Odd nature, sockpuppet of FeloniousMonk, Arbitration Committee overlooks it Options

[Proabivouac]

As the world gasps at the absurdity of Durova’s evidence against the “ripened sock” User:!!

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=...Sekret_Evidence

let’s not overlook another allegation of sockpuppetry, this one infinitely more compelling, involving not a purported WR troll, but the respected administrator FeloniousMonk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req....B7_contribs.29

Now, I’ve absolutely nothing against FeloniousMonk. I recall him as a reasonable and capable administrator, who in this instance appears to be standing up to classic POV-pushing. He probably just lost it faced with the futility of a system in which content is decided by edit-warring and numbers, and, yes, sockpuppets on all sides (most of whom, it should be emphasized, are home-grown and have nothing to do with WR or trolls.)

But the fact is that FM has sockpuppeted, not due to privacy concerns or to escape harassment, but to gain an upper hand in a content dispute through work/home tag-teaming - the most classic and indisputably abusive use of socks.

And the Arbitration Committee does nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Community_urged

Is it that they’re too clueless to confidently arrive at a decision, even with all this evidence (to which much more might be added?) Is it that they(like me, and probably many of us here) agree with the content FM and his sockpuppet User:Odd nature is pushing? Or is it that, as a well-regarded administrator, FM’s misbehavior has been willfully overlooked?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 25th November 2007, 7:44am

[dtobias]

Felonious Monk is the one who left this beauty of a message in the MONGO RFC:

This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks! [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] ([[User talk:FeloniousMonk|talk]]) 04:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He also took part in this clique pile-on last year where a bunch of SlimVirgin's buddies beat up on somebody who was pointing out a legitimate copyright issue with an image she was using on her user page. Here, he said:

What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included. FeloniousMonk 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

(at the tail end of a one-sided bullying and intimidation by Slim and friends against the originator of the discussion, where Kelly Martin had tried to step in and tell everybody to cool it).

This post has been edited by dtobias: Sun 25th November 2007, 8:19pm