Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Guy Chapman admits deck pre-stacked against Privatemusings
> Wikimedia Discussion > Editors > Notable editors > JzG
Proabivouac
Regarding Arbitrators who should have recused themselves, Guy Chapman writes,
QUOTE

"Having ventured an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086273.html


Guy Chapman (JzG) betrayed PM's expectations of confidentiality by sharing his communications with the cyberstalking mailing list, then outed his real-world identity on Wikipedia.

Now he defends the failure of Arbitrators to recuse themselves from a case which it's reasonable to suppose (as Chapman suggests) they've predecided.
the fieryangel
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 29th November 2007, 1:40pm) *

Regarding Arbitrators who should have recused themselves, Guy Chapman writes,
QUOTE

"Having ventured an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086273.html


Guy Chapman (JzG) betrayed PM's expectations of confidentiality by sharing his communications with the cyberstalking mailing list, then outed his real-world identity on Wikipedia.

Now he defends the failure of Arbitrators to recuse themselves from a case which it's reasonable to suppose (as Chapman suggests) they've predecided.


Well, it looks like Private Musings is getting his wish and this is going to Arb-com.

JzG's email disclosure and the stacked deck is part of the issue. Here's Guy's "evidence".... This diff on the workshop page is pretty damning.

QUOTE

::::::::: Alec, I know the identity of PM's other account(s). I have checked very carefully the histories of both, and this is not, in my considered opinion, a valid use of an alternate account. Meta debate would have been OK, but not the content edits and link advocacy in respect of content. That crosses the line into good hand / bad hand. The route for appeals is ArbCom, by email. The very small number of individuals with whom I have shared the information does include at least three arbitrators, and one arbitrator has expressed privately that he also sees this as lying outside the bounds of permissible use of an alternate account. So, ArbCom is the place for appeals. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|


Fred Bauder is a party....

Hahahaha.....
Proabivouac
QUOTE

Well, it looks like Private Musings is getting his wish and this is going to Arb-com.

JzG's email disclosure and the stacked deck is part of the issue.

Fred Bauder is a party....

Hahahaha.....

It's worse than that. ArbCom is closing it now, having officially sanctioned JzG's outing and "cyberstalking" of contributors, with none of the compromised arbitrators stepping forward to recuse themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Motion_to_close
the fieryangel
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 29th November 2007, 2:05pm) *

QUOTE

Well, it looks like Private Musings is getting his wish and this is going to Arb-com.

JzG's email disclosure and the stacked deck is part of the issue.

Fred Bauder is a party....

Hahahaha.....

It's worse than that. ArbCom is closing it now, having officially sanctioned JzG's outing and "cyberstalking" of contributors, with none of the compromised arbitrators stepping forward to recuse themselves:

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


Well, that doesn't really surprise me at all....
WhispersOfWisdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

Look at the last page of this one, however, because it looks like Arbcom. is set to close it. unsure.gif

This case opened on the 20th/21st of November, 2007.
Proabivouac
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 29th November 2007, 1:17pm) *

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

Look at the last page of this one, however, because it looks like Arbcom. is set to close it. unsure.gif

This case opened on the 20th/21st of November, 2007.

Key points:
1) the Arbitration Committee supports violations of contributors' privacy, which administrators such as Guy Chapman are free to commit at any time 2) whether or not a contributor has a right to privacy is entirely up to the Committee. 3) so-called "sockpuppets" (including new usernames) are or are not forbidden from participating in policy pages and talk pages, according to the discretion of the committee.



This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.