Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Alison

Heyyaz,

Looks like FT2 has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates#FT2. And he's got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Statement, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/ACE2010_extended_statement and more on stuff that happened behind the scenes back in 2008.

Edit: And including about those 'oversighted edits' and the OrangeMarlin affair.

Posted by: powercorrupts

Pop one:

Mobster boss OrangeMarlin is/was a cunt.

Pop two:

So is commissioner Jpgordon.

Funny how OM suddenly vanished without trace when the recession hit. I guess that's what happens when you now make your money supplying the medical profession. (talking about off-Wiki accounts).

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

What does he have to say concerning his views on bestiality as a healthy form of sexual expression and his desire to make WP a resource that will provide young people with "issues" on the matter with a resource that will give them support and encouragement if they are considering having sex with animals?

Posted by: Obesity

why don't u ask him? you can submit your own questions to ArbCom candidates, you know.

are you afraid he'll post a 3,000 word, rambling and inpenetrable response that doesn't really answer the question?

Posted by: Ottava

I asked him directly at least 12 times if he thought Pedophiles had the "right" to edit WMF projects. He never answered.

How about someone asking him that for his ArbCom bid, especially seeing ArbCom's anti pedophile stance?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

You will get at his libertarian extremism via his views on bestiality on which he has a demonstrated record even without leaving WR. This ought to be sufficient to thwart his "election" without giving him the chance to take advantage of his lack of a record (AFAIK) on pedophilia. I think you can extrapolate for yourself where his "going bravely where no man has gone before" on the frontiers of human sexuality might take him on that issue, too. Of course this is Wikipedia where bizarre and repulsive views might be tolerated to an extent unimaginable elsewhere.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: Cla68

From what I've heard, OM did not vanish without a trace. Like several of the editors involved with the Intelligent Design episode, he apparently changed his account name in an attempt to escape the stigma of having been a member of the notorious "ID Cab", one of the most bullying and facist cabals ever to disgrace Wikipedia with its presence.　　He appears to have been successful to some extent, because I haven't see his new account name revealed here on WR yet, and I don't know what it is.

Anyway, all questions of FT2's idealogical philosophies aside, he really, really needs to work on using the English language in a concise manner to explain his ideas. Until he does that, he really shouldn't be running for ArbCom. FT2, I know you're reading this. Practice being short and concise. YOU CAN DO IT.

Posted by: Gruntled

Will Alison or someone else ask each of the other Arbcom candidates if they would be happy to serve alongside FT2? And would those candidates who have accounts here like to answer that?

Posted by: Mathsci

At the moment his lengthy "extended statement" seems like a way of burying facts if they are there at all.

Posted by: powercorrupts

I agree with that. It's most important to be as unambiguous as possible of course, but there is so much to read on Wikipedia that being relatively concise is an invaluable skill, and one worth the self-training (although self-editing has its notorious pitfalls). Unless blustering is your thing (or the thing) I suppose.

Re OrangeMarlin:

So it was a 'Right to vanish' without disclosure? I wonder where you heard that. There really are no proper rules on Wikipedia are there. It's simply about whether you are likely to get blocked or not, and how long it will last if you do.

OM is such a naturally aggressive man, his new identity should stand out like a sore thumb. Unless he's being extremely careful I suppose. What he would love to be is an admin - so maybe that ambition is keeping him in check.

The OM/ FT2 thing was a typical battle of wiki armies. It's why they both came out pretty untarnished from it if I remember (I read up on it all after the event). OM in his newly protected state did very well out of it - it was a ticket to be as abusive as he pretty much liked, with his kiss-arse 'mentors' winging-in immediately if fool from the 'ignorant masses' had the gall to stand up to his 'personality'. It's the people who don't (or won't) support-build on WP that really have to worry about their actions.

There is a triple threat that stops Wikipedia being a reasonable and objective encyclopedia: desire, ability and structure (primarily being the style guides, and those who control them). OM had serious issues with all three, and when he was involved in the abuse of them it was always to remove stuff he simply didn't want to see on Wikipedia at all. In a sense, the Civility thing worked like a smoke-screen. It's that over-used label again, 'great content editor with civility issues', as if the two somehow 'naturally' come together. Those 'anti heroes' are always guns ablazing on that infernal Featured Article machine too.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Interesting there is no mention of the User:TBP account in his disclosure here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/ACE2010_extended_statement

The TBP thread is here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17944&view=findpost&p=99940

Posted by: trenton

I wonder.... if brevity is the soul of wit, does the inverse hold true?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Vandenburg getting into a scrap with him now.

Does anyone have any idea what this is about?



What is all this?

Posted by: cyofee

FT2 is an early riser?

Posted by: Ottava

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions&diff=399114766&oldid=399106156.

Posted by: Peter Damian

All explained. See below.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

FT2 once explained that it took him a long time to craft his answers because he was fearful of misinterpretations. His longwinded responses were no more helpful in that regard as far as I could see.

His inability to communicate concisely and unambiguously are of themselves reasons why he is unsuited to be in any position of authority or judgement.

Posted by: Peter Damian

I think the inability is more explained by http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html.

Posted by: trenton

None of his colleagues at the arbcom really seem to like him very much. JV calls him a liar, and the Wizardboy doesn't seem to care for him much either, going by his election guide.

I do hope he gets elected. The drama quotient has been getting rather low lately.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Unfortunately the ballot seems to be secret this year, so we are missing the usual jockeying and tactical voting and drama. Hopefully that will change when it is announced.

My 'winning team' is FT2, Giano, Sandstein, Off2RioRob and Harej.

Posted by: powercorrupts

Yeah, God help us all.

But maybe a terrible group will work out for the best. The shocking status quo of bad administership (for example) ---brickwall----rfc/u----brickwall-----------------------------arbcom may not be able to survive it. Something may actually give somewhere.

I'm not sure it's been expressed in this thread, but Off2RioRob, although a natural-born kiss-ass (between appearing 'tough' via the typical teenage snotty rudeness), is not - and genuinely never would be able to be - an admin. His block log is far too big and he can't keep it empty, and he has made too-many fair-minded editor enemies - ie he has made the mistake of making himself unpopular before becoming an admin, and not afterwards when you can do and say what you like.

How can they have a system where a nominee can bypass adminship via a secret ballot at arbcom level? Nobody seems to care what mediation experience there is in off2riorob's case, which only betrays what most of them really feel about the job.

The whole candidature process is atrocious - it's far worse than the less-than-ideal Request for Adminship, and these people are supposed to be the bottom line on difficult issues - although nothing but stupid hyper-dramas ever actually get up to their marble floor, admittedly.

They are basically hiring the new cast of Wikipedia Dynasty.

Posted by: Peter Damian

What I am hearing through various channels is that this election will make or break Wikipedia.

Posted by: BelovedFox

Everyone is gonna' say that. The vast majority of editors don't care, because ArbCom doesn't affect them. Not a single article I have ever edited has been remotely connected with an ArbCom case, for example.

Posted by: Theanima

Very true. Arbcom is highly over-rated. Honestly, I can't believe how much some people give a damn about nothing.

Posted by: BelovedFox

Well, something like ArbCom is necessary for some fields, but for a great many of them--roads, film, video games, counties, education, meteorology, paleontology, on and on--regular dispute resolution works just fine. It's not surprising a comparatively small portion of editors bother voting.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

913 channels of bullshit to choose from?

Posted by: EricBarbour

You are one sick bastard.

Posted by: tarantino

lol, wikipedia is where anyone can http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Sven+Manguard&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_review_log=1, http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Sven+Manguard&blocks=true and then http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Vandenberg&diff=399088885&oldid=399088805

Posted by: EricBarbour

That guy stinks of gaming-the-system-for-power.

Obviously an experienced user, 7,000 edits in the first 2 months (343 edits just yesterday),
almost no useful factual edits, generates lots of dramah, pwns Wikiproject East Asia,
and hands out barnstars to an IP address.
Whatta freak. I smell a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sven_Manguard&diff=387079921&oldid=385632561 of someone caballish.
(not that anyone cares, of course. )

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

Obviously an insane user.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Well we finally have an explanation of the TBP account from FT2. FT2 drafted the article on Hani Miletski, emailed it to TBP, who then posted it. That is why FT2 claimed the article as his own.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Mangaard would have been plausible as a (reasonably common) Scandihoovian surname, but Manguard is right out.

Moreover any candidate with more user-talk edits than article edits should be disqualified summarily.


Except, this "explanation" is bull to the power of shit, and everyone knows it.

Posted by: Peter Damian

No I think most people accept it.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I simply don't believe that, once people have clues to remind them, that they don't remember what went on. A classic FT2 answer which puts in masses of detail and becomes less convincing rather than more.

Wouldn't it have been more convincing to say "I don't remember the exact details as it was a long time ago, but I think between us we drafted an article offline before it was posted, then tweaked it." He either worked in this style a few times, hence it was an unmemorable incident - and he could point to other examples; or it was unusual, and therefore it would be unconvincing for this to be forgotten. It is also less convincing because this was about an article he claimed authorship of so at some point he did remember writing it.

Selective memory is not a good trait for someone sitting in judgement.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I've edited several such articles without actually meaning to, so that seems nearly as dubious as Zoloft's "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=231732" claim. Check again.


It's possible "most people" (given the benefit of secret balloting) have chosen to smile and nod in hopes that FT2 will shut the fuck up already.

Posted by: Peter Damian

It's not convincing to regulars here, but I think it's convincing to many Wikipedians.

I like the way he thought of the story about sending a full version by email. Then he obviously realised that this wouldn't do, because TBP actually adds a significant chunk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hani_Miletski&diff=next&oldid=52708575 8 minutes into the edit. So in his explanation FT2 adds details like "I then emailed him copyedits or extra information".

It's patent nonsense, but clearly most Wikipedians are taken in by it, or he wouldn't have survived so long.

Posted by: Zoloft

Is there some database tool where I can check to see if any of my edits were reverted?

Seems to me that if I've never been warned, I'm fairly vanilla. I do remember making spelling/grammar fixes to Liancourt Rocks (T-H-L-K-D), and nobody cared.

My deleted edits are in articles that went through AfDs and were zapped.

Posted by: The Adversary

"Manguard" is about as Scandinavian as ......"Kristen" is a girls name.

As for the Hani Miletski-article; why, oh why do you ever make a draft of an article...and then email it, (out of view) to another user to post??

In my wp-history I only know of (or rather; suspect!) one other case: user A (already known as a harasser of his enemies on wp, having published attacks-articles on them...and being under special "watch" due to this..)...emails editor B (known to share A's strong political views) ....just afterwards B then publish a BLP of one of A's strongest opponents on wp. (This was the only BLP that editor B ever wrote..)

Hmm. Fishy. Stinks.

(And I say this, having found that cooperating with other similar-minded editors on articles is one of the most fun thing there is. But, if you have nothing to hide; you make a sub-page on wp, and start working. Or did wp ever charge you for making draft-pages??)

Posted by: RMHED

Yes, Sven is a bit of a pompous twat . Clearly an experienced user, most likely a sock of a banned or indef blocked user. I've got my suspicions as to who they are, but really if they're seeking to be an admin they're just trying too hard and any RfA will likely go down in flames.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Reminds me of the pomposity of Durova, not blocked or banned, just vanished.

Posted by: Gruntled

I would guess that it's about the reasons why FT2 had to retire from ArbCom, and then had to retire from being a checkuser. By the way, has anyone noticed that this interesting discussion has mysteriously been moved to the talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions&diff=399123123&oldid=399114766

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Well, I suspect he would get up with the chickens and other farm animals.

Posted by: EricBarbour

And where did your morning omelet come from?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Vandenburg is certainly going for it, but I'm not sure where it is going.

Nuclear Warfare has also spotted some of the glaring inconsistencies. That will get him nowhere: it's clear that the Wikipedians don't follow any links to any kind of evidence, and if you say what the evidence implies, you will be banned for incivility. No decently functioning system would allow a culture that accepts lying on this scale and blatancy. But Wikipedia is not a decently functioning system, I know ...

Posted by: powercorrupts

I just can't see anything radical on offer at all - it's almost totally conservative. What could happen that is different this year?

There are 12 places and only 20 candidates to choose from (excluding Loosmark, although it looks like people can continue to vote for him - what an extra farce he's helped make it). Filling12 places from only 20 candidates is a gross lack of choice - Ideally you want at least a few choices per space, all properly checked for sock integrity beforehand.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I can't imagine how.

Posted by: Peter Damian

John Vandenberg again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FT2#Query

* On April 21 (F43A818E433D44648BB0569FDCB686CB), the banned user emails Arbcom with a link which includes a crat saying publicly that they are emailing the details to the [Wikimedia] Foundation for review.
* On April 22 (480dbb5d.1f15300a.0410.01b4), FT2 provides Arbcom with a summary of the user in question, leaving out many specifics that I know he knew back in December 2007.
* On April 22 (54ADCFC31B35499C86E666B5197CB5D0), the banned user emailed Arbcom, forwarding their email from 8 December 2007 which contained all the details necessary to find these edits, being the first two edits FT2 ever made. FT2 claims to have forgotten that he started Wikipedia on the article Zoophilia. Even if he had forgotten, these emails were a reminder. The original email had been sent to two 'crats in December 2007. Jimmy Wales has also been sent these emails between December and April; I don't know whether they were received or not.
* On April 24, there were a few arbitrator comments in a separate thread. MessageID 16032ea0804241712n3ee276cayd178991b1e0df657 shows that the problem was properly understood. At this stage, FT2 (48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f) is still participating in the relevant discussions.
* On April 25 (86CD3F11-2D27-44EC-A05E-3107DCA4965E), an arbitrator responded to the banned user, indicating that the committee would discuss the matter, and proceeded to start the arbcom discussion.
* On April 25 (481265c7.2435440a.29eb.0c79), FT2 gave the arbs a brain dump of how he thought the arbs should handle the matter, whilst also indicating that he knew he was considered involved. Another arb promptly told him to keep his opinions to himself. FT2 respond acknowledging that his comments are as a party rather than as an arbitrator.

FT2 claims that he did not read the emails because they were 'filtered'. But then if he hadn't read them, how was it he replied On April 22 with details of what he knew about the 'banned user'? If he was still participating in relevant discussion later (48111d14.04eb300a.328e.097f) how can he claim he wasn't involved.

The issue is not the lies, but the fact that he seems to accept that telling lies like this will not be challenged. Lying is part of the culture of Arbcom, one suspects.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Well, the ArbCom is delegated Jimbo, and as Jimbo has no compunctions against lying if he thinks doing so will serve his purposes, it stands to reason that the ArbCom should behave in the same manner.

Posted by: powercorrupts

Make that 19 now Balloonman's gone, although I'll post on that in the indecision 2010 thread.

I suppose Wikimedia might feel they need a specific team they can really trust this year, which they see as a challenging one. Donators wanting to see stability perhaps, which WM would always envision in terms of control. Perhaps they want to achieve things in-wiki this year and they need an arbcom that will deliver it to them - like a cheeky form of adminship revision which will effectively serve to rubber stamp the status quo. It must be really hard to pull out new stunts when the arbcom is either struggling or unpredictable, and I'm convinced WM have loads up their sleeve, on and off WP.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

What percentage of donors do you think know or care about adminship, adminship review, or the Arbitration Committee?

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

The donors have the Wikipedian Disease themselves and probably agonize over all the boring Wiki-crap pertaining to ArbCom that dominates this thread. The wider public does not care about ArbCom although they would be appalled by the prospect of pornographers and extreme libertarian advocates of practice such as bestiality being put in positions of influence over content in a project both used by and created, in part, by children. This is why small donor (Wikipedian) funding is so bad. It further isolates the project from the kind of pressures that over the long haul the serious funding community would never tolerate.

Posted by: powercorrupts

What do percentages have to do about anything?

I'm not talking about the steady trickle of 'everyday' people who Wikimedia are currently squeezing for even more money via email only just after they've already given (you rude, insensitive and greedy bastards). No - those people largely donate small amounts for the 'convenience factor' of Wikipedia . That is largely down to Google and its current page rank system - a factor which must must weigh extremely heavily on WP's mind: the fear of still being financially dependent, combined the income being for a shared service, with ever-increasing overheads, when the charity well starts to dry out.

No - I was referring to the 'important benefactors' that all charities have - whether they are genuinely charitable, or (as will no-doubt happen in WP's case) if they are getting something back in return. It's a simple fact that very few large benefactors in the corporate/charity world simply give their money with no questions asked.

Posted by: Theanima

...aaaand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions#Withdrawal_notice.

Posted by: Zoloft

I do believe a daily dose of ginkgo biloba is prescribed for cases like these.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

is it just me, or does anyone else's eyes glaze over trying to read FT2's drivel?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I figure most people know better than to try.

Posted by: Peter Damian

Some of it is quite clear.

This explains an email I got from Scribe (07 December 2007 21:14) suggesting that FT2 had contacted him about the post.

The really odd thing is that anyone believed anything so frankly implausible for so long (namely, that FT2 had prevailed upon several administrators - including Will Scribe and David Gerard - to 'do something' about the edits, that Gerard confirmed the oversights back, that Jimbo emailed about it as well, and yet FT2 forgot about them.

But of course the rest of the Arbcom were complicit in covering everything up at the same time. The discussion in April-May 2008 was completely in private, and I am only now piecing together the events that went on. (This latest revelation for example).

[edit] The arbitration committee members as of April 2008

Active Arbitrators
Blnguyen (talk • contribs • email)
Charles Matthews (talk • contribs • email) (charles.r.matthewsntlworld.com)
Deskana (talk • contribs • email) (djgwikigooglemail.com)
FayssalF (talk • contribs • email) (Fayssal Fertakh, szvestgmail.com)
FloNight (talk • contribs • email)
FT2 (talk • contribs • email) (public inbox: ft2wikipedia.inboxgmail.com)
Jdforrester (talk • contribs • email) (James Forrester aka "James F.", jdforrestergmail.com)
Jpgordon (talk • contribs • email) (Josh Gordon, user.jpgordongmail.com)
Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email) (kirill.lokshingmail.com)
Morven (talk • contribs • email) (Matthew Brown, morvengmail.com)
Paul August (talk • contribs • email)
Sam Blacketer (talk • contribs • email) (sam.blacketergmail.com)
Thebainer (talk • contribs • email) (Stephen Bain, stephen.baingmail.com)
UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs • email) (Steve Dunlop, uninvitednerstrand.net)

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Brief version: I'm screwed.

Longer version, I've spent so long bullshitting about this, I've come to believe my own drivel.

It actually reflects badly on the rest of those involved, some of whom must have been aware of FT2 being misleading and have previously decided to keep quiet.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Other possibility, arbcom and most of the community have been at tl;dr with this since the beginning.

I vaguely remember reading a lot of the public stuff at the time, being involved in some of the conversations, and following threads here and on wikipedia since, and I truly have no idea what the hell it was all about:

something to do with fetish edits, oversight and David Gerard and after that I lose the plot entirely.

Where Peter, John Van, and FT2's timezone fits in beats me.

I'm reminded of Palmerston's remarks on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein_Question

"Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it."

And in the end, aside from Peter, who cares?

Posted by: Peter Damian

Who cares about a pack of lies, after all? Note that Doc was in on the Dec 22 IRC chat, and thus was one of those who knew from the beginning.

Rough timeline.

Dec 2007-April 2008 - FT2, Gerard + 1 other admin (possibly Doc?) + Scribe, + Cary Bass and Jimbo knew. Thatcher also knew from observing the edits disappear, but as far as I know was not involved in the email exchanges.

This was kept pretty well secret until April 2008, when Arbcom got to hear about it. There was then a wider conspiracy to keep the whole thing secret. Part of this was offering me a lift on the ban, which with hindsight I should never have accepted.

In July 2008, FT2 said he had never heard of such a thing happening.

In November 2008, Giano finally revealed what had happened (I don't know how he found out), saying publicly. “Over the last year I have known [about the edits], but been unable to prove it, I have been stonewalled wherever I turned and found myself unable to trust anybody. FT2 and Gerard were untouchable and had me blocked at every opportunity. … A week or so ago I obtained positive proof that Gerard had indeed tampered with FT2's edits during the election with an invalid oversight reason outside of policy, especially as they pertained to a subject about which FT2 was being questioned during his campaign for Arbcom. So basically Gerard and FT2 are disgraced and and FT2 is an Arb by fraud. "

People like Doc immediately were saying 'what's so interesting about that, everyone knows about that' and so on. Like they hadn't been conspiring for months to cover it up.

From November to January 2009, FT2 persistently stonewalled questions about why he said he knew nothing (and denied again in November) about the oversighting.

Finally in January he was blocked by Bishonen, there was an RfC, and FT2 had to resign.

To those like Doc who say 'who cares', I say 'yes, but if it is that trivial, why cover it up'. It's the official lying after the event, and the conspiracy to cover it up, that we should care about.

The oversighted edits were in themselves quite trivial. It's the three years of banning and blocking and persistent lying and resignations that are significant.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

What paranoid nonsense.

I knew nothing, took no interest, and still don't follow the ins and out of all of this. It strikes me as pure obscurantism.

From what I gather, some edits were irregularly oversighted, in somewhat unclear circumstances. It's a bit muddy as to whether FT2 was involved in this or not - and he's evidently been less than forthcoming on the point, which is enough "smoke" that with or without the fire, I certainly didn't support his return to arbcom.

Beyond that, I think the issue has been that those semi-involved haven't looked too closely at it, and by the time they did, others, who cared all too passionately about it, had convinced themselves that there was some vast wiki-wide conspiracy. I suspect all there actually is is a somewhat embarrassed FT2 digging himself deeper into a hole.

So, he's in a hole. Whether there's fire behind the smoke, I've no idea: but the smoke will be enough to keep him off arbcom, and beyond that nothing really matters.

Indeed, had FT2 had the wisdom not to presented himself as an arbcom candidate, who would care? Maybe he lied - well, so what? What difference does it make now?

Posted by: Peter Damian

As I said, you are on record as discussing it with FT2 on Dec 22, so don't accuse me of being paranoid. As to FT2's involvement, Gerard publicly said that FT2 approached him to make the oversights, that and that he confirmed this back to FT2 on December 8.

Jimbo further emailed FT2 on December 11 to ask why the oversights had been made. This was the email that FT2 'found' on Dec 9th the next year. He says “in an unrelated search related to the RFAR case, I found an old email from Jimbo to myself. It was written during the election a year before in 2007 and stated that edits had been oversighted by mistake but this was going to be reversed.” He says he 'forgot' about this email, and also 'forgot' asking Gerard (and Scribe, we now know) to make the oversights.

Of course the original events were trivial. It's everything that happened afterwards. Plus the denial from people like you. You deny anything happened, and lie through your teeth persistently. And as soon as the truth comes out, you say either that you knew it all along, that it was trivial. Or that you hadn't really been following it.

And as for you not really following it, here you are all over Giano's page, talking about it and denying it. You are Scott MacDonald, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Giano_II&oldid=254245398#A_few_words_from_Giano



What difference does official lying and cover-up make, after the event? You tell me.



As I say, when a conspiracy is unmasked, there are those who disclaim all knowledge, and there are those who say 'this is old news and thoroughly boring'.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Wikipedians seem to have a tendency to take after their leader, Jimbo, which means that they will willingly spin lies of any sort in order to create a suitable fiction to explain away any evidence that doesn't comport with the reality they want to be true. Many of them also have the uncanny ability to believe those lies, once spun.

The only takeaway one can get from all this is that Wikipedians cannot be trusted to be truthful, not to themselves and not to anyone else, nor can they be trusted to keep their promises. There is no way to deal in good faith with such people; one must, at all times, assume that any offer made will be retracted, any deal struck ignored, and any promise reneged, for it will happen. These people have no honor, and honorable people have nothing to gain by consorting with their like.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Milton Roe

Oh dear. They are are not trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent? That explains why I sensed something amiss. Though I myself am very occasionally irreverent. But all this doesn't explain Lar's high rank.

Eagle Scout Milton (get the action set)

Posted by: carbuncle

PETA?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Kelly, even when you say something I disagree with, I have enough respect for your insight that I usually expect learn something from it.

This however is an exception. When did you become an uncritical spouter of the house paranoia?

The only thing one can say about "Wikipedians" is that they are a mixed bunch that defies most generalisations. (Other then they've got no life and too much time on their hands - but that goes for the regulars of WR too.)

This "guilt by association" is just the flipside of the same nonsense Sidaway tried on me when he told me to stop posting to the "troll site" because all the people there are hateful and those who associate with them must also be evil.

Wikipedia has a whole mixture of ideologies. It give just some examples of the problematic ones:
#There are some Jimbo devotees (but there number is relatively small, and mainly restricted to a few old-timers, as Jimbo's presence has declined).
#There are free-speech, "my right to publish", fanatics
#There are undogmatic power-trippers
#There are single-issue advocates

A more nuanced analysis is surely a better one.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I'm disclaiming nothing. I just consistently don't care.

When Wikipedia libels people, I care.
When Wikipedia treats real people unfairly, I care.
When the system has real-world consequences, I care.

But no, I don't care who got something over sighted and why. I don't care if FT2 lied. I don't care if there was a conspiracy to cover it up (although I don't believe there was).

Maybe I care enough to oppose FT2 in an arbcom election (indeed I did do that for precisely the reason you give), but then I also had to stop and think whether I even cared enough about who was on arbcom even to vote. I did vote, but I largely don't care.

Watergate this isn't. Tell me who it actually affects?

Posted by: trenton

Q: FT2, what's with the oversighted edits?
FT2: What oversighted edits? There are no oversighted edits.
Q: But the logs...
FT2: Oh. Done completely without my knowledge and approval.
Q: But the emails to you from Gerard, and the Jimbeau?
FT2: Oh. I'm too ethical to read those emails.
Q: Yet you replied to them?
FT2: <a novel-length reply saying nothing>
Q: So, again, what about those oversighted edits? Did you know about them?
FT2: It's a very complex issue that requires consultation and research. Give me a few months and if you haven't forgotten ask again.
Q: <few months later>: ???
FT2: Still researching. Very complex matter.
Q: <few months later>: ???
FT2: I quit. I request that an independent outside panel of experts be convened to determine the matter of what I know and what I don't know, and when I didn't know what I don't know.

<few years later>

FT2: Running for arbcom!!!! Vote for me!!!
Q: About those oversighted edits....
FT2: I behaved with the utmost ethical standards. Simple misunderstanding. Banned harasser / stalker troll. Much hardship. Woe is me. Totally innocent.
<wikipediots>: Totally.
Q: Ummmmm..... about those emails and irc logs....
FT2: Stalker!!! Harasser!!! I am ethical!!!
Q: Remember those logs...
FT2: I quit. Turns out I knew what I didn't know before I knew what I know, if you know what I mean.

Its not the crime, its the coverup. Everything would have been forgotten if FT2 simply said he didn't know, and Gerard was doing his own thing. Indeed, Gerard manages to get by doing whatever he wants, remaining silent, and kissing Jimbeuas / Goodwin's ass when needed. Instead he invented story after story, none of them making sense or holding up to evidence.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

You're just trying to rationalize your continued involvement with a fundamentally unethical organization. The characteristics I recited are definitive of Jimmy Wales; there can be no question of that. One thing I've observed is that organizations quite often take after their founder, and Wikipedia appears to be no exception in this regard. Just as Jimmy Wales places little value in the honorable treatment of others, so many Wikipedians have copied him in this regard. Jimmy has cashed so many overdrawn checks against Wikipedia's morality that he has driven it, too, into bankruptcy.

The fact that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have not surrendered to the groupthink does not mean that the groupthink does not exist or that there is not a lack of moral fibre in the entity. The simple fact is that Wikipedia lacks, from the top down, any steadfast commitment to ethical practices, and people need to keep that in mind at all times when interacting with Wikipedia and with individual Wikipedians. If you do not wish to be tarred by that brush, then step out of its way.

Of course, this isn't entirely just copying Jimmy's lack of moral fibre; it's also an entirely to-be-expected consequence of handing out anonymous power. Anonymity breeds contempt, as many have noted; it should come to no surprise to anyone that an environment in which most actors are effectively anonymous would quickly be overrun by unethical actors acting with gross contempt for ordinary social standards. It's hard enough maintaining those social standards in nonanonymous communities. Of course, I hold Jimmy to task for the decision to encourage anonymity as well, even if his main motivation for that was simply to maximize participation.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

You know me well enough to know I've no interest in defending Wales. And yes, anonymity is a problem with BLP editing, which http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responsible_Editing_Pledge Structurally, anonymous editing of BLPs gives more scope for those who seek to libel or defame.

However, just because people edit anonymously doesn't necessarily mean they edit irresponsibly. So, the accusation it morally warps people is invalid. It just allows irresponsible people to hide among responsible people (who want to be anonymous for perfectly understandable reasons).

Your argument is also logically invalid. " that there are still a few Wikipedians left who have not surrendered to the groupthink does not mean that the groupthink does not exist " I am not arguing that groupthink doesn't exist, however I don't draw the conclusion that those resisting it are "few". Indeed, I think most Wikipedians espousing extreme libertarian free-speech views probably didn't develop them on wikipedia, but we attracted to Wikipedia because of them. I'd say many participants in Wikipedia have not in fact developed the capacity to think at all, never mind "group think" - they just do their thing because they want to.

Posted by: Lar

LolWUT? What high rank? I'm a disgraced former steward, haven't you heard? Why am I getting dragged into this?

That said, Obviously all wikipedians are exactly the same. (disgraced former stewards, every one)

Posted by: dogbiscuit

I think the issue is far simpler: an ethical organisation should seek to put in place processes and people in places of judgement who can be seen to be reasonable people operating responsibly. Wikipedia has this history of "we can invent a better way than the sad old ways of the real world" yet when it comes to the crunch, it repeatedly adopts the worst practices of the real world rather than the best. In this case we have Gerard (who as far as I am aware had no official role in the organisation aside from being an old hand who had acquired rights and privileges), who when someone whose face fitted was threatened with some nuisance of some edits which were recognised to be embarrassing in some way, felt it entirely appropriate to hide them from sight rather than let an open discussion about them derail a favoured candidate; then a series of people, when challenged on this, decided that it was better to dissemble than be open, over a period of years.

The group-think is one where, in the face of legitimate complaints, as a group, the powers that be chose dissembling over an honest review. It is a facet we see over and over again. In a situation where it is clear that someone without a constitutional role interfered in an election, the attitude pervading is "don't want to know". In this case, the herd simply accepted that Wikipedia was under attack from nefarious characters and assumed that there was no basis for complaint.

There is a Jimbo-like attitude here - craving the limelight but denying responsibility, even when the very role is one of responsibility.

I find it odd, that someone who had his buttons pushed on the issue of BLPs and sought to be a thorn in the side of the organisation to push for an issue he was passionate about should not see that the organisational failing of ethics were a more general problem that pervaded the whole organisation, and to solve the BLP issue, you need to solve the organisational issue. Instead, we have an organisation with a massively distorted set of ethics who we simply cannot trust to make rational decisions.