The rise and fall of a Wikipedia General

[Kraken]

It occurs to me that random passers by might benefit from a public version of what is quite the remarkable rise and fall of the one they call GeneralNotability (T-C-L).

Has there ever been anything like it? From a complete nobody to Wikipedia Supreme Court Justice in just 3.75 years. Only to resign in less than ideal circumstances having fulfilled just 14 of their 24 month term.

Although they've racked up 67,000+ edits, in a reflection of their main interest, zapping sockpuppets, only 16% of those were to articles. The rest are distributed across user space and Wikipedia space. For every Wikipedia article they ever created, all 10 of them, they have blocked over 800 users.

As User:Creffet, the General created his Wikipedia account on 28th November 2018, but apparently waited until 22nd March 2019 to make their first edit. He passed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Creffett (T-H-L) (137/31/3) on 17 May 2020, having already racked up 30,000 edits in just fourteen months.

On 16 June 2020 he renamed himself GeneralNotability.

The year 2021 seems to have been a turning point, or rather a long transition, as they changed from regularly hitting 1,500 edits a month to just the low hundreds.

This perhaps reflects the criticism he got at RfA, where he was called out not just for his lack of article edits, but also his editing related policy knowledge. So he headed in a different direction, as he relayed in his own words when he stood as a candidate in the 2022 ArbCom election....

I've been an SPI clerk since shortly after I was elected as an admin in May 2020, and I was appointed as a CU a little over a year ago. I've spent a lot of time dealing with abuse – LTAs, spammers, undisclosed paid editing operations. That's the role I've grown into during my time on Wikipedia: keeping the place safe and harassment-free so that other folks can spend their time doing what they enjoy. Joining ArbCom is a natural extension of that; I know the committee does a lot of behind-the-scenes anti-abuse work, and I think my experience will be helpful there. As for the CheckUser tool itself, I've learned a lot about it in the past year and have grown into a pretty confident CU. Since ArbCom is responsible for both handling anti-abuse cases that involve CheckUser and overseeing English Wikipedia CUs, I think my expertise will be quite useful.

He finished well for a rookie, polling third of eight, only one of three to crack 80% support, beating even his SPI mentor Kevin (L235).

And so here we are. Yet another ArbCom member who has failed to complete their first term.....

Resignation

I resign my seat on ArbCom with immediate effect. To all those who voted for me - I'm sorry I wasn't the arbitrator either of us hoped I'd be. GeneralNotability (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

And while not explicitly stated, the timeline shows quite clearly that this should be viewed as a dishonorable discharge. The General having suffered the indignity of having a bog standard unilateral Admin block overturned by the bog standard Admin Floquenbeam, leading to this unfortunate exchange.....

...... I am not obligated to wait for everybody to say their piece at AN/I before I'm allowed to use my administrative powers in a blatantly obvious case of bad behavior". GeneralNotability (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
.......
GeneralNotability, I plan on accepting the unblock request on their talk page, mostly per NYB's comments there. Do you have anything further to say before I do so that I might need to know about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever the floq you want, Floquenbeam. You're an admin. You're trusted by the community to use your judgment. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that was an attempted joke, and not frustration that someone disagrees with you. I suppose I'll floq off from your talk page now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Sorry. Been a rough few days. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Particularly cutting will have been the comment by NewYorkBrad, who more than most exemplifies the civilian powers of Wikipedia. Not least because he is a real life lawyer and multi term (but not currently serving) Arb.

I believe the block should be reversed. As reflected in the current AN thread, how our anti-canvassing policy applies to off-wiki postings about on-wiki policy discussions is by no means clear or agreed-upon. But even if one believes that TheSpacebook violated the policy (of which I am not convinced), the context appears to be a good-faith concern about a legitimate BLP issue. Given the importance of good BLP practice for Wikipedia and for our article-subjects, it is understandable that one would wish to draw broad attention to policy discussions in this area. Blocking for doing so should certainly not be done as a first resort. Indeed, in any context, a good-faith editor with no block history should generally be warned before blocking, which was not done here, unless the misconduct was both serious and obvious. I am refraining from granting this unblock request only (1) because there is an ongoing discussion on the noticeboard, and (2) because in light of my past posts to Wikipediocracy, someone might possibly consider me "INVOLVED" with a bias in favor of that website (even though my most recent posts there would hardly support any such interpretation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Credit at least to the General for having the good sense to know he fucked up and that real world events in their life probably played a part in it.

I think in a very real way we have just witnessed the issues that arise when Wikipedia essentially operates two largely parallel power structures, a quasi civilian track and a quasi military one. Which both then ultimately feed into their Supreme Authority, seeing judges and generals sit beside each other as equals, notionally elected by the people.

I think we will see the General now quietly return to what he clearly loves to do in the name of Wikipedia, being a General as opposed to a Judge.

Just because I'm not talking doesn't mean I'm not listening. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Quite. He never did explain how he came to know of this pressing need to use his block button, given he had been away from Wikipedia for some time. It perhaps never even occurred to him that the people have a right to know if he's hanging out over here looking for targets of opportunity, rather than insightful discourse.

[AndyTheGrump]

Congratulations on your selective editing.

For the record, the full discussion on GeneralNotability's talk page, without the 'I don't like you so I'm going to pretend you didn't start the discussion in the first place' omissions:

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments? There was ongoing discussion, and if an immediate block was merited, we need to be told why. 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, the "why" is "because nothing anybody said at AN/I was going to change the fact that they canvassed WPO" and "because I am not obligated to wait for everybody to say their piece at AN/I before I'm allowed to use my administrative powers in a blatantly obvious case of bad behavior". GeneralNotability (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if that is going to be your only response, I will clearly have to consider my options. Given the circumstances, you should probably be aware that I am contemplating taking this to ArbCom if it isn't properly resolved. This has every appearance of being a block for pointing out on an external forum (albeit in a poorly-worded manner, as might be expected from a newcomer), that core WP:BLP policy on the right to privacy was being given the run-around through creation of articles on peoples homes. Blocking someone in such circumstances cannot possibly be in the interests of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad block. Discussion was ongoing, you essentially supervoted a sanction (with no support in policy, might I add). Carrite (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Supwrvoting implies that I'm acting on something consensus-based and overriding an established consensjs. Me using the block button on somebody for doing something inherently blockable (inappropriate canvassing, which I believe crosses the line into meatpuppetry given the off-wiki nature of the canvassing) is not a consensus process. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I plan on accepting the unblock request on their talk page, mostly per NYB's comments there. Do you have anything further to say before I do so that I might need to know about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Do whatever the floq you want, Floquenbeam. You're an admin. You're trusted by the community to use your judgment. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that was an attempted joke, and not frustration that someone disagrees with you. I suppose I'll floq off from your talk page now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The former. Sorry. Been a rough few days. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I (think I) understand. To be clear, not trying to be part of a torch and pitchfork brigade, in spite of disagreeing fairly strongly twice in the last week. Email incoming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to be an obnoxious little shit, try being a little less obvious with it.

[Vigilant]

Congratulations on your selective editing.

For the record, the full discussion on GeneralNotability's talk page, without the 'I don't like you so I'm going to pretend you didn't start the discussion in the first place' omissions:

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Are people allowed to just open Wikipediocracy threads for backup in onwiki arguments? There was ongoing discussion, and if an immediate block was merited, we need to be told why. 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, the "why" is "because nothing anybody said at AN/I was going to change the fact that they canvassed WPO" and "because I am not obligated to wait for everybody to say their piece at AN/I before I'm allowed to use my administrative powers in a blatantly obvious case of bad behavior". GeneralNotability (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if that is going to be your only response, I will clearly have to consider my options. Given the circumstances, you should probably be aware that I am contemplating taking this to ArbCom if it isn't properly resolved. This has every appearance of being a block for pointing out on an external forum (albeit in a poorly-worded manner, as might be expected from a newcomer), that core WP:BLP policy on the right to privacy was being given the run-around through creation of articles on peoples homes. Blocking someone in such circumstances cannot possibly be in the interests of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad block. Discussion was ongoing, you essentially supervoted a sanction (with no support in policy, might I add). Carrite (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Supwrvoting implies that I'm acting on something consensus-based and overriding an established consensjs. Me using the block button on somebody for doing something inherently blockable (inappropriate canvassing, which I believe crosses the line into meatpuppetry given the off-wiki nature of the canvassing) is not a consensus process. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I plan on accepting the unblock request on their talk page, mostly per NYB's comments there. Do you have anything further to say before I do so that I might need to know about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Do whatever the floq you want, Floquenbeam. You're an admin. You're trusted by the community to use your judgment. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that was an attempted joke, and not frustration that someone disagrees with you. I suppose I'll floq off from your talk page now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The former. Sorry. Been a rough few days. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I (think I) understand. To be clear, not trying to be part of a torch and pitchfork brigade, in spite of disagreeing fairly strongly twice in the last week. Email incoming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to be an obnoxious little shit, try being a little less obvious with it.

[Randy from Boise]

I see from his RFA that the first account was Geekboy72 (T-C-L), with a start date in 2005. So this is no newbie.

I didn't remember voting in his RFA, but here is how I came down...

Support - Normally with only one year showing on the charts I would say "inadequate tenure," but the previous account (though lightly used) Geekboy72, was registered in 2005 and started Arizona Air National Guard (T-H-L) in 2006. Activity is "administratorish" rather than that of a content person, but that is freely admitted and not really a big problem in my book. Clean block log for both accounts, no indication of assholery, no problems. Carrite (talk) 7:27 pm, 10 May 2020, Sunday (3 years, 10 months, 25 days ago) (UTC−7)

t

[FelinaLavandula]

Would be genuinely curious to know if you would change anything about that RFA vote with the benefit of hindsight.

[Randy from Boise]

Would be genuinely curious to know if you would change anything about that RFA vote with the benefit of hindsight.

Let's just say that I now have grave misgivings, which is not unique with respect to my view of Those With Buttons.

t

[Giraffe Stapler]

It was dumb of GeneralNotability to block TheSpacebook in the middle of a discussion about whether they were canvassing when they posted here, but I gotta say that other than the timing of that block, GeneralNotability's instincts were right. TheSpacebook was a waste of everyone's time and attention. I wish I could believe that they are a masterful troll, but I don't.

[Randy from Boise]

It was dumb of GeneralNotability to block TheSpacebook in the middle of a discussion about whether they were canvassing when they posted here, but I gotta say that other than the timing of that block, GeneralNotability's instincts were right. TheSpacebook was a waste of everyone's time and attention. I wish I could believe that they are a masterful troll, but I don't.

Spacebook strikes me as making noob-type of mistakes on-Wiki. He definitely does not hold a Wikipedia black-belt in any case...

t

[AndyTheGrump]

It was dumb of GeneralNotability to block TheSpacebook in the middle of a discussion about whether they were canvassing when they posted here, but I gotta say that other than the timing of that block, GeneralNotability's instincts were right. TheSpacebook was a waste of everyone's time and attention. I wish I could believe that they are a masterful troll, but I don't.

Spacebook strikes me as making noob-type of mistakes on-Wiki. He definitely does not hold a Wikipedia black-belt in any case...

t

The whole thing was an exercise in getting things wrong at every opportunity. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone involved in the whole farrago that didn't do anything wrong. I know I did. It started with a legitimate point (one that still seems not to have been properly discussed), and rapidly deteriorated into a screaming match. And while it was an outlier in the level of screaming, it wasn't really anything out of the norm otherwise. Wikipedia is built to make this happen, time and time again. It enables newcomers to jump head-first into complex policy discussions. It dumps them head-first into a piss-poor environment where reasoned communication gets drowned out by whoever can post their half-thought-out or totally-tangential nonsense the fastest. It actively encourages drag-the-noob-to-ANI behaviour as a way to win arguments, while totally failing to acknowledge that noobs can't be expected to have read every fucking policy. It encourages paranoia (Is this a troll? A sockpuppet? An agent of our arch-enemies...) as a means to avoid looking at actual issues. And finally, when the dust settles, and the poor bloody noob (or clever troll, it really makes no difference) has gone, it carries on as always, kidding itself that the problem has been solved...

And I don't think that we should kid ourselves that Wikipediocracy came out of this looking too smart, either. We had an opportunity to point out the flaws, and the hypocrisy (about revealing personal information in particular) built into the very core of Wikipedia. We didn't We dropped the ball. We ended up looking petty, and vindictive. Feel free to pretend that didn't happen, and carry on as usual...

[Randy from Boise]

It was dumb of GeneralNotability to block TheSpacebook in the middle of a discussion about whether they were canvassing when they posted here, but I gotta say that other than the timing of that block, GeneralNotability's instincts were right. TheSpacebook was a waste of everyone's time and attention. I wish I could believe that they are a masterful troll, but I don't.

Spacebook strikes me as making noob-type of mistakes on-Wiki. He definitely does not hold a Wikipedia black-belt in any case...

t

The whole thing was an exercise in getting things wrong at every opportunity. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone involved in the whole farrago that didn't do anything wrong. I know I did. It started with a legitimate point (one that still seems not to have been properly discussed), and rapidly deteriorated into a screaming match. And while it was an outlier in the level of screaming, it wasn't really anything out of the norm otherwise. Wikipedia is built to make this happen, time and time again. It enables newcomers to jump head-first into complex policy discussions. It dumps them head-first into a piss-poor environment where reasoned communication gets drowned out by whoever can post their half-thought-out or totally-tangential nonsense the fastest. It actively encourages drag-the-noob-to-ANI behaviour as a way to win arguments, while totally failing to acknowledge that noobs can't be expected to have read every fucking policy. It encourages paranoia (Is this a troll? A sockpuppet? An agent of our arch-enemies...) as a means to avoid looking at actual issues. And finally, when the dust settles, and the poor bloody noob (or clever troll, it really makes no difference) has gone, it carries on as always, kidding itself that the problem has been solved...

And I don't think that we should kid ourselves that Wikipediocracy came out of this looking too smart, either. We had an opportunity to point out the flaws, and the hypocrisy (about revealing personal information in particular) built into the very core of Wikipedia. We didn't We dropped the ball. We ended up looking petty, and vindictive. Feel free to pretend that didn't happen, and carry on as usual...

Who is this "we" to whom you refer???

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it is an online compendium of information.

Wikipediocracy is not a club with secret handshakes, it is a message board.

t

[AndyTheGrump]

'Compendium of information' is vacuous verbiage, so vague as to contain almost no information itself.

And no, Wikipediocracy, in the sense I am clearly using it above, isn't a 'message board'. It is those, including myself, who actively participate on it.

[Randy from Boise]

'Compendium of information' is vacuous verbiage, so vague as to contain almost no information itself.

Down with the word "Encyclopedia" — it is undescriptive of reality and merely empowers the deletionist foe...

Да здравствует инклюзивизм!

t

[AndyTheGrump]

...undescriptive of reality...

I prefer descriptions that actually describe things in sufficient detail that I can figure out what they are useful for.

[Kraken]

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, ...... the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How curious.

It appears the Committee did indeed neglect to officially thank the General for their service at the time he officially resigned with immediate effect on this very noticeboard (AC/N).

All he got from his former colleagues was a personal kitten from ToBeFree.

Has he slammed his Oversight pips on their table in protest?

Or has someone else noted this does appear to be a full and permanent break from Wikipedia, the General being entirely absent on parade since his resignation, so has requested he be denied the ability to hide potential evidence of war crimes from the official despatches?

Quite why you would remove OS but not CU is a real mystery. Not really consistent with say, people privately knowing he's had a personal tragedy of some kind. Or has informed anyone he is completely done with Wikipedia. Or indeed that he intends to return soon and resume his previous role as Commander of the anti-abuse forces.

I don't know why more people don't get pretty damn angry that there is such a massive cloak of secrecy around the status/fitness/record of people who hold great power and thus great responsibility over the intimate personal data of the ordinary Wikipedia users.

This isn't prurient interest. The General is a volunteer. He signed up for this. Pursued it as a career with much gusto. His many victims and indeed all those who requested his assistance, have a right to know whether he is resigning under a cloud or some scandal is being covered up here.

Wikipedia having a rather depressing habit of expressing sadness and regret even when a Functionary is being demoted in complete and total disgrace......

In accordance with Remedy 3 of the now-closed Arbitration case ...., please desysop Nihonjoe.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With massive regret,  Done Acalamari 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work as a Crat. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sense the room, you fuckers. Not only was he a highly trusted user, one of your own had to recuse from the case after trying to stop the truth about Nihonjoe coming out.

Not that Wikipedia has a tradition of reversing decisions made by bad actors even after the truth has come out. But it was refreshing to see the community did recently seem to feel a sense of guilt about having allowed a Globally Banned user become a Wikipedia Administrator (Lourdes (T-C-L)) and block people, and seek to take steps to rectify it.

Better late than never. Better symbolism than silence. But that was rather a community and ordinary Admin effort, not instigated by or assisted in any way by the top level rights holders, as far as I can recall anyway.

Quite the opposite indeed......

If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. .... We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. ....... I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? ...... reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. .....

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

All these Captains and Generals.

Time for a coup.

Ripe for an insurgency.

And when the dust settles, the trials can begin. If they haven't burned all the evidence by then.

[Vigilant]

[Elinruby]

There was music in the cafés at night
And revolution in the air

[rnu]

Does anyone have decoder ring for this?

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Original announcement

I want to thank GeneralNotability for his work as an arbitrator, to express my hope he sticks around as an administrator and checkuser, and to lay down a marker so that when I rail against this as a non-arb I can't be accused of being hypocritical. I dislike when defined thresholds and processes are ignored by Arbs in favor of some new process that does not match what is supposed to happen. I dislike it when arbs say we don't need to act on net 4 to open or close a case and can instead wait for a majority. I dislike it in this instance as well. Arbs can set their own rules, trhough the procedures, but once set I strongly believe Arbs are constrained by them and shouldn't invent new rules on the fly in order to prevent actions from happening that the procedures say should happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

[Kraken]

As a wild guess, the General has probably given the Committee no firm commitment as to his planned future engagement with Wikipedia.

This has caused a rift between the Committee, between those who think policy should be followed and both his OS and CU rights should be revoked, and those who think the circumstances dictate an IAR approach.

I can certainly see how some might conclude Wikipedia can survive without the General being an Oversighter, and indeed not allowing him to see the kind of depraved shit that you can see on there might even be a benefit, if he's having a rough time.

But locking him out of the CheckUser group might cause serious problems, should there be a time he does feel like he can do some good, sporadically. And might even benefit from doing some good, if he's having a rough time.

Bearing in mind how much of what goes on in the dark underworld, where the heroes of the wiki do battle with the extremely dangerous long term abusers, is not written down formally or officially but instead exists as half remembered events and unofficial scribblings on personal devices.

This is why the bad people work so hard to target high ranking highly active members of the Wikipedia General Staff. You can do a lot of damage.

[Giraffe Stapler]

As a wild guess, the General has probably given the Committee no firm commitment as to his planned future engagement with Wikipedia.

This has caused a rift between the Committee, between those who think policy should be followed and both his OS and CU rights should be revoked, and those who think the circumstances dictate an IAR approach.

I can certainly see how some might conclude Wikipedia can survive without the General being an Oversighter, and indeed not allowing him to see the kind of depraved shit that you can see on there might even be a benefit, if he's having a rough time.

But locking him out of the CheckUser group might cause serious problems, should there be a time he does feel like he can do some good, sporadically. And might even benefit from doing some good, if he's having a rough time.

Bearing in mind how much of what goes on in the dark underworld, where the heroes of the wiki do battle with the extremely dangerous long term abusers, is not written down formally or officially but instead exists as half remembered events and unofficial scribblings on personal devices.

This is why the bad people work so hard to target high ranking highly active members of the Wikipedia General Staff. You can do a lot of damage.

You need to talk to your doctor about increasing your lithium dose.

[Randy from Boise]

Robespierre?

t

[Kraken]

You need to talk to your doctor about increasing your lithium dose.

Feel free to offer your theory then.

[rnu]

Barkeep has "clarified" his statement following a question on his user page:

I want to thank GeneralNotability for his work as an arbitrator, to express my hope he sticks around as an administrator and checkuser, and to lay down a marker so that when I rail against this as a non-arb I can't be accused of being hypocritical. I dislike when defined thresholds and processes are ignored by Arbs in favor of some new process that does not match what is supposed to happen. I dislike it when arbs say we don't need to act on net 4 to open or close a case and can instead wait for a majority. I dislike it in this instance as well as following Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitrator (T-H-L) access to mailing lists and permissions would have resulted in the same outcome only 16 days ago. Arbs can set their own rules, trhough the procedures, but once set I strongly believe Arbs are constrained by them and shouldn't invent new rules on the fly in order to prevent actions from happening that the procedures say should happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else think that Barkeep49 is talking (in a vague way) about the kind of things arbs under no circumstances whatsoever are allowed to even hint at (according to certain arbs)?

[Kraken]

Yeah I'm not sure how much I can say about the specifics without getting into confidentiality issues ..... I think Arbs need to follow the procedures. If a procedure is truly not working and needs to be ignored that probably means it needs to be changed rather than just left to be ignored again in the future. ..... for stuff that is in the procedures it is my opinion Arbs need to follow them just as much as anyone else. .... The circumstances here behind not following the procedure are different - and what I don't feel I can publicly just reveal - but I wanted to take this moment to note that a procedure hadn't been followed and my disagreement with that decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So I got that bit right......

This has caused a rift between the Committee, between those who think policy should be followed and both his OS and CU rights should be revoked, and those who think the circumstances dictate an IAR approach.

The rest feels like a reasonable deduction from circumstances (the General has unexpectedly quit Wikipedia) and confidentiality (what the General has told them privately about his status and "forseeable" activity as an advanced rights holder).

The likes of L235 and all the others who ascended to the Politburo on the Military track, want to ignore procedure so they can have the General retained as some kind of unofficial special military advisor in the war on terror.

As head of the civilian branch, President Barkeep49 is pissed at this gross act of unconstitutional behavior. And he wants it on the public record he is pissed, in case there is a hearing before the Senate in due course.

It's a full scale mini constitutional crisis. Also known as a Tuesday these days.

The Authoritarians versus the Democrats.

So very American.

[Konveyor Belt]

It's funny that a faction of Arbs are seemingly embracing IAR and circumventing standard procedure given that they just kicked out the Arb who embraced IAR the most, in Beeblebrox/JSS. The difference is that Beeblebrox used IAR to help the common man whereas they just want to use it to keep their buddy around.

[Kraken]

.....they just want to use it to keep their buddy around. keep Wikipedians safe

Edit for WP:NPOV

[rnu]

So Barkeep49 made statements about internal (aka top secret) matters (even if vague) because he was pissed that (apparently) some procedures were not followed instantaneously. Causing one of those weird public discussion with an invisible ball everyone enjoys so much:
ongoing / permanent

How exactly does this conform to arbcoms sacred omertà?

[Vigilant]

I genuinely look forward to Barkeep's holding us accountable both during and after his term (in his words, "when he rails against this as a non-arb"), because I think it makes ArbCom function better when it is subject to external scrutiny when possible. I agree with Sdrqaz's observations, both about the purpose of this page and the circumstances here (timing of resignation, etc.). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I accept your endorsement.

[Beeblebrox]

It does seem odd that the committee apparently did not immediately ask GN whether they wanted to keep the functionary tools, which is a pretty standard thing to ask in such circumstances. I can't recall it being an issue in any other resignations.

Barkeep should become a clerk when his term is over. In my experience the clerks know the procedures better than most of the actual committee.

[Beeblebrox]

The more I think about it the more I suspect BK's upset is a more general thing, and not entirely about just this one incident.

During my time serving with them, there was more than one arbitrator who was MIA for a very prolonged period but hypothetically could waltz back in at any time and just start voting on things like they'd been around the whole time, when they probably should have been removed as obviously inactive and uninterested. They were able to move quickly enough when they wanted to get rid of me, but these other arbs did literally nothing, on or off-wiki, for months or even a year or longer and stll retained their seats.

That's just one example, the committee does have an issue with institutional memory, including solid knowledge by the arbs of the procedures in place.

I seem to have stayed out of the particular discussion that led to the change last year that made it explicit that the onus is on the outgoing arb to indicate which tools they wish to retain, or they just loose both. That change is barely a year old, and it apparently was not followed here.

[Ahypori]

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, ...... the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How curious.

It appears the Committee did indeed neglect to officially thank the General for their service at the time he officially resigned with immediate effect on this very noticeboard (AC/N).

All he got from his former colleagues was a personal kitten from ToBeFree.

Has he slammed his Oversight pips on their table in protest?

Or has someone else noted this does appear to be a full and permanent break from Wikipedia, the General being entirely absent on parade since his resignation, so has requested he be denied the ability to hide potential evidence of war crimes from the official despatches?

Quite why you would remove OS but not CU is a real mystery. Not really consistent with say, people privately knowing he's had a personal tragedy of some kind. Or has informed anyone he is completely done with Wikipedia. Or indeed that he intends to return soon and resume his previous role as Commander of the anti-abuse forces.

I don't know why more people don't get pretty damn angry that there is such a massive cloak of secrecy around the status/fitness/record of people who hold great power and thus great responsibility over the intimate personal data of the ordinary Wikipedia users.

This isn't prurient interest. The General is a volunteer. He signed up for this. Pursued it as a career with much gusto. His many victims and indeed all those who requested his assistance, have a right to know whether he is resigning under a cloud or some scandal is being covered up here.

Wikipedia having a rather depressing habit of expressing sadness and regret even when a Functionary is being demoted in complete and total disgrace......

In accordance with Remedy 3 of the now-closed Arbitration case ...., please desysop Nihonjoe.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With massive regret,  Done Acalamari 19:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work as a Crat. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sense the room, you fuckers. Not only was he a highly trusted user, one of your own had to recuse from the case after trying to stop the truth about Nihonjoe coming out.

Not that Wikipedia has a tradition of reversing decisions made by bad actors even after the truth has come out. But it was refreshing to see the community did recently seem to feel a sense of guilt about having allowed a Globally Banned user become a Wikipedia Administrator (Lourdes (T-C-L)) and block people, and seek to take steps to rectify it.

Better late than never. Better symbolism than silence. But that was rather a community and ordinary Admin effort, not instigated by or assisted in any way by the top level rights holders, as far as I can recall anyway.

Quite the opposite indeed......

If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. .... We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. ....... I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? ...... reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. .....

CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

All these Captains and Generals.

Time for a coup.

Ripe for an insurgency.

And when the dust settles, the trials can begin. If they haven't burned all the evidence by then.

Gonna cry?

[Kraken]

Gonna cry?

INeverCry

Who dis? New phone.

[Midsize Jake]

Who dis? New phone.

I could be mistaken, but we were under the impression that Mr. Ahypori is User:Acalamari (T-C-L) on Wikipedia (where he/she is a Bureaucrat), and that both names are Star Wars-related. However, we didn't verify this because he/she registered before we started verifying certain WP people (i.e., those at high risk of being impersonated), and also didn't use the name "Acalamari" here so we wouldn't have known to do so anyway.

[Kraken]

Who dis? New phone.

I could be mistaken, but we were under the impression that Mr. Ahypori is User:Acalamari (T-C-L)

Well that's pretty amusing if true. Shall we let them know they are potentially being impersonated in a seedy Mos Eisley (T-H-L) cantina? We wouldn't want rumours to start spreading across the Galaxy. Rumour leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to doubt, doubt leads to fishcakes, and you all know what that means.

[Midsize Jake]

Well that's pretty amusing if true. Shall we let them know they are potentially being impersonated in a seedy Mos Eisley (T-H-L) cantina? We wouldn't want rumours to start spreading across the Galaxy. Rumour leads to uncertainty, uncertainty leads to doubt, doubt leads to fishcakes, and you all know what that means.

Yeah, I hate fishcakes. But I think as long as us so-called mods use clever phrases like "I could be mistaken" when referring to non-definitive linkages between Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia accounts, we should pretty much be in the clear.

[Randy from Boise]

Jake, you are being a rude host not welcoming Ahypori to WPO. This was, after all, just his third post — and I reckon that's a newcomer by any reasonable standard save account registration date...

Welcome to WPO!

t

[Elinruby]

Jake, you are being a rude host not welcoming Ahypori to WPO. This was, after all, just his third post — and I reckon that's a newcomer by any reasonable standard save account registration date...

Welcome to WPO!

t

Indeed. Welcome to the cantina, whoever you are. And we do mean whoever, apparently.

[Ahypori]

Jake, you are being a rude host not welcoming Ahypori to WPO. This was, after all, just his third post — and I reckon that's a newcomer by any reasonable standard save account registration date...

Welcome to WPO!

t

He wasn't being rude, especially seeing as he remembered me But thank you!

[BunchOfNumbers]

In the discussion on Wikipedia prior to GeneralNotability's resignation, someone claimed GeneralNotability had been doxxed on this site, but I couldn't find any confirmation of that via a search. Where did this doxxing attempt occur, or didn't it actually occur?

[rnu]

In the discussion on Wikipedia prior to GeneralNotability's resignation, someone claimed GeneralNotability had been doxxed on this site, but I couldn't find any confirmation of that via a search. Where did this doxxing attempt occur, or didn't it actually occur?

His name is openly available in the Wikipedia history. His name was mentioned in this thread. He is Chris Reffet.