I think Mr. Chapman may be headed for a fall in his latest episode of his magical mystery tour.
He is going to find that swinging at windmills that were already sold; long gone, is a timeless; time consuming and pathetic pastime. The truth is, he would be far better off going to work, or tending to his wife and children.
More to follow... he may be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzGHe is slugging it out with the ArbCom committee...while the kids are saying: "Why are you always typing on that stupid computer."
"My dad was never around...he was always typing on Wikipedia."
His wife leaves and says:
"I hope and pray your computer can keep you warm and cozy for the rest of your days on earth."
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Fri 23rd November 2007, 10:13pm)
I think Mr. Chapman may be headed for a fall in his latest episode of his magical mystery tour.
He is going to find that swinging at windmills that were already sold; long gone, is a timeless; time consuming and pathetic pastime. The truth is, he would be far better off going to work, or tending to his wife and children.
More to follow... he may be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzGHe is slugging it out with the ArbCom committee...while the kids are saying: "Why are you always typing on that stupid computer."
"My dad was never around...he was always typing on Wikipedia."
His wife leaves and says:
"I hope and pray your computer can keep you warm and cozy for the rest of your days on earth."
QUOTE
My initial indefinite block was issued by JzG, who stated that he had discussed both my privately submitted personal information, and my editing habits generally with a group of editors. Aside from my assertion that this is unethical behaviour, please could the Arb.s ask Guy to confirm who the 'small group of trusted admin.s' he discussed my case with are. In particular I am concerned that;
* These admin.s may have subsequently blocked me, or reviewed a block without disclosing their receipt of private material related to the first block
* These admin.s may have commented substantially on this case, again without disclosing the private material circulated previously.
These concerns are particularly strengthened by the case of User:!!, and the material here.
I would also believe it to be very important to disclose if any recipients of the material composed by Durova have commented on my case, for the same reasons.
In the original AN/I Thread concerning my indefinite block, Guy mentions; "The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators" (Diff here).
WHAT is going on here?
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 23rd November 2007, 10:58pm)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Fri 23rd November 2007, 10:13pm)
I would also believe it to be very important to disclose if any recipients of the material composed by Durova have commented on my case, for the same reasons.
In the original AN/I Thread concerning my indefinite block, Guy mentions; "The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators" (Diff here).
WHAT is going on here?
Guy Chapman almost certainly refers to the very same mailing list to which Durova's absurd indictment of User:!! was posted.
You asked for it, you got it!
PrivateMusings will prevail because JzG is swinging at air. Now he is through and everyone at that hearing knows it. It really looks like they will be forced to end it with PM using one account unless otherwise fully disclosed. duh!
Now, JzG get back to Durova, but be real careful because you and Durova are in neck deep.
The project is not going to take kindly to your behind the scenes and clandestine meetings, accompanied by chanting and passing secret remedies.
It's Durover Durova. Next? Step aside GC. Smart does not make you wise.
The only way JzG will leave the project is if his admin. rights get revoked. He won't stay around if he can't torment people and make them pay attention to him. If he had no power people would simply pay him no mind, like an annoying fly that hangs around a table, and he would eventually fade into obscurity, ignored and forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decisionI see no "net 4" positions other than for PM being forced to use only one account.
A "net 4" is needed to pass anything.
He may get a ban? Sounds lame.
No Bio editing? Lamo.
It remains to be seen if JzG keeps pushing his secret talks with Jimbo.
I do not think Jimmy will want to advertise that he has given the nod to JzG's actions against PM.
The fact that JzG is one of the cabal members that report to Jimmy is of great interest to me and my interests.
Jimmy is going in the wrong direction, I fear.
PLEASE SAVE THIS GANG.........
JzG talks about private conversations with Jimmy...?
== Synergies with other wiki events ==
You'll see [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence|here]] that I have attempted to begin a discussion about who the 'small number of trusted admin.s' that Guy discussed my original block might have been.
With the incredible events surrounding Durova playing out elsewhere, it seems very likely that these events may have some relationship. Indeed, it's possible that the 'small number of trusted admin.s' are the same users who 'reviewed' Durova's 'document'. I would like full disclosure on this immediately - for my sake, and because it's self evidently the right thing to do. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am, of course, unable to post this note at the appropriate venue. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
:To be frank, right now there '''is not''' an appropiate venue, until someone raises a request for comment. - [[User:CygnetSaIad|CygnetSaIad]] ([[User talk:CygnetSaIad|talk]]) 23:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah - I think you're right - and to be honest, the important point I wanted to make is that the processes various editors went through ''in my case'' have just been shown to be demonstrably (and laughably) flawed. I don't think the bloating of this case to consider all aspects will be particularly useful. I have submitted what amounts to a 'motion to dismiss' because, in this specific case, that's all I really want. I would like to be unblocked. best, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
::: No, that is completely false, I'm afraid. The reasons for your blocks are very specific: abuse of multiple accounts, which was supported by consensus despite your repeated assertions to the contrary; and then, when you had undertaken to use a single account, problematic editing behaviour. Add to that your vigorous support of an extreme within a contentious policy debate, the revelation that you had more than the one alternate account to which you publicly admitted, and the unusually sensitive nature of the article over which you chose to edit war - and of course the fact that the other party was an arbitrator, which should have told you ''something'' - and we have a substantial disruptive presence. That was why you were blocked. There is nothing secret about any of this, and the only significant off-wiki discussion in relation to the blocks (of which I am aware anyway) was me asking a small number of trusted admins, including arbitrators and specifically Jimbo, whether your use of alternate accounts was acceptable. Nobody said anything but "no". <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Who did you ask? Why won't you say? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: I didn't ''ask'' so much as share a concern, and I won't tell you because it doesn't make any difference. The email made little practical difference anyway - if they had disagreed then I'd have held back but they did not. No different to asking for a sanity check on IRC in that respect; better than relying solely on your own judgement, but in the end it was my call and mine alone. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::But it really really ''does'' make a difference - I've been very clear on the workshop page that I have a strong feeling that editors who acted in my block reviews, and subsequent blocks were also undisclosed recipients of / participants in a private email posting about my editing. If you're asserting that I'm crazy to think that, then clear it up and say 'Nope.', if it's true, surely you can see how morally, ethically and just plain wrong that is - please please please just clear this up - it's a horrible horrible feeling to think that some editors were 'out to get you' from the start. please, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sat 24th November 2007, 6:29pm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decisionI see no "net 4" positions other than for PM being forced to use only one account.
A "net 4" is needed to pass anything.
"Net 4" is only for acceptance and closures. All that is needed to pass a proposed decision is a majority of active arbitrators. At the top of each proposed decision page, it'll say "for this case, X arbitrators are active, so Y is a majority" or something to that effect.
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sat 24th November 2007, 7:53pm)
the article over which you chose to edit war - and of course the fact that the other party was an arbitrator, which should have told you ''something''
It tells you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Has the arbitrator in question recused?
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 24th November 2007, 6:06pm)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Sat 24th November 2007, 7:53pm)
the article over which you chose to edit war - and of course the fact that the other party was an arbitrator, which should have told you ''something''
It tells you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Has the arbitrator in question recused?
We know that more than one Arb. should have recused in this case...so there will be some abstain "non-votes."
Here is where it stands:
"For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators, excluding 1 who is recused, so 6 votes are a majority."
I do not believe that PM will stay if there is any chance of being restricted. Maybe he will join us here and then use puppets to edit?
