No.



I think you've said this, oh, 50 or 60 times before.

And Greg, I don't think the Michael Russell article was wrong. You just understood it incorrectly. When they say "results" they're often referring to what round the player in questioned advanced to. Whoever wrote it could've been clearer, but the information was correct.

Not deleted, only ignored for purposes of determining which pages are considered "watched" or "unwatched".

Don't worry, your esteemed colleague ╟─DoucheryBag►Earl of Crankcase─╢ didn't understand it so well either.

I know. Sucks to be you, eh?

No, it doesn't actually.

Sorry, Miss Sexy Stockings, maybe my grasp of English is slipping but I dont follow this. I thought Mzmcbride says he has a list and he forwarded it to the Arbcom. Is there any doubt that he is telling us the truth? Indeed is there any doubt that the Arbcom exists? If there is no such thing we have wasted much time here discussing it!



Why say it then?

Looks like arbcom is taking the case on MZMcBride.

Filed by Durova, naturally.

Curiouser still, she apparently wanted to hold him responsible for the compromised admin account in the initial filing.

I think that there should really be a push to have Thekohser added as a party - his actions are being discussed, so he has a right to respond, and it's possible that Durova's actions that ultimately led to the interactions that resulted in her having a grudge against him may need to be examined as well.

He won't be added as a party. He's already banned, what more can they do to him? If he were added as a party, they'd have to imagine some sort of extra special sanction for him (ban his immediate family and any descendants he might have?) I think it'll be a pretty quick case: MZMcBride will be found guilty the dastardly deed of leaking toolserver information to a banned villain on an evil site. It'll be just like the Rosenbergs, and McBride will be desysopped; he won't get the tools back.

Thank you for the analysis of the 'atom' article. You are quite right, the errors are serious.

Yep, easy to see which way the wind's blowing.

So no chance of a pronouncement along the lines of "Arbcom is not for vendettas"?

Can't really see that, but who knows. I suppose stranger things have happened though.

What's this, Wheelie-Boy, do you in fact deny being a native speaker of the so-called English English?


I guess it wouldn't do any good to remind this puppet committee that MZ's status on the toolserver and his status on the English Wikipedia are mutually irrelevant.

No action ArberComby & Bitch could take on enwiki would prevent him from obtaining or disseminating this data (to which they themselves do not have access). Their only germane capacity in response to these goings-on would be to vote on which informal advice they should forward to the toolserver folks o'er in Deutschland.

Sometimes (at least in theory) the situation of parties improves rather than deteriorates as a result of a case. Thekohser could be made a party if there was reason to believe he had substantive and relevant material to share and that he would do so.

I have reason to doubt that Durova has substantive and relevant material to share. Might want to de-list her if your theoretical criteria are to mean anything.

... and indeed not to allow or invite him to present such material, assuming any such exists, would stink.

I really doubt Durova would be satisfied with anything less than unambiguous and severe consequences for anyone who even gives Greg the benefit of the doubt. This is very much an "axis of evil" thing in her eyes, and she'll relentlessly pursue any and every avenue, no matter what the collateral damage might be. Greg's certainly been a boob about it too, but hell hath no wrath like Durova scorned.No, but she'll suggest that she does, and her sycophants will nod their heads adoringly.

Did I ever say I was? Did you ever think I was? I have lived in England for some years but that does not indeed mean that my command of it is perfect. So will you answer my question now, do you have any reason to deny that MZMcbride was telling the truth when he said he had a list and sent it to the Arbcom? Do you have any reason to deny that the Arbcom exists?

Hey, Trick, if your first language isn't English, then your command of it is damned good! Wish all our high school grads in the U.S. did as well.

That a party has substantive and relative material to share is not the ONLY reason to make someone a party. (which some other respondents seemed to grasp...)

Durova has put herself into ArbCom case requests many times. Perhaps one of these times ArbCom will see fit to leave her in. That's always a risk one runs in these things.

One thing is clear, Ira Matetsky loves to throw a real name into the public forum whenever he can.

Could I at least get an occasional "Wikipedia Review.com", with a hot link, once in a while, Newyorkbrad? I know they're "nofollow", but still.

What are they teaching you about marketing there at Ganfer & Shore, anyway?!

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing they'd link to a page on your site if it had an explanation of the experiment on it. Especially if it's as innocuous as I suspect it is (since it's pretty clear you're not skilled enough with socks to actually vandalize 8,000 articles without sneezing from the pixie dust, eh?).

Separate from any other issue ... Thekohser, at this point my impression was that you were using your real name and your username more or less interchangably at this point. If you'd prefer that I substitute the latter for the former I wil certainly do so. Your suggestion that I use real names "whenever [I] can" is unfounded.

He's so cranky!

Of course my real name is interchangeable with my Internet screen name. That's something I've been going on about, you know. It's just that, on Wikipedia, whenever the phrase "Gregory Kohs" is used in discussion space, if you replace those words with "the Devil", you still get the same impression from the context of the reading. I very rarely, rarely see something like:

"We ought to be emulating the practices of Gregory Kohs."

"I've always found Gregory Kohs to be an affable chap."

"Gregory Kohs is absolutely correct about this situation."

Right now, you'd think MZMcBride just exchanged toolserver information with Pol Pot, or Uday Hussein, or Pat Robertson.

I just saw this:


I thought that it was well-established that he _did_ send the list to arbcom, without any prompting from Durova, and that they controversially responded by one of them adding all the articles to a watchlist. Durova has a history of lying about Greg Kohs, and it looks like this is simply the latest such incident. I see Newyorkbrad has repeated this meme uncritically - are you that far behind on reading arbcom-l that you can't see for yourself that he sent it?



I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're a coward. His enemies won't recuse.

There is a difference between sending in the universe of 8000 articles, and sending the narrower list that was provided for "experimental" purposes.

Yes, it's the difference between a population and a sample.

You do understand how experiments work, don't you?

Jon

Huh?

It's clear to anyone who has read the discussion here from the beginning that the entire list of 8000 articles was what was provided to Kohs - any narrowing-down that may have taken place was not done by MZMcBride. You may have gotten an incorrect understanding from the fact that he asked for a narrower list (perhaps not thinking he would be willing to send the full list), but the response seems unambiguously to mean he sent the full list.



Yes. For example, a population is what was sent by MZMcBride to Greg Kohs. A sample is something that MZMcBride does not have and therefore cannot provide.

I was a bit surprised by that too, since I didn't get the impression MZM was involved in making the samples. Did he say otherwise in the arbcom note, or is this just riffing on Durova's story?

I don't think that post is unambiguous at all, myself. I initially thought MZM sent a sampling rather than the whole list, too, based on that initial exchange:Since MZM just said he sent him 'this list' (which one could easily take to mean the sampling he requested) and not 'the full list', and then adds that he's inclined to post 'a list' here - presumably a different one - the confusion's understandable. I don't see why it matters, though - surely Durova'd be even madder if she thought he'd sent the full list?

I thought "this list" mean there was only one list, i.e. the full list, and that was what I took to unambiguously mean the full list had been sent. It matters because the accusation is that he has withheld something from Arbcom which it would mean he does not in fact have. As for "surely Durova'd be even madder" - her attitude is not my primary concern here.

See, I don't see evidence for that conclusion at all from what you quoted (or in your lingo, "that diff").

Aside from "WP:OR" that runs on the assumption of "bad faith", is there any evidence that MZM took time out of his day to hand pick some juicy targets for whatever it is that Greg is doing?

I think I understand what WP:POINT is all about now. Telling people not to make points make WP's flaws easier to ignore.

Well, give him a cup and a private room and maybe he can produce a sample.

You know a horse has been out to stud for a while when he gets excited at the sight of the vet.

It's a stock plot in horror movies — Dummy Enslaves Ventriloquist.

It's the reason I had to part ways with Jonny Cache.

Something for Mister Ed to think about.

Jon

Imagine if they'd have just subpoenaed me, all of this could have been clarified rather quickly. But they don't want to hear facts -- they just want to make a show of power.

Apparently they're reading along here though, Greg.

(And yes, the question of whether ArbCom has the power to subpoena will be at the heart of the drama to come, won't it?)

The word 'this' is not unambiguous when it can be interpreted to refer to two different items - ie the smaller list Mr. Kohs requested in the post MZM quoted and the full one MZM mentioned earlier in the thread. "I'll do you one better, I'll send you the whole thing" would be 'unambiguous.' Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that it's evidence that MZM only sent Kohs a short list of unwatched articles, just that I can see where someone would get the idea that that's what he did. Eh? Why is it an assumption of bad faith? It's a simple misunderstanding of the situation. Why would it be 'better' or 'worse' for him to have sent the full list rather than a sub-list? If he says outright that he didn't select the sample that Kohs is using and people still don't believe him, that's different, but right now we just have a certain degree of confusion, probably compounded by MZM's understandably reticent response to Roger Davies's interrogation on his talk page. Has one or the other of them just said clearly which list MZM sent? That might do more good than complaining about the unfairness of Durova's misapprehension (or misrepresentation, depending on how you look at it). Then again, it might not, since I still think the people involved in the arbitration case are going to consider giving Kohs the whole list an even bigger deal than giving him a set of ten articles.

Oh, and as for the question of who added all 8,000-ish articles to their watchlist and why, I'll bet adding them to an otherwise empty watchlist would allow someone to narrow down the list of possible 'targets' for the study considerably by just looking a those that had been modified recently. You'd still have to be pretty obsessive to check through them all, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was someone on the arbitration committee with enough time on their hands to try it.

(Sorry for the double post, I get so used to other forums auto-merging them.)

Bingo.

Of course, we must await the experiment's outcome to find out, but I imagine that most of those unwatched BLPs get modified infrequently enough that you'd be looking at a number of changes per day close to 50. It wouldn't be a tremendously challenging task to check through that many changes (my estimate may be off, but from my experience the average BLP maybe gets an edit a month. The average unwatched BLP is presumably lower.

All of this is very funny, if I understand it. There are 58,000 totally unwatched BLPs and Kohs has 8,000 of them. ArbCom does also, and somebody (probably Roger Davies) has added them to their watchlist. But what about the 50,000 more? Durova (who isn't an arb) doesn't trust McBride not to send them all to Kohs without telling ArbCom. Following which, Kohs could fix them all so they all report that the BLP person sucks donkey dongs for a living and nobody at WP would ever know (since again, they aren't on any watchlist). WMF could fix all this in various simple ways, but is powerless to patch the results due to their own dumb policies (which rely on "teh crowd" to do all their work, but what happens if the teh crowd lets you down? You might have to work yourself, or else give up your crowd-source policy! Nooooooooos!!!)




Irresistable force, meet immovable object. Perhaps what should be added to the BLPs, is that the person has edible panties with the likeness of Lise Broer printed on them, for sale. For a discount.

Which is precisely the difference between a Cult Organ and a Learning Organization.

Jon

Well, let's be fair: it is a good policy for suppressing know-it-alls from making a big stink. Especially know-nuthin' know-it-alls.

It's raining like the end of the world here, and you're joking about Durova's undies.
Gee, thanks.

This isn't the first time I've felt compelled to point out another instance of Durova posting a self-serving lie to one of these "Requests for..." pages. I really do hope nobody is falling for it anymore, but in the initial "request" for this case, she writes:

The first part of this statement is completely ridiculous, because it isn't a "breach of trust" at all (putting aside the fact that what EK and Lara did would barely constitute a breach of anything in real-world terms). It's just a list of unwatched pages, not a bunch of secret e-mails or personal info about people. And the second part is simply a lie - Alkivar got the boot for a whole lot of (mostly trumped-up) reasons, and the incident Durova brought up at the time, which she now keeps claiming was the reason, was practically ignored by everyone else - this idea that it was somehow all about JB196 is all in her egomanical head. And to say that Alkivar "aided" his "campaign" is almost as ridiculous in itself - all he really did was look the other way.

As for the rest of it, I don't have much faith in the ArbCom as it is, but if they take this on as a "case," then in my estimation they'll have gone from being somewhat-promising group of well-meaning (though ineffectual) game-players and do-gooders to being a largely-useless gang of complete buffoons and gullible nitwits.

I thought this was a mere sample, since McBride had previously said that 58,000 (or was it 56,000?) BLPs had ZERO watchers. Anyway, it was 14% of the total of more than 400,000 BLPs.


Don't feel bad. It's raining like hell in SoCal, so doubtless raining on Durova, too.

The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.

--Charles Bowen, Baron Bowen

attention whore v. script kiddie

hopefully good for some light laughs...