Was "Watching Whales" an ARBCOM-approved ShankSock?, Benjiboi sez so! Options

[CharlotteWebb]

I can't such a claim on faith--you're an arbitrator. I'd sooner trust a used car salesman.

Alrighty then...

[Random832]

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

It's not Fight Club. If there was a rule that nothing on the list could be made public even indirectly, arbcom couldn't make decisions based on evidence presented to the list. Or even acknowledge that evidence was presented at all.

"There are a large number of things posted to the list whose details should be kept private" is simply not the same thing as "there can be absolutely nothing said about anything"

This post has been edited by Random832: Fri 30th October 2009, 4:43pm

[Cla68]

Mr. Miller's "I'll eat dog food" statement means that he is disappointed that he's being treated this way by Wikipedians after making as much time and effort to support Wikipedia as he has. What Mr. Miller doesn't understand is that tying one's entire professional career to Wikipedia is a loser's game. Wikipedia doesn't have enough substance right now to support any one person's professional foundation. The thing is, Mr. Miller's actions, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, and the sketchy pictures that he has taken, is one of the reasons for this situation.

[Grep]

I'm merely reporting what grep told me because some people here are interested in knowing any facts which can help them narrow down the list of likely theories.

I think I should make it clear that I have no recollection of discussing any such list with jayvdb.

[anthony]

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

It's not Fight Club. If there was a rule that nothing on the list could be made public even indirectly, arbcom couldn't make decisions based on evidence presented to the list. Or even acknowledge that evidence was presented at all.

Presumably they can release information if they all agree to release it. Or if it's already public knowledge anyway.

But whatever. It's a black box. I'm not going to trust someone that something's not there. If you want to, be my guest.

This post has been edited by anthony: Fri 30th October 2009, 5:59pm

[Somey]

There was no way I could argue delete of [[David Shankbone]] without the very basis for the recognition and my fundamental belief in the purpose of Wikipedia to have been an absolute farce. Yes, I felt I could eat my own dog food.

Mr. Miller's "I'll eat dog food" statement means that he is disappointed that he's being treated this way by Wikipedians after making as much time and effort to support Wikipedia as he has.

I just figured he was misusing the phrase. I've always thought "eat your own dog food" meant "use your own products internally (within your own business operation), despite their flaws or inadequacies." That would only make sense in this context if it refers to his use of Wikipedia articles (i.e., products) to promote (or "inform people about") various things he's interested in, or perhaps directly involved in.

[jayvdb]

Everyone who wants the contents of the list to remain private. Discussing what's not on the list disrupts the ability to keep private what is on the list. You can only keep what's on a list private by two methods: refuse to confirm or deny any speculation, or deny every speculation whether it's true or false.

It's not Fight Club. If there was a rule that nothing on the list could be made public even indirectly, arbcom couldn't make decisions based on evidence presented to the list. Or even acknowledge that evidence was presented at all.

Presumably they can release information if they all agree to release it. Or if it's already public knowledge anyway.

But whatever. It's a black box. I'm not going to trust someone that something's not there. If you want to, be my guest.

There is an expectation that private information in the archives is not released without consent from the arbitrators. In this case, nothing private is being released so I didn't bother with formalities, and instead opted to inform the committee. Here is my email, with only the quoted parts redacted:

> ...
> ...
Here David admits that WatchingWhales is his alt account:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156389619

And there is now a WR thread about it. I have said that this account
name hasnt been mentioned in the Arbcom archives.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27110

The committee has not objected (yet?). fwiw, I have often posted information like this to WR, and never heard any complaints from either side of the fence.
1st post; again owning up to oversighting an edit; more non-information; giving Wikileaker permission to release the contents of an email I sent to oversight-l; doing it myself; releasing more non-information; highlighting an ongoing oversight problem; un-oversighting!!; hmm, I must have told Dominic; a timeline of who knew what and when, including Jimbo; my abstain vote on a private motion; wow! CU information on WR; Jay Walsh said that!?

[EricBarbour]

It's not Fight Club.

I beg your pardon, sir.

Wikipedia is nothing BUT a giant Fight Club. And Shankbone is Tyler Durden--
arrogant as hell, despite being a completely fictional character.

[CharlotteWebb]

Wikipedia is nothing BUT a giant Fight Club. And Shankbone is Tyler Durden--
arrogant as hell, despite being a completely fictional character.

Meta-fictional you mean?

I am Jimbo's complete lack of surprise.