


Denny

denny is on a crusade (among others) for anonymous editing i suppose, something that he evidently thinks he can do something about. "anonymity" and "saying what i want" without contemplating consequences are both very naive things.

about the "if the press got a hold of this..." statement:

the quote is a little self-aggrandizing and more than absurd to me (at least on first thought)...this kind of absurdity is what makes me think denny is not "genuine."

in mainstream press libel and slander are very serious concerns that have real world implications. Walter Conkrite for example didn't do the news under a pseudonym with a bag over his head. i'd go as far to say that if you explained the editing of biographies of living people to a certain sample they would think it was a horrible irresponsible thing. perhaps im not clear in my thinking.

also