| |
|
  |
 And now we have an RFC, and what's more, an ArbCom case |
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Mon 27th June 2011, 7:13am)  Requests for comment/CirtWho wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not? Come to the party, stay for the Arbitration.... |
|
|
|
|
|
| LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 27th June 2011, 8:38pm) QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Mon 27th June 2011, 11:10am)
I want to see his response to the charge that he pleads family/health problems when put under scrutiny. Will he simply reprise that excuse?
How embarassing if so. They accuse you of malingering and you answer that you can't fully defend against the charges, due to health problems. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Bummer. Would it not at least be consistent? |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
As expected, out come the trolls: QUOTE Outside view by Gamaliel
Some thoughts on the allegations above:
The promotional tone of particular articles. Is this a problem that Cirt should address? Certainly. It is a very common problem. I've seen it many, many times in student papers I've graded. People are inundated with advertising and promotional copy and their writing sometimes unconsciously reflects that, especially if the source material they are working with is promotional as well. I fail to see how this is "evidence" of "loyalty to outside causes", however. The examples of politicians cited include both Democrats and Republicans. What cause is Cirt supposed to be promoting here? Bipartisanship? Or are we alleging that he is a paid editor for hire?
Creation of non-notable articles to promote anti-Scientology. If creating an article on some obscure restaurant is a crime, we're all guilty. Even Jimbo, whose complaint in the AFD is cited above, has done it. Remember the Mzoli's Meats controversy? Plenty of people in the AFD thought that Cirt's article was sufficiently sourced and notable. Are they secretly promoting anti-Scientology too?
Editing and expansion of articles related to Dan Savage. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Why is this even an issue?
Too many DYK submissions on the same topic. I think this is a problem to address with the DYK rules, not a problem with anything Cirt did. People are going to produce/expand multiple articles on similar topics because that's what they're interested in and that's what they've researched. DYK recently featured multiple articles by me on female mathematicians and Yale graduates. Am I now an "activist" for those topics?
Inappropriate sources. Many sources are mentioned above as if they are so obviously inappropriate that it is mindboggling. For example, a self-published YouTube clip from Aaron Saxton is cited as inappropriate. But what's wrong with that? He's talking about himself and his views. It's long been established that self-published sources by people are acceptable in that context. If you don't like it, campaign to change the policy.
Manipulation of sources. Cirt wrote in Everything Tastes Better with Bacon "Several recipes from the book were selected for inclusion in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004". But his accusers counter: "The number of recipes included in The Best American Recipes 2003–2004 is two." Are you fucking kidding me? You should send me a check for the time I wasted reading that.
If you want to address whatever issues you have with Cirt's editing, I support that. But what I see here is an attempt to spin a whole bunch of non-issues and minor complaints into a pattern of nefarious behavior that is not backed by any evidence. Whatever happened to AGF? Why are we trying to turn positive things like creating and expanding articles into negatives? Every day there's some ankle biter trying to accuse me of this motive or that agenda because I made an edit he didn't like. It's frustrating to see established editors doing the same to an editor who overall does quality work. There's plenty of political ideologues who openly push a political agenda here on Wikipedia and edit nothing but political articles. I don't see evidence here that Cirt is one of them, and it seems that we're trying to punish him with nothing but a bunch of imagined connections and circumstantial evidence while leaving flagrant offenders unmolested. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that the creator of this RFCU has been heavily criticised for "Wikihounding" Cirt [56] does not fill me with confidence, either. This strikes me as just more of the same. As a side note, is it appropriate to post notices about this RfC/U to numerous user talk pages? [57] Prioryman (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. If this isn't pointy behavior, I don't know what is. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree per my statement above. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
JoshuaZ (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Quigley (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
| powercorrupts |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 27th June 2011, 10:32pm)
FT2 went and got Baxter fired from his job. And FT2 is still an admin.
If the ArBlubberers don't deal with Cirt directly, no one will be able to deny they are corrupt and favoritist toward their wiki-pals.....
Was Baxter using office hours on Wikipedia btw? I can see the 'Wikipedia is not that important/wife and kids' argument, but that guy is really fucked up. After all the "Michael" bollocks I received here he sent me a bunch of emails as one of the ('unjustly') banned accounts (ie not really Poetlister and in no way the innocent Baxter), and ended up sending me a picture of some student-looking girl as proof when I said I can't really go for it. The thing is I was being polite - I kept up a sceptical/open contact and after a point he simply stumbled all over himself, and came across like he's been emailing a few people and losing track. But the picture (who could be a young mate of his for all I know) really was out of order as far as I'm concerned, as is trying to deceive people and take hold of their time. It's interesting to me how different people seem to see him here - some still call him Poetlister and bring up his 'good side', while others see him more as an insidious perv. The question I suppose is, how important in real world terms are these people on Wikipedia? They may be full of themselves for sure, but do they have a position of responsibility within a global society? ie in a truly culpable sense, if it not a strictly legal one? In my experience admin/arbs play down Wikipedia's and their own 'real world' importance most days of the year until fundraising comes along. Personally I see them all as prospective employees of Jimbo's empire, so it's never a small deal to me. Look at Cirt here - he's clearly been profiting from creating supposedly neutral content. Does he pay tax if money is involved? (Come to think of it - does Kohs? He could argue that employee and financially-rich Wikimedia are persistently preventing him from earning his buck). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gruntled |
|
Quite an unusual member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 222
Joined:
Member No.: 16,954
|
QUOTE(pietkuip @ Tue 28th June 2011, 12:53pm)
Is Cirt still an admin?
He sure is - for the present.QUOTE
Or are his admin actions all non-controversial maintenance?
Maybe we can have a poll on that, though I suspect I know the answer already. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
An interesting observation by Macwhiz: QUOTE On the other hand, we have SV, who proposed the failed RFC for the santorum article, reducing the article to less than a quarter of its previous size in just one edit, made after the proposed sweeping change was approved by a consensus of three out of the 138+ editors viewing the page in the previous month. The RfC/U refers to that as "Following Cirt's departure from the article, it is now, after community-based editing, back from over 5,000 to under 1,500 words." It was not community-based. It was a fait accompli by SV. Whether or not SV's draft improved the article is not the point for this discussion; the point is that if Cirt had done what SV did, I have no doubt it would be listed in this RfC/U as further evidence of his inappropriate editing. I dislike such double standards. I think that this is a highly valid criticism. I think that part of Slim's method is to stake out a position in some controversy that wins initial support, and then arrogate to herself the authority to make sweeping edits without any consensus whatsoever. She has cultivated enough allies by scratching their backs at the appropriate moments that she will generally have someone running interference for her, should her tactics be discussed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:13pm) Requests for comment/CirtWho wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not? While there is the expected flood of knee-jerk support for Cirt (after all, anyone who's against Scientology and Santorum can't be bad, can they?), DGGÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
has described Cirt's articles as "outrageusly promotional". He's suggested that Cirt's OTRS access should be withdrawn, and that if Cirt were not an admin, which automatically includes autopatrolled, he would be in favour of withdrawing autopatrolled status as well. Featured article director Raul654Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 1st July 2011, 10:30am) QUOTE(-DS- @ Mon 27th June 2011, 3:13pm) Requests for comment/CirtWho wants to bet on whether this will go anywhere or not? While there is the expected flood of knee-jerk support for Cirt (after all, anyone who's against Scientology and Santorum can't be bad, can they?), DGGÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
has described Cirt's articles as "outrageusly promotional". He's suggested that Cirt's OTRS access should be withdrawn, and that if Cirt were not an admin, which automatically includes autopatrolled, he would be in favour of withdrawing autopatrolled status as well. Featured article director Raul654Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges". One thing I find interesting about the RfC is that although it has received almost 3,000 views in its first four days, only about 35 people have actually commented or participated. Those 35 people should only account for a few hundred of those views. So, a lot of people have looked at it but have chosen not to give an opinion either way. |
|
|
|
|
|
| lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 1st July 2011, 3:36pm) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 1st July 2011, 3:30am) Featured article director Raul654Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, meanwhile, has proposed on the RfC/U talk page that I should be sanctioned for "filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges". Now that you bring it up, I can't understand why this idiot has never made WP:DICK of Distinction. Might win a Micronecta scholtzi award though. |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(lilburne @ Fri 1st July 2011, 1:55pm) QUOTE(Cla68 @ Fri 1st July 2011, 1:28pm) One thing I find interesting about the RfC is that although it has received almost 3,000 views in its first four days, only about 35 people have actually commented or participated. Those 35 people should only account for a few hundred of those views. So, a lot of people have looked at it but have chosen not to give an opinion either way. Well as Cirt blocked this linked account, and tried to get the non linked account banned for being the boggieman, weighing in with my pair of hobnail boots might be considered a little indelicate, especially as they have a poorly houseplant to care for. What, you got your houseplants planted in your hobnail boots? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
From the RfC talk: QUOTE I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify. Raul654 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Sure. When one sets out to lie, it's effective to make, first, at least two true statements, or at least two statements that will be seen as true, to get people's heads nodding "yes." Then you slip in the lie. Raul654 made similar charges about me during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. I asked him to substantiate them. He declined, and nobody else asked. They know him. That Wikipedia allows liars to keep administrative privileges is one of the most blatant flaws in the structure. It's done because of their "history of service," but missed in this is that the "service" often included creating legions of blocked and banned editors through their own blatantly outrageous behavior, that was long unrestrained and even applauded. If we were to consider the editing *lost* through these actions, it could be vast compared with the service of the administrator. Hey, Raul was *crucial*, I tell you, in defending Wikipedia against Scibaby. However, Raul *created* that prolific puppet master by clear abuse of Scibaby. Thus he made himself necessary, and, really, too bad if huge swaths of the internet were range-blocked as part of his efforts. Can't allow edits about cow farts, can we? Yet routine vandalism, far worse, doesn't result in page protection, unless the level rises to a point where it cannot be managed through ordinary editing, and isolated blocking when persistent from an IP or account. No, the crime is lese majeste. Raul was the King, and anyone who defied him was clearly, ipso facto, a heinous criminal. This is the house that Jimmy built. I don't think it was his intention, but it's what happened. Eventually, what Raul was up to became so obvious that, as the ArbComm Letters mention, he was nudged to resign advanced privileges. But nothing was done about the accumulated damage. By the way, as to responsibility for filing deceptive RfCs, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I assisted in getting that certified, purely as a process matter, then I actually read the thing and was horrified. This is partly what set me up to be seen as an opponent of the cabal. Some of the evidence I presented in that RfC was expanded by pages in user space, recently deleted by MfD filed by JzG..... That RfC was jointly filed by WMC and Raul654, and was a hit piece that described revert wars as if they were unilaterally caused by GoRight, when what was really going on was tag-team ownership of the articles in question. This post has been edited by Abd:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 7th July 2011, 9:59pm)
On behalf of nothing in particular ...
8hGvQtumNAY
heh, scientologist alert in above clip... |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 5:01pm) Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here. Some idiots really need to be reminded that 2007 is over. (BTW, Will, since you're reading my posts anyway, the above is directed at you) EDIT: Curses!This post has been edited by -DS-: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 14th July 2011, 1:18pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 14th July 2011, 7:14pm)
Somebody remind me -- is "Will Beback" a real person? If so, what's his name, where does he live, and what does he do to pay for his rent? I have a hard time imagining someone so idiotic actually functioning well in the real world.
Hivemind can answer most of those questions.Oh, I get it. He lives in a $170,000 shack in the hills, purchased from his trust fund that his dad left him, giving him ample time for subsistence living, ham radio, and Wikipedia. Or, at least that's how it appears to me after 2 minutes of research. When faced with zealots like that, it's no wonder people who actually have a job and a life to manage find Wikipedia so impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
The comment on the RfC talk page by Will BebackIt is lost on Will Beback that there might be a difference between chatter in a local bar, and comments in a decision-making process for an encyclopedia. I n pursuit of my agenda to make every thread be about myself, I present: QUOTE You're right that many of the accounts are "faceless", in that we don't know which, if any, accounts on WP they're connected to.
However we do know in some cases. Jayen466 here has identified as being HRIP7 there. I believe that Cla68 there is the same persona as Cla68 here. I also assume that ABD, Herschelkrustofsky, et al., are also the same people as their WP accounts. I don't think I'm deluded when I say that many people on WR have and freely express very negative views towards WP and its editors. The tone of the Cirt forum is certainly not positive or appreciative. Will Beback talk 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I thank Will for the on-wiki mention, I was beginning to feel left out. Gee, there are many people on WR who have been attacked, libeled, defamed, and banned from Wikipedia, like it's a big surprise that there are negative views. There are others who still participate on-wiki, but they are at least occasionally disgusted by the spectacle. However, expressing disgust in the local bar is not at all the same thing as expressing it within dispute resolution process. I called Raul654 a "fat asshole" here, but I never insulted or attacked him on-wiki, he managed to humiliate himself quite effectively. AGF and all that, and fat people may edit Wikipedia, even they are assholes, as far too many of the core turn out to be. Maybe we should look at that some day. Maybe it's ... ah ... the structure? Looking at the flap about Cirt, I come across an edit to est. Gee, I know something about that, having just completed the Landmark Education Advanced Course. Fascinating. To use Landmark jargon -- literally -- Cirt "doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground." Generally, Landmark has cleaned up the language, Erhard was pretty, ah, blunt, at times, but "You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground™" is still a Landmark "distinction." A very useful one, in fact. You know something unusual has taken place when the Forum leader, and I later saw the same thing in the Advanced Course, stands up and asks, "You paid $495 for the Forum and what did you get?" And many voices say, at once, and gleefully, "Nothing™" "Tell your family and friends!" he goes on. When I got home from the Landmark Advanced Course, about two weeks ago, my 9-year-old daughter asked me, "How was the Advanced Course, Dad?" "Look at me!" "Awesome, Dad!" Her mother, who doesn't get along with me recently, long story, heard about this. She's horrified. Cult! Obviously I was brainwashing my daughter. Yeah! Just letting her see my face. Yeah, they use jargon, but what Cirt called jargon wasn't. Any field that explores stuff out of the ordinary needs jargon. To build comprehension requires efficient language, or it would become impossibly cumbersome. Landmark advises graduates not use the jargon outside of Landmark circles, but people do, anyway, especially newbies, so, then, the Already Always Listening™ leads them to occur to others as enthusiastic graduates and thus arise the stories about "cult." But life is empty and meaningless, and it is empty and meaningless that life is empty and meaningless™. Further, it is what it is, it is not what it is not.When my kids tell me "Mom is being mean again," I need to be careful not to say, "That's your story," though it certainly is, because kids are accustomed to "story" meaning "lie," but stories are only interpretations, and human beings are meaning-making machines™. The problems arise when we collapse the stories with what happened™. These are ancient concepts (er, distinctions™), repackaged and taught with efficiency by skilled and highly experienced people who might as well be called highly efficient and effective salesmen. Same skills. So you can send a check for me for $450 and you didn't even have to sit in a room wishing you could go to the bathroom for 13 hours. (That, by the way, is a story about Landmark that was probably never true. You can get up and go to the bathroom, but you might have been, in the old days, reminded of your commitment to stay in the room for the three hours between breaks, that's all. And then the story was told, "They wouldn't let me go to the bathroom." Sounds awful, eh? "Ain't it awful" is often the point of stories!) Seriously, though, Landmark conveys those old concepts, with which I was very, very familiar, in ways that turn them into operational skills, with everybody gets it™ as a declared and effective intention. This post has been edited by Abd:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 14th July 2011, 3:56pm) (above) Arrgh. I had two more short sentences, bringing this back home, and it wouldn't save... what gives? Here they are: Wikipedians, on the other hand, like Will Beback, never use jargon, right? They just edit articles with NPOV based on RS. They follow NPA with diligence, resorting to DR per policy and guidelines, unless they prefer to haunt ANI or, as in this case, RFC Talk. On Wikipedia, "consensus" means, "There are more of us with buttons than there are of you, so go away, fringe POV-pusher!" |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 14th July 2011, 12:56pm) The comment on the RfC talk page by Will BebackQUOTE You're right that many of the accounts are "faceless", in that we don't know which, if any, accounts on WP they're connected to.
However we do know in some cases. Jayen466 here has identified as being HRIP7 there. I believe that Cla68 there is the same persona as Cla68 here. I also assume that ABD, Herschelkrustofsky, et al., are also the same people as their WP accounts. I don't think I'm deluded when I say that many people on WR have and freely express very negative views towards WP and its editors. The tone of the Cirt forum is certainly not positive or appreciative. Will Beback talk 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I thank Will for the on-wiki mention, I was beginning to feel left out. Gee, there are many people on WR who have been attacked, libeled, defamed, and banned from Wikipedia, like it's a big surprise that there are negative views. Will conveniently overlooks the fact that many people on WR also have and freely express very positive views towards some WP editors. However, we reserve the right to say bad things about creepy, dishonest, agenda-driven activist editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 5:18pm) We're testing our prototype tldrometer. Very clever. Frustrate him to death by a sudden inability to see a Preview, and I finally tried just saving the damn thing, it gave me a blank post. So I cut it down until I finally found that only the last sentences caused it to not save. HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that? S'okay with me, I just want to know so I don't waste my time. And if I'm positing multiple posts to get around a deliberate restriction, well, wouldn't that be, ah, disruptive? I wouldn't want to be disruptive, eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 8:29pm) QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 14th July 2011, 2:51pm) HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that? I was kidding. In reality, I have no idea what happened to your Preview. How could you kid about something so Serious as preventing me from free XPRSSHUN! Seriously, I just tried to edit the original post to add the additional two sentences. It did preview (I didn't save it.) Weird thing was, I had shut my browser down , reloading WR, and it still did the same thing, but it doesn't seem to be doing it now. The Universe Is Against Me! That explains a lot.... This post has been edited by Abd: |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 3:01pm) Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here. Will is being aided in his pursuit of WR by User:Prioryman. I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my email with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman. |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th July 2011, 12:29am) QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 14th July 2011, 2:51pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 5:18pm) We're testing our prototype tldrometer. Very clever. Frustrate him to death by a sudden inability to see a Preview, and I finally tried just saving the damn thing, it gave me a blank post. So I cut it down until I finally found that only the last sentences caused it to not save. HKOS, if that really is some kind of flood control, would you mind announcing that? I was kidding. In reality, I have no idea what happened to your Preview. That's quite alright. Abd has no idea what happened to his sense of humor, either. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 17th July 2011, 9:53am) Abd has no idea what happened to his sense of humor, either. Right. Please, somebody say something funny so I can locate it. It's got to be in here somewhere. When it laughs, then I can whack it with a banhammer. Ready? Meanwhile, some here seem to have no ability to appreciate deadpan. There are those unfortunates. Life must be very hard for them, because the Really Funny Jokes don't have "Joke" written on their foreheads. This post has been edited by Abd: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rhindle |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 327
Joined:
Member No.: 6,834
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 17th July 2011, 1:05pm) QUOTE(Rhindle @ Sun 17th July 2011, 12:20pm)
Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.
His basic argument is that since no editor is ever unjustly banned, the grave threat to the project is the banned editors -- they're out there somewhere, plotting evil. And since it is known that there are banned editors at the Review, and the Review is against the POV pushers, then all loyal Wikipedians must rally in defense of the POV pushers, such as Cirt or Will, because they are the last bastion of support for the ideals of Wikidom. Don't discuss the POV pushing, no matter how often Cla68 brings it up. Discuss only the need to close ranks against the BADSITES. Think of the children. Sounds like McCarthy, but instead of commies it's banned users and/or WR posters. Edit: Uh-oh, I posted on a Cirt thread so I guess I'm on his enemies list now. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) This post has been edited by Rhindle: |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
The following motion has now been proposed: QUOTE The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein. Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(gomi @ Sun 17th July 2011, 3:35pm) QUOTE(Rhindle @ Sun 17th July 2011, 12:20pm) Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on. The primary difference on Wikipedia being that everyone is a bad guy with a folding chair and there are no referees. I noticed a strange phenomenon well over twenty years ago, with "on-line conferencing" as it was called. For the first time, there was a complete record of interactions, so arguments over "what happened" should not take place. What I saw was that people didn't change their habits based on this new situation. The same social dramas arose, and people took sides, and it didn't matter what had actually happened. What occurs is that people form interpretations of what happened, and believe those interpretations, these interpretations become "what happened." And then, even if they look back, the interpretations, the story of what happened, become filters through which they perceive that evidence. The distortion can become drastic. Should someone come along who looks at the evidence and analyzes it without an axe to grind, they will then judge this person as biased, if they don't like the analysis. So I saw this phenomenon in the 1980s, with an early on-line community. It's the Wikipedia story, and it's repeated over and over. In RfAr/Abd and JzG, I had compiled, for RfC/JzG 3, a list of JzG edits to cold fusion pages. It was just to show involvement, and mostly it was just a pile of diffs with his edit summaries, very little additional comment. It was complete, not cherry-picked. It was condemned by his friends as if it had been an attack. If an Arb hadn't compiled the same thing, using software, presenting it independently, I don't know what would have happened in that RfAr. JzG's friends, I think, assumed that his edit summaries had been written by me, or cherry-picked by me at best, to make him look bad. That kind of assumption about anyone involved in conflict, that they must, ipso facto, be biased, is larded through DR process as it actually takes place on Wikipedia. What surprised me about the ArbComm leaks on that case was the extent to which ArbComm was quite ready to ban me, even then. From the case itself, as openly expressed, the only admonishment was that I'd taken too long to file the case! So, in the future, I didn't take so long! And in the next case, RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, the ArbComm majority took over. Enough of this Abd nonsense, ban him! Which is what they wanted to do wiith RfAr/Abd and JzG but it would have looked entirely too bad, since the actual case was open and shut. The next case provided plenty of cover, since the issues were far more complex. There are plenty of signs that most arbs didn't read the evidence.... why bother, when it's so obvious that Abd is a Troublemaker with a capital T? That's just my story, folks, there are many such stories in the Wiki City. ArbComm is simply behaving like a normal collection of unsophisticated people, dropped in over their heads. There are a few who are, in fact, smarter than that, but it's overwhelmed by the majority. ArbComm is quite what all those years of my experience would suggest to me would be created by the structure that was set up. It's not a surprise, they are not specially Bad People. Just ordinary people, dropped into and having chosen to participate in an abusive structure. It eats them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 17th July 2011, 1:27pm) The following motion has now been proposed: QUOTE The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein. Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing? Yes. It looks to me that all editors who desire to use WP as a soapbox for rootin', tootin', BLP-violatin' agenda-driven activism and COATRACK construction view the Cirt case as a watershed for the continuation of their activities, and they will raise a hue and cry that he is being Wikihounded and persecuted. The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 17th July 2011, 4:27pm) Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing? In RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, I proposed that ArbComm act to keep cases as narrow as possible. To broaden cases to "examine the behavior of all involved" necessarily broadens and confuses them, and it chills participation. Rather, suppose editor RandyFromBoise has a complaint about AdministratorAnyBody. Randy files a case, having attempted dispute resolution without success. Administrator claims that Randy is the one misbehaving. However, Randy and Administrator are independent editors. "He made me do it" is recognized, when it's children involved, as a deficient excuse! Rather, if Administrator does claim misbehavior by Randy, Administrator can file an independent case, and it will be examined independently. Cases could certainly refer to each other, and use each other as evidence, and even findings from one case can be incorporated into another, it is not that everything would need to be examined twice. But each case should stand on its own, and what would be relevant in the case against Administrator, say, would be the Administrator's behavior, not Randy's. If Randy was, say, uncivil, Randy could be admonished or sanctioned in RfAr/Randy, considering the circumstances. Likewise Administrator in RfAr/Administrator. The amalgamation is done on the belief that there is a single issue, the conflict between Randy and Administrator, and that resolution with respect to one would be resolution with respect to the other. In real life, civil cases are amalgamated when they do involve the same decisions of fact and law, but not on the very loose connections as on Wikipedia; ArbComm seems to believe that by reducing the number of cases, they are reducing their case load. No. What they are doing is making cases so complex, with complex issues linked, that clear and sensible decisions become almost impossible for mortals to find. They also need to drastically limit what evidence is presented, it should be vetted and filtered, there is vast scope for good clerking. They likewise don't understand this, so case pages grow all out of readable proportions, and provide no clear justification for decisions, hence real decisions are made ... on the mailing list! (I argued that arbitrators should appoint their own clerks, long story. It's part of my concept of what functional wiki structure would look like, documented hierarchies of influence and trust.... Instead of the secret defacto ones.) My proposal was treated as one more example of how Abd writes too much.... This post has been edited by Abd: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 17th July 2011, 4:54pm) The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it. Yes. Eventually they may do something, if pushed hard enough. And when they do something, it is too much. It is as if they were given blasters with three settings: Admonish, Desysop, and Ban. They have no concept of creating easily enforceable remedies, they wouldn't know one if it bit them on the ankle. They admonish, then, with no care for actually determining that the editor or sysop actually understands the issues and will refrain from the activity in the future. They rarely suspend tools, i.e., order the sysop to restrict tool usage, and they certainly don't set up enforcement provisions for this that are not in themselves disruptive. So an admin apologizes. They often don't even bother to look for that! Great! So, were I an arbitrator, I'd ask the sysop for suggestions on what to do if an agreement is violated, how it will be interpreted. I'd ask the editor to name what seems to be mostly called a mentor on Wikipedia, someone trusted by both the editor and ArbComm, to intervene if the editor violates the agreement, with an ad hoc ruling. And I'd allow any admin to enforce that decision, immediately, under Arbitration Enforcement rules, all subject to appeal through some reasonable appeal process. If this was a sysop, the status would be suspended, i.e, there would be an order issued, probably by the mentor, to cease all tool usage as described, immediately, and if this was violated, tool removal would be immediate. The steward would simply look at a small set of references to the policy pages and to the agreement by the sysop involved. For something like an example of how this might work, see the standard stop agreement that I agreed to as part of my current request for custodianship, stalled because of SBJ's opposition. In it, I make, effectively, all other Wikiversity my mentors, should they choose to act. A similar agreement could cover adminship on Wikipedia, with a named mentor, who would have the right to name additional mentors, and provisions could exist for ArbComm-appointed mentors if the position becomes vacant, i.e., the original mentor is no longer active. Truly resolving disputes on Wikipedia requires flexible options, but those have generally been considered ineffective or abandoned or impossible. Lack of imagination, lack of willingness to try new solutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(Rhindle @ Sun 17th July 2011, 4:15pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 17th July 2011, 1:05pm) QUOTE(Rhindle @ Sun 17th July 2011, 12:20pm)
Willbeback reminds me of a badguy pro wrestler who hits his opponent with a foreign object while the ref isn't looking and when the ref turns around he has his hands up saying "I didn't do anything" even though a whole crowd of people know what's going on.
His basic argument is that since no editor is ever unjustly banned, the grave threat to the project is the banned editors -- they're out there somewhere, plotting evil. And since it is known that there are banned editors at the Review, and the Review is against the POV pushers, then all loyal Wikipedians must rally in defense of the POV pushers, such as Cirt or Will, because they are the last bastion of support for the ideals of Wikidom. Don't discuss the POV pushing, no matter how often Cla68 brings it up. Discuss only the need to close ranks against the BADSITES. Think of the children. Sounds like McCarthy, but instead of commies it's banned users and/or WR posters. Edit: Uh-oh, I posted on a Cirt thread so I guess I'm on his enemies list now. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Indeed. The only time I may have run across one of Cirt's accounts was when I was researching Scientology for a college project and Wikipedia had loads of anti-Scientology documents. Then Justanother (T-C-L-K-R-D)
/ Justallofthem (T-C-L-K-R-D)
went around trying to sanitize or delete them, IIRC. Sadly, Wikipedia was one of the few online resources at the time that I could find that tried to discuss Scientology. The CoS was very good at keeping anti-CoS sites down and the CoS's own sites didn't tell me anything about basic CoS belief systems or even an "Idiot's Guide to Scientology." Well, that and I was a young college student and I really had no time to research the topic thoroughly, so there probably was more out there, but I didn't look too deeply. I really noticed Cirt when he (?) started making forays into Featured Articles, a dangerous territory fraught with danger, and clashed with Geogre and friends. I haven't followed his recent actions lately, but he does suffer from a very common problem on Wikipedia. He doesn't understand the culture. You can say "Hey! I'm following the rules, so you can't be mad at me or sanction me!" and yet make people pissed off at you. Wikipedia was founded as a lax environment with few hard-line rules and many still have that spirit. If you go to Giano and say "Your article does not meet current FA standards and I will send it to FAR if it does not improve," you are not going to be his friend or gain his cooperation. Instead, you should go to him politely and say "Hello, Giano. I was reading your article and I was very impressed by it. I found some magnificent resources that could supplement it. Would you care to work together and see if we can make the article even more spectacular? I would be honored by your participation in this endeavor." You can't charge in like a rhino demanding things. You have to treat people like human beings and not machines or cogs. Consider human feelings and try to bond with them. Reach out and be their brother or sister! You know, wax the chicken... or something. People like Betacommand, TreasuryTag, AdjustShift, Cirt, Roux, and others act like hard-line, apocalyptic, mechanical, stiff bureaucrats and that really goes against the basics of human interaction. Social capital on online communities is even more important than following arbitrary rules. You need to consider a communities norms and mores and understand the spirit of the community and its goals. I don't really know how to explain this to Cirt and others like him and have them take it to heart. Or maybe I just did? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 17th July 2011, 9:54pm) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 17th July 2011, 1:27pm) The following motion has now been proposed: QUOTE The Committee, having considered the statements made in the current request, will: a. accept "Cirt and Jayen466" as a case, with User:Cirt and User:Jayen466 as the only parties, to examine personal and interpersonal conduct issues concerning the two parties; b. accept "Feuding and BLPs" as a separate case, with all named parties other than Cirt and Jayen466 as parties, to examine meta behavioural issues and reconcile the applicable principles; c. decline without prejudice to refiling fresh requests on better focused grounds no earlier than 30 days from the date of this motion passing any other matter raised herein. Does anyone share the impression that this seems designed to address anything but Cirt's editing? Yes. It looks to me that all editors who desire to use WP as a soapbox for rootin', tootin', BLP-violatin' agenda-driven activism and COATRACK construction view the Cirt case as a watershed for the continuation of their activities, and they will raise a hue and cry that he is being Wikihounded and persecuted. The ArbCom, having tested the wind and smelled the aroma, will now back away from any discussion of Cirt's activities, especially since he has demonstrated a sincere commitment to apologize for his POV pushing each time he is called on it, before he resumes doing it. What an elegant summary. Care to run for arbcom? I'll vote for you. Oh shit ... they banned you. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 17th July 2011, 10:09pm) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 17th July 2011, 5:52pm) Oh shit ... they banned you. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Well, it wasn't the ArbCom that banned me. It was Will Beback and JoshuaZ, who banned me on behalf of their 2-person Community. People are responsible for what they allow. Hence you were banned by ArbComm and the Community. Shame on them, shame on us. |
|
|
|
|
|
| MaliceAforethought |
|
u Mad?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined:
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:38am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 16th July 2011, 8:16pm) I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman. This would seem to confirm that theory. Ach, you would think so, but turns out AC just covered it up. ----------- From: lutefisk73 at (Chris Owen) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:01:05 +0000 Subject: [arbcom-l] Blocked yet again by Avraham! Would you mind please telling Avraham to stop blocking me? You reversed his previous block of my IP address and he has now blocked my replacement account again. Did nobody tell him not to do so? Chris ----------- From: (Avi) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:21:24 -0500 Subject: [arbcom-l] Oh, well done Obviously no one has informed me. I am copying arbcom on this e-mail. Also, note that there is nothing in the logs that indicate whom you are a sockpuppet of. However, if I am contacted as the CU who blocked your last sockpuppet, and told that it is crystal clear as to who you are, then the "vanishing" was not properly completed on your part and the edits should be re-attributed. Either way, I have sent a detailed analysis to ArbCom, and if they choose to correct me, so be it. My job is solely to implement their will, after all, although it *would* be helpful if they informed us maintenance workers *of*that will *prior* to us being called upon to uphold what we believe is the current status. If you had permission, then you have my apologies, and I will know for the future that ArbCom's position has changed. Again, if directed by arbcom, I will be happy to lift the block with a note saying that I was in error, and leave an apology on your talk page. However, if by virtue of your editing being obvious enough to others that you have reappeared you are in violation of any agreement you have with arbcom and the vanishing privilege, I suggest you discuss with arbcom the possibility of starting anew with some better guidelines so as not to create more wikidrama. --Avi ---- User:Avraham pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E 29F9 On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Prioryman <lutefisk73> wrote: > Avraham, did nobody on the Arbcom tell you that they have allowed me to > resume editing from a new account? Congratulations - you have just blown > that account and compomised my anonymity yet again. Contact Cool Hand Luke, > Risker or Roger Davies if you don't believe me. And check my IP address - > you will see that CHL undid your block of it. Rather than referring me to > the Arbcom, WTF didn't you check with them *first* before blocking me again? > > - Chris |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 7:54am) What!!! I am shocked! I don't know how "shocked" to be, but this was an example of ArbComm making a deceptive statement in public. Sure, it was an error of a kind, but so? Avraham seems to have handled this reasonably. The block notice. He offered to unblock. Instead of allowing him to quietly undo the block, which had not disclosed identity, an arb undid it with (False positive: legitimate editor). "Legitimate editor" would have been enough, and it would have been better for Avraham to do that, that's all. I must say that for years I imagined that ArbComm consisted of the most experienced, competent editors, seasoned with years of dealing with wiki conflicts, understanding how to defuse disputes and how to encourage people to cooperate. I don't know where I got that idea from, possibly an occasional insightful comment from this or that arbitrator. Wishful thinking. A stopped clock is right twice a day. |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
QUOTE(MaliceAforethought @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 1:51pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:38am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 16th July 2011, 8:16pm) I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman. This would seem to confirm that theory. Ach, you would think so, but turns out AC just covered it up. You know, I should be surprised at that, but somehow I'm not. |
|
|
|
|
|
| It's the blimp, Frank |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 734
Joined:
Member No.: 82
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 1:35pm) I suspect that the Prioryman account will be vanishing before this case gets heard, but I think it is worth quoting this statement: QUOTE Let's be clear, I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I don't get it. Does he think Lindon Larouche is a Scientologist? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:45am) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 1:35pm) I suspect that the Prioryman account will be vanishing before this case gets heard, but I think it is worth quoting this statement: QUOTE Let's be clear, I don't edit those articles and I don't have the faintest idea who Lindon Larouche and all the rest are (well, apart from Tom Cruise obviously). The reason I'm commenting on this particular issue is because in your rush to judgement I see you making very obviously flawed claims. I'd like you to slow down and think more objectively about what you are saying, in particular taking more care to provide hard evidence of your claims. If you're going to accuse other editors of wrongdoing then the least you can do is to make a case based on factually accurate evidence rather than supposition and misrepresentations. Right now there seems to be a lynch mob mentality and I dislike that intensely. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I don't get it. Does he think Lindon Larouche is a Scientologist? No, just "one of all the rest" of those crazy guru guys with a cult following. Which he is. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sat 16th July 2011, 6:16pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 14th July 2011, 3:01pm) Will Beback has predictably attempted to get a BADSITES revival going here. Will is being aided in his pursuit of WR by User:Prioryman. I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my emdail with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman. I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt. Addendum: I note that you sent your email on the 12th of July to the Arbs, but that Prioryman came back to edit the RfC talk page 4 days later on the 16th of July. From the look of it Prioryman was one of the earliest and most vocal well poisoners at the RfC. The Arbs clearly let him run amock at the RfC and I don't think anyone should have confidence in them to be neutral regarding this issue. Addendum 2: Chase me are you reading this, because it sure seems like you are. Shortly after I added the addendum above I noticed this edit by Chase Me. Not particularly believable if you ask me. Since the Arbs are clearly following this I find it unlikely that no one saw Carbuncle's email of the 12th until today. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:36pm) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:02pm)
I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.
Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation. Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today. Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing? This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:40pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:36pm) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:02pm)
I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.
Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation. Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today. Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing? FWIW, I wrote to Chris on July 16, welcoming him back to Wikipedia: QUOTE Chris,
It's good to see you back on Wikipedia, but it isn't helpful to deflect attention from the fact that not everything Cirt has done has been above board. I understand your loyalty to a fellow campaigner, but I am sure in your heart of hearts, you know that as well as I do.
We have to get Wikipedia right, including its coverage of topics like Scientology and other cults. Neutral coverage is all that is required. Cirt goes too far, and is too personally involved to write NPOV articles. I think that's chronic, and something he has no control over.
You know I respect your work, including that on Hubbard and Scientology. There is no need to acknowledge this mail, but please accept that my motives are not about Cirt the person, Wikipedia Review or indeed anything other than Wikipedia. The mistake I do acknowledge is that I stated strong conclusions before presenting the evidence; I should have focused on presenting the evidence, and let people draw their own conclusions.
Kind regards,
Andreas He stopped commenting at the RfC 3 hours of so after I sent that mail. (He didn't reply, but that was quite alright.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:58pm) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:40pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:36pm) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:02pm)
I assume Arbcom never got back to you? I'm curious why they let him run a muck at the RfC. Seems like exactly the kind of place they'd caution him against turning up. Utterly foolish. Then again since Arbs clearly knew he was contributing at the RfC the way he was I call bullshit on their integrity when it comes to deciding a case about Cirt.
Actually, they did, after the leak today of that ArbCom discussion. Just an acknowledgement that they had gotten it and were discussing the situation. Chase me claims not to have known about your prior email until today. Addendum: Chase me are you chasing me? Here you are again twisting already twisted half-truths into something you think sounds more sensical just after I questioned it in this thread. I like this game. Do you want to keep playing? FWIW, I wrote to Chris on July 16, welcoming him back to Wikipedia: QUOTE Chris,
It's good to see you back on Wikipedia, but it isn't helpful to deflect attention from the fact that not everything Cirt has done has been above board. I understand your loyalty to a fellow campaigner, but I am sure in your heart of hearts, you know that as well as I do.
We have to get Wikipedia right, including its coverage of topics like Scientology and other cults. Neutral coverage is all that is required. Cirt goes too far, and is too personally involved to write NPOV articles. I think that's chronic, and something he has no control over.
You know I respect your work, including that on Hubbard and Scientology. There is no need to acknowledge this mail, but please accept that my motives are not about Cirt the person, Wikipedia Review or indeed anything other than Wikipedia. The mistake I do acknowledge is that I stated strong conclusions before presenting the evidence; I should have focused on presenting the evidence, and let people draw their own conclusions.
Kind regards,
Andreas He stopped commenting at the RfC 3 hours of so after I sent that mail. (He didn't reply, but that was quite alright.) Interesting. I saw you mention on the Arbcom case page that someone had alerted you to possible rumors going around that you were a Scientologist. I wonder if there is any connection between that and your sending of this email. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did). QUOTE
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:57am) On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did). QUOTE
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what? are the emails related to this. What's suprising is that Rlevse appears to be the only arb outraged by the inconsistent and unfair treatment afforded ChrisO and how insulting this is to the WP community, who, at least in my case, expect the standards to sometime, someday be applied consistently to every editor. The mush-mouthing around about it by some of the arbitrators is embarrassing to read. I don't see any attempt by the arbitrators in any of the emails to set a baseline standard so that newbie and vested contributors might be treated equally and consistently. All I see is a chaotic group of email acquaintances making decisions off the cuff on every single issue brought before them. There's no attempt at organizing, standardizing, or structuring their deliberative communication and decision-making. What a mess. Good grief, Jimbo, no wonder the administration of your website is such a debacle. This post has been edited by Cla68: |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 24th July 2011, 9:50am) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:57am) On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did). QUOTE
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what? are the emails related to this. What's suprising is that Rlevse appears to be the only arb outraged by the inconsistent and unfair treatment afforded ChrisO and how insulting this is to the WP community, who, at least in my case, expect the standards to sometime, someday be applied consistently to every editor. The mush-mouthing around about it by some of the arbitrators is embarrassing to read. I don't see any attempt by the arbitrators in any of the emails to set a baseline standard so that newbie and vested contributors might be treated equally and consistently. All I see is a chaotic group of email acquaintances making decisions off the cuff on every single issue brought before them. There's no attempt at organizing, standardizing, or structuring their deliberative communication and decision-making. What a mess. Good grief, Jimbo, no wonder the administration of your website is such a debacle. It seems the committee have decided to introduce a special evidence length restriction for the Cirt case. I've just been advised that my evidence is too long, at "894 words and 26 diffs". The bot notification links to the arbitration guide, which states that evidence should be "kept under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated". |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 24th July 2011, 12:15pm) It seems the committee have decided to introduce a special evidence length restriction for the Cirt case. I've just been advised that my evidence is too long, at "894 words and 26 diffs". The bot notification links to the arbitration guide, which states that evidence should be "kept under 1000 words and 100 diffs, although some flexibility is tolerated". To be fair, I see they've used the 500-word limit in a number of recent cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 24th July 2011, 8:50am) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Sat 23rd July 2011, 10:57am) On July 5th Chris asks ResidentAnthropologist to remove him from the Arb request list (which RA did). QUOTE
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
What a slimey arseface. He shows up to protect an old POV pushing friend by well poisoning his RfC and then he manages to get removed from the Arbitration Request because of all people he is "not a party to any of your disputes involving cults ..." Do people on Wikipedia just have their heads up their arses at all times or what? are the emails related to this. What's suprising is that Rlevse appears to be the only arb outraged by the inconsistent and unfair treatment afforded ChrisO and how insulting this is to the WP community, who, at least in my case, expect the standards to sometime, someday be applied consistently to every editor. The mush-mouthing around about it by some of the arbitrators is embarrassing to read. I don't see any attempt by the arbitrators in any of the emails to set a baseline standard so that newbie and vested contributors might be treated equally and consistently. All I see is a chaotic group of email acquaintances making decisions off the cuff on every single issue brought before them. There's no attempt at organizing, standardizing, or structuring their deliberative communication and decision-making. What a mess. Good grief, Jimbo, no wonder the administration of your website is such a debacle. The climate connection is actually really intriguing as it suggests an answer to something that really puzzled me when I started reading the RfC. The participation of most of the pro-Cirt people involved can be explained fairly easily (supporters/friends of Cirt, people on his side of the Santorum issue, inclusionists who support his content creation etc.) But I couldn't for the life of me understand why people like William Connolley and Stephan Schulz were taking part in the discussion and why their participation was mostly of mudslinging, aspersion casting or well-poisoning sort. Now that we know who Prioryman is it seems more than likely that ChrisO asked for some assistance from his climate science buddies. Here's an overview, but as I am not all that caught up on the whole climate science Wikiwar perhaps I'm missing some people here. William M. Connolley QUOTE You have gone to great lengths to prove my point - if you believed that, you wouldn't need to keep saying it. What you're actually doing is repeating an untruth in the hope that people might eventually believe it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Stephan Schulz QUOTE Please see confirmation bias and cherry-picking. If you trawl through any large set of edits with a particular preconception, you can find "evidence" of some kind of POV pushing. It will just lack any significance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Raul654 QUOTE I agree that we should not delete views/claims from an RFC, even when they are clearly fictitious. However, by the same token, I think there should be consequences for filing an RFC full of provably false statements and invalid charges, and this RFC would clearly qualify. Raul654 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Count Iblis QUOTE And why is WP:McCarthyism still a redlink? Count Iblis (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Others like User:Piotrus and User:OhanaUnited might fall into this category as well if I'm not mistaken, though they did not muckrake they only voted for pro-Cirt/anti-critic statements on the main page. Is there a better explanation for the involvement of these individuals in the RfC? If you ask me ChrisO's deceptive sabotage of criticism of Cirt goes much further than his own actual, epic muckracking on the RfC talk page. Addendum: I just noticed that at the case page Count Iblis is arguing for dropping discussion about ChrisO/Prioryman in connection with the case. I wonder why that is? Could it be because his own involvement in the RfC is a product of collusion and votestacking by Prioryman? This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
The lengths that Arbcom is going to in order not to answer some of the most basic questions about Prioryman, their involvement with his return and his editing of the RFC is quite astonishing. Risker makes a strange case for Prioryman not being party to The one case I doubt anyone was suggesting he be a party to. QUOTE
Prioryman did not comment at the request for arbitration in any way, so it is inappropriate to say that he participated in an Arbcom case. He participated (perhaps inappropriately) in an RFC/U, which is a dispute resolution process the Committee does not monitor and over which it has no jurisdiction. I would object to Prioryman being named a party in the Cirt/Jayen case ... Risker (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke apparently doesn't know that Motion 1 divided the case into two separate cases - (a) and (b). QUOTE
It was suggested elsewhere. What do you mean by "motion (b)" anyway? Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
When Jayen very astutely points out that obscuring Chris' Wikipedia identity couldn't possibly help him with off-wiki harassment Roger Davies gives what appears to be a truly bizarre answer. QUOTE Don't you think it's unwise to be so emphatic about the origin or nature of threats you know nothing about? And, no, this isn't an invitation for a speculation-fest, it's a general observation (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Roger Davies talk 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The only possible scenario I can think of here is that someone has threatened Chris not to participate in Wikipedia at all, either directly or that such a threat exists indirectly. If that is the case, then I feel the same way about this as I felt about what the Arbcom did for Cirt. If Chris' editing of Wikipedia, as with Cirt's, was putting him in so much danger off-wiki that the committee feels that it is appropriate to betray the trust of the community by obscuring his identity then it is surely completely irresponsible to enable Chris to continue editing Wikipedia in the first place. This is particularly the case since, as many editors including Will Beback (surprisingly) have pointed out, it is nearly impossible for editors to return in this manner and not have their former identity discovered at some point or another. If such editors are in such grave danger off-wiki this would mean the committee is allowing them to get into even greater danger by sneaking around until such time they are caught. Of course, I highly doubt that this is what is actually going on. I do not think the danger is so grave. It is more likely that there was some minimal harassment, and they they worried that Chris would get harassed again, after his return for doing the same things he did back then. So they they tried to disconnect him from his former identity to protect him from future harassers. That scenario, becomes particularly troubling since Chris also received a get out of jail free card for his past transgressions by vanishing during an Arbitration case he was part of. In the end, whether the Arbs are conscious of this or not, they are basically protecting a user with a particular POV, from the type of anger and resentment that his style of POV pushing inevitably causes. They are also saying to the entire community that it is OK to disrupt the project and not suffer consequences if you are ChrisO or Cirt, who's POV pushing is apparently of the right kind. I also think this situation brings up the very detrimental effects that having no humility whatsoever causes to community processes on Wikipedia. There is rarely any humility on Wikipedia when someone has been exposed for doing something wrong or stupid, and this is particularly true of people in positions of power. That fact, as opposed to calculated manipulation, probably sits at the heart of the reaction we're seeing from the Arbs. It is clear that they have done something wrong here, but they will never admit it out of a sheer lack of humility. Instead they'll wikilawyer and make nonsensical arguments to diffuse the situation. I think this feature of Wiki culture is probably also ubiquitous other internet social venues, and I think an Achilles heal to them all as well. Moderator's note: Several off-topic posts were moved to this thread, which requires you to be a registered member before you can viciously assault yourself by reading it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:32am) What do you think is Cirt's basic strategy in these proceedings? Does he think he can ignore it and it will go away? Or is he confident that he enjoys high-level protection, and therefore has no need to defend himself? He will show up and do the bare minimum. He'll throw in all kinds of concessions and apologies that are meaningless to people with half a brain but that the arbs will point to as his good faith. Then they will make all of this go away for him. After reading through the ARBSCI emails Malice posted I believe this more than ever. The only current arb who even remotely questioned the kangaroo proceedings of ARBSCI appears to have been Cool Hand Luke. How many other arbs are there? How many of them share the sentiments that most of us have and think that Scientology is a parasitic enterprise that mostly harms people? Probably the lot of them, which means they'll defend the featured article writing anti-Scientology robot to the end of the world. Good luck fellas, because this one was rigged from day one. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -DS- |
|
Ethernaut
Group: Contributors
Posts: 164
Joined:
Member No.: 39,458
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 4:45pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 2:15am) This got the attention of Will Beback, who fears the sort of precedent that would be set: QUOTE The purported policy violations are fairly minor. Who else has been de-sysopped for regular editing that didn't involve admin tools and didn't result in a block? This seems so disproportionate as to call into question Off2riorob's judgment and perspective. Will Beback talk 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Who indeed? Of course. God forbid that admins be desysopped for anything short of deleting the main page. How dare these trolls suggest that admins incapable of following basic policies should be desysopped? Why, these vile stalkers must be banned at once!! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 2:14am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 2nd August 2011, 12:32am) What do you think is Cirt's basic strategy in these proceedings? Does he think he can ignore it and it will go away? Or is he confident that he enjoys high-level protection, and therefore has no need to defend himself? He will show up and do the bare minimum. He'll throw in all kinds of concessions and apologies that are meaningless to people with half a brain but that the arbs will point to as his good faith. Then they will make all of this go away for him. After reading through the ARBSCI emails Malice posted I believe this more than ever. The only current arb who even remotely questioned the kangaroo proceedings of ARBSCI appears to have been Cool Hand Luke. How many other arbs are there? How many of them share the sentiments that most of us have and think that Scientology is a parasitic enterprise that mostly harms people? Probably the lot of them, which means they'll defend the featured article writing anti-Scientology robot to the end of the world. Good luck fellas, because this one was rigged from day one. And the guest finally shows up to the party thrown in his honor. What has he done so far? He has shown up and done the bare minimum and he's thrown in all kinds of concessions and apologies .... Now let's see if the rest of my prediction bares out. Arbs, ball is in your court. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 30th August 2011, 3:31am) The proposed decision is now being voted on.There is a conspicuous lack of a "Cirt desysopped" remedy, but what I really want to talk about is this gem. QUOTE Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) The "Manipulation of BLPs" arbcase isn't great either. For both cases (in fact most cases), it should read: Principles: The Wikipedia Community (i.e. the dozen or so editors that care about the meta side of things) does not like people yelling about things and it do not care about the reasons for the yelling nor solutions for solving the problem(s). The Arbitration Committee does not like people yelling about things and it does not care about the reasons for the yelling nor solutions for solving the problem(s). The Arbitration Committee wishes that people would leave the Committee alone and quit coming to it whining about things because it not going to do anything about it anyway. Finding of Facts: People have been yelling about things for a good while which has caused many headaches and cries of "Make it stop! For the love of Jimbo, make it stop!" The people in this case that are yelling and screaming have been around a long time and sanctioning any of them (rightly or wrongly) will make everyone angry. Those that are unpopular or becoming unpopular can, of course, be blocked or banned with no drama or fair appeal. Remedies: Everyone is to stop yelling and whining (even if it is understandable and rational) and mind your own damn business. Leave each other alone. Never you mind about the problem(s) that caused this whole ruckus and do not even bother asking the Committee to help you find a practical solution. The Arbitration Committee never wants to see any of you people in its presence ever again. If you come back, you will regret it and your asses will be banned. Any administrator that sees the yelling and screaming again or gets a headache from any of these troublemakers that started this case can block their asses. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Forward! |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
From: European Superstate
Member No.: 64,431
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th September 2011, 8:48pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 8th September 2011, 11:27am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 6th September 2011, 12:24am) It looks like a "Cirt desysopped" remedy is not out of the question. At the moment, it's five for and five against, so it still has a fighting chance. Now 6 in favor and 5 against, which if I understand it correctly means it passed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Elen has recused, I believe - so 6-5 of eleven arbitrators. It's close, certainly, but I think that means it's been passed. Not an outcome I expected. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(Forward! @ Thu 8th September 2011, 4:36pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th September 2011, 8:48pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 8th September 2011, 11:27am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 6th September 2011, 12:24am) It looks like a "Cirt desysopped" remedy is not out of the question. At the moment, it's five for and five against, so it still has a fighting chance. Now 6 in favor and 5 against, which if I understand it correctly means it passed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Elen has recused, I believe - so 6-5 of eleven arbitrators. It's close, certainly, but I think that means it's been passed. Not an outcome I expected. Shocked myself, I been watching Smee for 4 1/2 years now. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 8th September 2011, 7:19pm) Even if he is desysopped on enwiki, Cirt will still be a sysop on wikiquote, commons, wikinews and wikisource. He will still have plenty of opportunities to manipulate wikimedia to suit his agenda. Smee is many things but not stupid. Two scenarios are possible here: A) Smee weathers the storm attempts to fly beneath the radar on other topics. B) Smee obeys his topic ban on en-Wiki while campaigning on other Wikimedia projects I think Smee what ever his motives and bigotry will choose option (A). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(Forward! @ Fri 9th September 2011, 12:36am)
Elen has recused, I believe - so 6-5 of eleven arbitrators. It's close, certainly, but I think that means it's been passed. Not an outcome I expected.
Does that mean Cirt will have to return his Dick of Distinction award? He'd be heartbroken. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Thu 8th September 2011, 7:48pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Thu 8th September 2011, 11:27am) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 6th September 2011, 12:24am) It looks like a "Cirt desysopped" remedy is not out of the question. At the moment, it's five for and five against, so it still has a fighting chance. Now 6 in favor and 5 against, which if I understand it correctly means it passed. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) Looks like I might have to eat my shorts. Very unexpected indeed, if these votes stay as they are for the next few hours before the case closes. Cirt has made a direct appeal to the arbs to reconsider the remedy. Maybe his approach of not defending himself wasn't all he (or onlookers like myself) thought it would be. Though I think it was the best option he had. The last thing he wanted was for people to dig deeper for evidence, and to make even stronger arguments because he was defending himself. I wont be completely convinced that he is losing his adminship until I see it finalized. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
Choice quotes
"The other remedies are preventative and send me a very strong message. I will follow policy. — Cirt "
"What I would very much like to know is why you did not follow policy before?" Roger Davies
"I simply do not trust you to follow policy, and I cannot support giving the tools to those whom I do not trust." The Cavalry
"If your editing was proper, or perhaps included a few excusable mistakes, you should have defended yourself or asked to be excused. If your editing was seriously improper, then you must resign as administrator. This will be the very best thing you can do for your reputation." Jehochman
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 9th September 2011, 7:19am)
This is exactly what the Arbs should have done with Will Beback in the other case.
May I also observe this sets good precedent for the eventual Arbcom case following Cla68's RFC/U on Will? I think the precedent set here will ease the ability to take other abusive admins to town... or out of it... This post has been edited by Beer me: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 9th September 2011, 3:28pm) QUOTE(Beer me @ Fri 9th September 2011, 10:47am)
Choice quotes
"The other remedies are preventative and send me a very strong message. I will follow policy. — Cirt "
"What I would very much like to know is why you did not follow policy before?" Roger Davies
"I simply do not trust you to follow policy, and I cannot support giving the tools to those whom I do not trust." The Cavalry
"If your editing was proper, or perhaps included a few excusable mistakes, you should have defended yourself or asked to be excused. If your editing was seriously improper, then you must resign as administrator. This will be the very best thing you can do for your reputation." Jehochman
I imagine there's probably a last minute charm offensive going out over email and IRC as well. Roger Davies's comment pretty much sums it all up for me. Cirt is appealing to Hershfold for more time as well. I think the fact that this is passing has caught him entirely by surprise. I imagine that he's not all that concerned about the other remedies and findings and was thinking he'd be sliding by without losing adminship, until Hershfold updated the score after Elen pointed out that she was recusing and the remedy went from not passing to passing. Now he looks downright silly finally coming to the table at the 11th hour. Surely he might have stated his objections as soon as the remedy was proposed. Had he not been so sure of himself he might have done so. Were I the arbs, or the clerk, I would not grant him any extra time given that he only bothered to object when he found himself surprisingly losing a battle he thought he could win by simply staying silent. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Beer me |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 20
Joined:
Member No.: 35,937
|
Will, I know you are reading this. Cirt is just the first!
I have a sock drawer including two Syops.
I been saving these for an arbitration case.
An RFC/U is just as much of a reason.
I'll give you a hint on their idenities
1 and 1 is 2 but not always 1+1
I'll be seeing you soon
Tom
This post has been edited by Beer me:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 10th September 2011, 2:15am) QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 9th September 2011, 11:40pm) QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 9th September 2011, 7:52pm) . That was fast (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) . (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) One schmuck punishes another schmuck, and a bunch of other schmucks stands around moaning. Big deal. One schmuck down, plenty more schmucks to go. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) (Do you realize that the number of RFAs per month is now the lowest that Wikipedia has ever seen? It's even lower than back in 2002, when every one of them was approved by Wales himself.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 10th September 2011, 6:55am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 10th September 2011, 4:25am) (Do you realize that the number of RFAs per month is now the lowest that Wikipedia has ever seen?
It's even lower than back in 2002, when every one of them was approved by Wales himself.) Yet more evidence that Wikipedia is dying. No wonder they're all running around trying to drum up participation. Yes, and they're trying to make the statistics lie--by generating stubs using bots. Blofeld is on another of his insane stub-benders, this time of German geographical features. Trust me, most of these stubs will never be expanded. They're fooling the donors. And the donors are swallowing it whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
| lilburne |
|
Chameleon
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 11th September 2011, 12:56am) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 10th September 2011, 6:55am) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 10th September 2011, 4:25am) (Do you realize that the number of RFAs per month is now the lowest that Wikipedia has ever seen?
It's even lower than back in 2002, when every one of them was approved by Wales himself.) Yet more evidence that Wikipedia is dying. No wonder they're all running around trying to drum up participation. Yes, and they're trying to make the statistics lie--by generating stubs using bots. Blofeld is on another of his insane stub-benders, this time of German geographical features. Trust me, most of these stubs will never be expanded. They're fooling the donors. And the donors are swallowing it whole. The stub isn't in English either. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) This post has been edited by lilburne: |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 11th September 2011, 1:37pm) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 10th September 2011, 3:40am) QUOTE(tarantino @ Fri 9th September 2011, 7:52pm) QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Fri 9th September 2011, 3:52pm)
Were I the arbs, or the clerk, I would not grant him any extra time given that he only bothered to object when he found himself surprisingly losing a battle he thought he could win by simply staying silent.
Pursuant to the above mentioned remedy, I will be removing your sysop flag shortly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC). That was fast (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) . (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Good for him! Well, I keep hearing on the news that Libyan rebels are besieging Cirt, so he obviously has other problems to worry about. |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 5th September 2011, 11:24pm) QUOTE(-DS- @ Tue 30th August 2011, 12:31am) The proposed decision is now being voted on.There is a conspicuous lack of a "Cirt desysopped" remedy, but what I really want to talk about is this gem. It looks like a "Cirt desysopped" remedy is not out of the question. In fact, although I am surprised to see myself write this, the decision looks fairly reasonable and productive as ArbCom decisions go. What do you think, Jayen (don't comment if you feel it will jinx or otherwise negatively affect the ongoing process)? I agree, Herschel. Of course, it shouldn't have taken the project this long, nor required such an expenditure of time and effort. But in the end, Arbcom did the right thing. Special thumbs-up to Newyorkbrad and Risker (who wasn't active in the case, but made salient talk page comments). And the six desysop voters, of course. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| KD Tries Again |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 172
Joined:
Member No.: 11,730
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 10th September 2011, 6:56pm) Yes, and they're trying to make the statistics lie--by generating stubs using bots. Blofeld is on another of his insane stub-benders, this time of German geographical features. Trust me, most of these stubs will never be expanded. They're fooling the donors. And the donors are swallowing it whole. To be fair, I doubt that people like Blofeld are actively conspiring to deceive donors, or indeed to do anything other than expand his metaphorical dick. Jimbo benefits passively from their beaverage, but they're not doing it for his benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 13th September 2011, 12:12pm) QUOTE(KD Tries Again @ Mon 12th September 2011, 3:14pm) "Nothing more for admins to do here, if people are concerned about Cirt's editing they can talk to him or file an RfC/U if it comes to that. Fences&Windows 21:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)" Indeed. . |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 13th September 2011, 1:25pm) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Tue 13th September 2011, 5:12am) I think that Georgewilliamherbert must be one of the most disingenuous guys around. For public consumption, he mourns that Cirt is "introspective and responsive to criticism," "willing to admit fault," and that the community should "give credit for responsiveness to criticism." Of course, Cirt's trademark was the grand mea culpa followed by a wave of yet more devious and systematic POV pushing -- as GWH well knows. Yes he does well know this, and so the other Cirt backers. I think what is hardest for them to swallow is what this decision means about their own power in the community. They all know that Cirt violated policy for a cause. They all, quite clearly, take no issues with this cause. They like the fact that they have been able to keep him in the game. For some this is because they had power to keep Cirt around doing "the good work". For others I'm sure cronyism played a part and yet others something else, but I'm sure the feeling it gave them all was the same each time they successfully defended Cirt. Sorry fellas, you're just not as cool as you thought you were. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Tue 13th September 2011, 6:51am)
Sorry fellas, you're just not as cool as you thought you were.
(snort) Very funny. They do this crap, precisely because they aren't cool guys. Sometimes I wonder how many pounds overweight the average English Wikipedia admin is. We'll never know, because they've set up a system whereby they can act like asshats-- anonymously. A perfect storm of young male arrogance and stupidity, and "knowledge". (Betcha didn't know this: Wikipedians think that baseball is almost three times as important as philosophy.... and football is three times as important as baseball....) This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Detective |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 11th September 2011, 6:37pm) Whew, what a cool customer! He's already starting a campaign to get himself re-ingratiated with the powers that be on WP. No doubt he hopes to become an admin again, if necessary under yet another username. To get away with that, he'll need a few friends, won't he? QUOTE(Beer me @ Tue 13th September 2011, 2:00am) Reaper Eternal just gave him back Auto-patrol. What an idiot! Auto patrol allowed Cirt to avoid scrutiny of new page patrollers when creating spam like Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 13th September 2011, 4:23am)
How does that work, exactly?
If someone with the appropriate gnarly awesome powers looks at Special:NewPages, he'll see them highlighted in yellow unless they were created by, or verified as sensible by, another user with similar powers. Now, Cirt's new pages will not be highlighted, so the average new page checker won't bother to look at them, allowing him to get away with creating spam. This post has been edited by Detective: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jagärdu |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 22,114
|
So after his desysop Cirt hasn't edited in a week. Will he come back as Cirt or is it reincarnation time? Meanwhile Carrite is protesting the decision by not editing the encyclopedia for a month. Oh wait, strike that, Carrite is protesting the decision by editing Cirt's talk page as an IP and telling Cirt to "fuck" Arbcom because they are "assholes". Apparently though there is more to it because he's also protesting censorship. Oh crap there is even more. According to Carrite's "friend" Cullen, Carrite is also "trying to learn what happens to enthusiastic IP editors here". How noble! Totally makes sense, because most "enthusiastic IP editors" start their careers by telling editors to fuck arbcom because they are a bunch of assholes. I'm sure that his experience will be thoroughly generalizable. But the real gem is what Carrite says on his newly minted IP's talk page. "I hate Wikipedia Review, but I read it all the time. They understand what douchebags the inner circle of Wikidom are." Do they Carrite? Do you understand where the person you are protesting on behalf of fits in that little scheme? Apparently not. Oh and you really ought to consider not being so attracted to things that you hate. This post has been edited by Jagärdu: |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Jagärdu @ Mon 19th September 2011, 12:12pm) But the real gem is what Carrite says on his newly minted IP's talk page. "I hate Wikipedia Review, but I read it all the time. They understand what douchebags the inner circle of Wikidom are." Do they Carrite? Do you understand where the person you are protesting on behalf of fits in that little scheme? Apparently not. Oh and you really ought to consider not being so attracted to things that you hate. If I am not mistaken, Carrite has an account here, called Timbo. Perhaps he'll elucidate. |
|
|
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Wed 21st September 2011, 1:20am)
Kudos to you, HRIP7, for persevering, gathering the evidence, presenting it persuasively, and (ultimately) getting this Cirt thing over the finish line with the Arbs.
Thanks. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
