Wikipediocracy

Hell in a Bucket wrote: "There is a lot of dispute if WP:EVADE ( linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _of_blocks[/link] ) is covered under talkpage posting. It's my understanding that when banned that person is persona non grata and all edits are to be reverted. If in an article and it's not vandalism another editor may take responsibility for that edit but posting on their behalf or attempting to repost their concern is not appropriate.

Enter User:Tarc. Tarc (T-C-L) has been blasting insults, incivility and outright trolling on Jimbos page. Edits such as "someone has a hissy fit again, I'll just post your comment as my own, with attribution. Let em stew on that." ( linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 31731%7CIf[/link] ) or this edit summary "try ONE revert, and see if that's enough to get the serial harasser goes and finds another house to haunt. If not, either I or someone else can bring Smallbones to ANI again, then I'll just re-post this user's concerns to Jimbo's under my own name." ( no actual link provided )

Apparently the word cunt is not ok but telling a editor "you think you have the balls to remove something I post under my own name, then come at me bro" ( no actual link provided ) or telling me "can go the the first part of my username" ( no actual link provided ) or the attitude that this is a game "challenger appears" ( no actual link provided ). There are many more edits stating that Smallbones and myself are whiteknighting, overzealous and etc. Jimbo has not replied and there is an impasse as Smallbones and I are within policy to revert on sight edits on or on behalf of a banned user without regard to 3rr. Why will we ban people then let them post if it's good contributions, there are plenty other editors with lots of great contributions banned and there is no question about it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18 am, 15 August 2014, Friday (UTC−7)

as part of his tl;dr presentation, Smallbones wrote: "Jimbo has left a note...essentially saying he was on vacation and will start a discussion (AFAIK on this topic) in a few days (or more). I would guess that that discussion will take at least a few days, and then any questions at issue here will be moot. In line with that, I'll suggest that this case request be closed, and if anybody has anything leftover they want to pursue, they may open a new case request later.

I also want to remind folks that I did not propose this case. HIAB, the proposer has given himself a 2 week ban and essentially dropped out of the case. (what's that all about?) I would not have proposed the case, and I do not consider myself an ally of HIAB in any way. He did jump in and do a few things that I approved of, but he also confused the issues at times, and took the bait, at times, of folks who were clearly trying to disrupt Wikipedia. I don't think he has broken any Wikipedia rules however. I don't think he will want to reopen the case after the discussion at Jimbo's talk page, and doubt that there could be any sanctions against him if he did.

I'd also like to point out that nobody has made any credible accusation that I've broken any Wikipedia rules, so that if anybody decides to reopen this, I'll request that they specify exactly what rules they think I've broken.

Yes, there are some folks who say that I've edit warred, despite WP:NOT3RR and

Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules - "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

Some have accused me of some vague violation of our user talk guideline, despite

Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages - "Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space .... Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users."

Some seem to suggest that I have reverted Tarc for WP:PROXYING. Check the record - I have not.

Some have accused me of violating some special unstated rule of Jimbo's talk page, despite Jimbo clearly stating: "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks. " (5th paragraph of User:Jimbo Wales)

And everybody should reread WP:REVERTBAN

Edits by and on behalf of banned editors
"Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule."

So if you'd like to accuse me of anything on this page, I think you have a long row to hoe.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:39 am, 18 August 2014, Monday (8 days ago) (UTC−7)

Tarc wrote: Hell in a Bucket (T-C-L) is mounting a rather superlative misdirection campaign by highlighting my use of silly internet memes ("a challenger appears", come at me bro", etc...) in edit summaries. For someone who casually throws around misogynist c-bombs into discussions in this project, and someone who acts as deplorably as he did at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Word usage ( linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Word_usage[/link] ) in defending the c-word, I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to call anyone out for incivility.

This whole mess is about a few different things, but one in particular; a fundamental difference in opinion regarding what it means to edit a page in this project, be it a user talk page or an article-space page. One site has a strict interpretation of "banned means banned", and that all edits by socket (whether proven or unproven) can and will be reverted on sight. This means that any possibly banned user who posts a question to Jimbo's talk page is automatically reverted, as well as a possibly banned user who adds a freely-licensed image to an article is automatically reverted. The other side wishes to evaluate the merits of the post or the article addition and believes that either should remain in place unless there is something egregiously wrong, e.g. WP:NPA or a topic ban violation. This is a collision of a draconian interpretation of the ban policy vs. how things usually flow in this project, and have flowed for years. Users have traditionally been granted a bit latitude in allowing banned users to post to their talk pages; I do that myself with a few people on mine. Users have also been traditionally able to "take responsibility" for revert article content and have been able to re-add it as their own if deemed a "good edit". Both of these have been denied lately; here at Jimbo's page, and one here involving a suspected sock of Russavia. I asked Kww if he plans to call for a block of the user, as he threatened to do to me, who restored the image at Dassault Falcon 7X, but have yet to see a response. [...]

The other aspect of this is the situation of editors reverting suspected socks of banned/blocked users...and no, not that they are literally flagged as a suspected sock, but that the reverter him/herself is the one with the suspicion. That is how I got embroiled into this mess initially, when Hell and Smallbones were reverting an account with no block log and no SPI. The account is now blocked, but I and others are rather uncomfortable with regular users patrolling another user's talk page and removing content based on their own guesswork alone.

If this case is accepted, I would urge the committee to not focus on the who but more of the substance of what is at stake here. "Russavia" and "Mr. 2001" (alleged to be "thekohser") are being invoked here as boogeymen, people that quite frankly no one, even myself, particularly care for. We shouldn't craft policy or make decisions with the aim in mind of punishing specific editors.

So this is where we're at... "banned means banned" vs. "if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". Tarc (talk) 11:51 am, 15 August 2014, Friday (UTC−7)

"The Receiver" is the original title of the Goatse.cx image. Whether that correlation was intentional, or an accident, any account with that name making provocative edits, as The Receiver 0814 (T-C-L) was, ought to be reverted, and anybody restoring such content ought to be blocked. Jehochman Talk 5:57 am, 20 August 2014 (UTC−7)

Randy from Boise wrote:Well, at least Smallbones is consistent in his being oblivious to the disruption he has been causing...

P.S. link
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2567&p=108922&hili ... ia#p108922

George Packer wrote:there was a contingent of people who seemed to have nothing else going on--marginal, odd, a whiff of paranoia about them. One member was apparently normal in all respects except that he had an overly loud voice, and somehow this seemed linked to his being a socialist. Another insisted on writing her name with all lower-case letters. And what did they see in my face? Maybe just joining made us odd. Maybe oddness made us join. In friends, I might have found these peculiarities trivial; in comrades, I was hyperalert to every asocial quirk and twitch, for they implicated me. And this seemed to defeat the entire enterprise. I was supposed to be feeling solidarity with my brothers and sisters, and instead I was noticing that someone's navel was exposed.
(Follow link for ibliographical details)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote: Thinking about such obsessiveness and imputation of malevolence, I quoted the "touch of paranoia" about marginal members of marginal organizations in an earlier thread.

Kumioko wrote:I notice some fairly strong language by the Arbcom in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't add a couple of folks to the Banned editors list and maybe a desysop or 2 just for good measure. A couple of the folks on that discussion are critical of admins and the Arbcom as I am so they are no doubt look for a reason to rid themselves of more critics. No doubt with the argument of "Not here to build an encyclopedia", which seems to be more and more commonly the fits all scenarios accusation. Time will tell I suppose.

Randy from Boise wrote:QUESTION FOR GREG
...
Do you believe, Greg, that Mr. Hochman was indeed stretching things here? Or do you think that the username of The Receiver was an intentional reference to a gay pornographic internet meme?

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:QUESTION FOR GREG
...
Do you believe, Greg, that Mr. Hochman was indeed stretching things here? Or do you think that the username of The Receiver was an intentional reference to a gay pornographic internet meme?

Mr. Hochman was indeed way, way off base here (which is a place where he's found himself several times regarding me in the past). I have discussed with the editor The Receiver 0814 (T-C-L), and the origin of the user name was simply to acknowledge that they intended to "receive" payment from the Reward Board user, The Rewarder (T-C-L). "0814" stands for "August 2014".

I don't know why Hochman's mind would go off into the Goatse gutter, but it is what it is, I suppose.

Randy from Boise wrote:If they figure out how to boomerang Hell in a Bucket with evidence that doesn't actually relate to this case, he is in deep trouble.

Neither Smallbones nor Tarc have done anything more than run of the mill 3RR violations worthy of 17-hour-and-23-minute blocks... If one of the 200 or so remaining active administrators had had gonads of sufficient fortitude to apply a block of that magnitude to both edit-warriors, this never would have made it to ArbCom.

Pondering furiously; neutral for now. I realize this is useless as input, which is what happens after six and one-half years on the Committee. I'll vote tomorrow if the case hasn't already been opened by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel a long essay coming on, but I'm not sure how many people would feel like reading it.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders.

Pondering furiously; neutral for now. I realize this is useless as input, which is what happens after six and one-half years on the Committee. I'll vote tomorrow if the case hasn't already been opened by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel a long essay coming on, but I'm not sure how many people would feel like reading it.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

... six and one-half years on the Committee ...

TheCurator wrote:

... six and one-half years on the Committee ...

What a way to live.

EricBarbour wrote:The result is predictable. Mr. Hell and Tarc will receive lengthy blocks, Smallbrain will walk away scot-free.

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:QUESTION FOR GREG
...

...The Receiver 0814 (T-C-L)... The Rewarder (T-C-L) ...

greyed.out.fields wrote:Have you gotten a follow up message from Betafive (T-C-L) after this this enquiry?

EricBarbour wrote:

Pondering furiously; neutral for now. I realize this is useless as input, which is what happens after six and one-half years on the Committee. I'll vote tomorrow if the case hasn't already been opened by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel a long essay coming on, but I'm not sure how many people would feel like reading it.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel a need to order him a tombstone -- with this crap chiseled on it.
But would rather he paid for it. (I suspect $20k is pocket change for Ira. Who sez slime doesn't pay?)

Randy from Boise wrote:

Kumioko wrote:I notice some fairly strong language by the Arbcom in this case. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't add a couple of folks to the Banned editors list and maybe a desysop or 2 just for good measure. A couple of the folks on that discussion are critical of admins and the Arbcom as I am so they are no doubt look for a reason to rid themselves of more critics. No doubt with the argument of "Not here to build an encyclopedia", which seems to be more and more commonly the fits all scenarios accusation. Time will tell I suppose.

If they figure out how to boomerang Hell in a Bucket with evidence that doesn't actually relate to this case, he is in deep trouble.

Neither Smallbones nor Tarc have done anything more than run of the mill 3RR violations worthy of 17-hour-and-23-minute blocks... If one of the 200 or so remaining active administrators had had gonads of sufficient fortitude to apply a block of that magnitude to both edit-warriors, this never would have made it to ArbCom.

Smallbones' reading of policy is clearly specious. And Tarc's name starts with T for Troll.

RfB

greyed.out.fields wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:QUESTION FOR GREG
...

...The Receiver 0814 (T-C-L)... The Rewarder (T-C-L) ...

Have you gotten a follow up message from Betafive (T-C-L) after this this enquiry?

(Betafive managed to get banninated after almost 500 edits in less than a fortnight. Doubtless there's some back-story there.)

thekohser wrote:When does the trial actually start? Does it happen on a new page, or does it just stay on the same page at which everyone's already yammering on?

thekohser wrote:When does the trial actually start? Does it happen on a new page, or does it just stay on the same page at which everyone's already yammering on?

Randy from Boise wrote:I think the "when" relates to a running clock on the arbitrator comments section

Randy from Boise wrote:

thekohser wrote:When does the trial actually start? Does it happen on a new page, or does it just stay on the same page at which everyone's already yammering on?

It will move to an "Evidence" page next, where people will present diffs of relevant (and not so relevant) behavior. Then things move again to a "Workshop" page in which people propose phrasings of the decision. Then comes a "Final Decision" page on which ArbCom frequently ignores everything and does whatever the hell they decided to do on their secret mailing list...

That's the breakdown in transparency — that ArbCom does its own deliberative thing by email, apart from the regular process.


RfB

Kumioko wrote:It has been my experience that you can tell the outcome of the case by the comments upon them accepting it. They don't accept a case unless they think someone is guilty and as such the conclusion can be predetermined with some degree of accuracy.

Statement by Jimbo Wales

My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I've been away and somehow until I got an email today I had overlooked entirely that there was a potential for an ArbCom case. I would suggest here that all the editors who have been fighting about this please give each other a virtual hug and remember that we are all here to build an encyclopedia while the banned users who post to my talk page generally are not. There is fairly universal agreement and understanding that there is an important reason why my talk page has to be handled somewhat differently from others as a traditional space to have philosophical debates about the principles of the project, and for editors with grievances to have a chance to be heard. That openness to criticism and debate is part of what has made Wikipedia successful. At the same time, ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything is also part of what has made Wikipedia successful. The difference between the two will always be difficult to draw.

What I would suggest is that the ArbCom, if the case is accepted at this time (I'm a bit late to request that it not be) quickly move to simply suspect it for a cooling off period. I don't think the issue is unresolvable.

Separately if ArbCom thinks my policy of excessive openness and toleration of our banned users is unwise and should be changed, then a private word with me will suffice - there's no need for a formal case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

SB_Johnny wrote:

Kumioko wrote:It has been my experience that you can tell the outcome of the case by the comments upon them accepting it. They don't accept a case unless they think someone is guilty and as such the conclusion can be predetermined with some degree of accuracy.

Judging from the accept comments, it looks like the arbcommers are itching to hand out some bans. Coming straight out of that case against Möller that showed how impotent they are in the grand scheme of things, I guess you can't blame them.

The interesting part will be how they manage to avoid saying anything substantial about how to handle "banned editors" while delivering their verdict which will presumably ban a bunch of "editors".

I believe I commented elsewhere about Arbitrators assuming the result of the case before it has even started. The sentence reviewing the behaviour of people not here to build an encyclopedia. Several names here qualify would seem to match that description. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

AGKs comment people not here to build an encyclopaedia smacks of Jclemens' Not a Wikipedian gaff. For Shame. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Accept case. Ban one or more editors for relentless drama mongering that disrupts people from writing articles. Jehochman Talk 21:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Captain Occam wrote:Do you think this implies that he won't be seeking re-election when his current term is over? I know a lot of people have speculated that he won't, but I haven't looked carefully at what the conclusion is based on.

Poetlister wrote:

Captain Occam wrote:Do you think this implies that he won't be seeking re-election when his current term is over? I know a lot of people have speculated that he won't, but I haven't looked carefully at what the conclusion is based on.

Whatever one thinks of him, it's difficult to believe things would be improved by his departure.

Kumioko wrote:I often find it funny when the Arbcom or various admins complain about people not being on the site to "build an Encylcopedia". First, most admins and including the arbs, do very little actual content work. They try to argue that they don't have time, but people on the site do what interests them. If they "want" to build articles they will and if they want to be a politician and meddle in the drama, then they will do that. Secondly, somewhat in their defense, there is a lot more to building an encyclopedia than just writing articles. You must have people fighting vandalism, you must have people checking copyrights, deleting garbage spam and POV and ensuring that some amount of order is kept in the site. Running many of the bots these days is also a requirement. I can't imagine what life would be like if the bots weren't archiving talk pages and the like. None of these things are directly "building an encyclopedia", but are still necessary. I would also argue that these days, with so many article owners and pov pushers in the WikiProjects, the admin corps and even the Arbcom itself, a certain amount of dissent is required, to ensure some of these crazy cats don't get to big for their britches and take over more than they already have.

So the arguments of "not here to build an encyclopedia", are more often a weak and manipulative justification to get rid of someone that isn't inline with their personal goals for the site, while making it look to the average editor like they have the best interests of the project at heart.

JW wrote:My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I've been away and somehow until I got an email today I had overlooked entirely that there was a potential for an ArbCom case. I would suggest here that all the editors who have been fighting about this please give each other a virtual hug and remember that '''we''' are all here to build an encyclopedia while the banned users who post to my talk page generally are not. There is fairly universal agreement and understanding that there is an important reason why my talk page has to be handled somewhat differently from others as a traditional space to have philosophical debates about the principles of the project, and for editors with grievances to have a chance to be heard. That openness to criticism and debate is part of what has made Wikipedia successful. At the same time, ending useless conversations with people who have no interest in actually fixing anything is also part of what has made Wikipedia successful. The difference between the two will always be difficult to draw.

What I would suggest is that the ArbCom, if the case is accepted at this time (I'm a bit late to request that it not be) quickly move to simply suspect it for a cooling off period. I don't think the issue is unresolvable.

Separately if ArbCom thinks my policy of excessive openness and toleration of our banned users is unwise and should be changed, then a private word with me will suffice - there's no need for a formal case.

thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.

Randy from Boise wrote:

thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.

You have until September 16 to present your evidence here, Mr. Kohs. The limit on testimony is 1,000 words and 100 diffs, which should be used to support your various assertions.

RfB

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.

You have until September 16 to present your evidence here, Mr. Kohs. The limit on testimony is 1,000 words and 100 diffs, which should be used to support your various assertions.

RfB

Do I have to? I'm not even an "involved party" to what is purportedly "my" case!

thekohser wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.

You have until September 16 to present your evidence here, Mr. Kohs. The limit on testimony is 1,000 words and 100 diffs, which should be used to support your various assertions.

RfB

Do I have to? I'm not even an "involved party" to what is purportedly "my" case!

thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.

thekohser wrote:I, for one, would like to thank Hell in a Bucket for being a customer of Comcast (2601:1:c080:eef:c944d647:87e4). That helps with my stock options every quarter, I'm sure.