Wikipediocracy

Let's have a look at Beeblebrox, who you'll recall indef. blocked Cla68, evidently (Beeb oversighted it) alleging Cla68 did a defacto WP:OUTING by linking to wikipediocracy.com, in which that site published the identity of editor Russavia. Admin Kevin unblocked. Cla68 said later paraphrase "I didn't know what he's talking about."

"*This discussion is a perfect example of the impossible position ArbCom is in. All day, every day, there is somebody bitching somewhere about an admin running off the rails and doing something stupid and there are no consequences. I've slept on this and I can say without ego that I agree with the desyopping. Not because he overturned me, but because Kevin himself was in a conflicted situation due to his own participation as a moderator at the very website making these cowardly outing postings, and also because he had not performed any blocking or unblocking actions since April of 2010. I don't recall any significant previous interactions with Kevin and bear him no ill will, but this is the sort of adminning the community has been saying they ''don't'' want, an admin who is largely inactive, who hasn't used the block tool in years and from what I can see never used it in complicated situations like this, just blocking vandals and so forth, comes in to a situation and just says "bang-unblocked, because I am personally satisfied" even though he knows full well that at the very least BASC and the suppression team are involved in the situation. No. Not ok. Not what we expect from admins, and admins who don't use a tool for years should ease back into using it, not go straight into the most volatile situation they can find and start getting all cowboy about it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)"

In other words: Blah, blah. Blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah Kevin is a cowboy weep for the arbs blah blah.

A newish arb instantaneously was all over the unblock, reblocking and announcing that Kevin was stripped of his adminship. This about the supposed hierarchy that an oversight admin may never have his action overturned by a regular admin. And that the oversighters in turn presumably become familiar with the smell of arb feet. Cla68 blocking arb says "(account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{ArbComBlock}} - do not unblock without the permission of the arbitration committee). Which persists. The appall factor for me is the amount of "community" outrage that reacted from Kevin mere de-admin, whereas Cla68 an editor just gets turned off, entirely, and stays so.

Looking at Beeb's user and talk pages, I see an example of a pretty anonymous editor. I'm of the opinion that those who use the tools like checkuser and oversight are much more likely to do so, when they have achieved anonymity. The anonymous admins in many occasions are thus exercising control over the open and not-particularly anonymous editors. This is a defect in the model.

Beeblebrox wrote:...Kevin himself was in a conflicted situation due to his own participation as a moderator at the very website making these cowardly outing postings...

Kevin is not a moderator or admin here. He is a member only.

Beeblebrox (T-C-L) is an idiot.

When you screw up something that bad, and Prioryman (T-C-L) has to correct you, you're a maroon.

Triptych wrote: Looking at Beeb's user and talk pages, I see an example of a pretty anonymous editor. I'm of the opinion that those who use the tools like checkuser and oversight are much more likely to do so, when they have achieved anonymity. The anonymous admins in many occasions are thus exercising control over the open and not-particularly anonymous editors. This is a defect in the model.

Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss.

Its rather pointless for a number of reasons.

1.The whole Cla thing really isnt his fault. He took a fairly hardline stance on something that is policy. Its not unusual (to be loved by anyone..dadadada) when it comes to redacting outing info. Its one of the policies (like BLP) that tends to attract fairly hard restrictions when its perceived to be violated. His main error was in not explaining it appropriately or making it clear what couldnt be reposted, while allowing Cla an outlet to explain why it wasnt outing.

2.He really is one of the more inoffensive admins, there are plenty out there who are far worse when it comes to distorting values and actively damaging the project. BBrox could at worst be described as 'unflexible'. His views on meta and commons for example (and their respective admin corps) are well-aligned with most of the people here.

3.Outing should not be used as a 'tactic'. Where someones identity is relevant to the issues (think Fae, Bamkin etc) or the issue is about their identity, sure, do some investigation and shine a light. Anonymity should not prevent responsibility. Where the user (example gwickwire) is bringing attention to themselves and their identity is suspect - again anonymity is not a right on the internet. However where it really doesnt have any relevance to the discussion, whats the point? Its just a tactic that will alienate people for no benefit.

When you talk about 'destroying' someones anonymity, that sets a bad tone. The first question should always be 'Do we need to destroy this thing?' if not, dont. This place isnt /b after all.

Zoloft wrote: Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss.

Not without more. This is a watchdog site. It'll diminish its credibility every time it gets petty. I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

Triptych wrote:

Zoloft wrote: Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss.

Not without more. This is a watchdog site. It'll diminish its credibility every time it gets petty. I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

I agree with this minimum accountability.

I also agree. Many RFA's and suggestions to reform the RFA process, have failed based on arguments like "the WMF requires limited access to this for legal reasons" (like blocks or page deletes). Yet there is no requirement for the admins to be over 18, to provide identification to the WMF or to even in many cases be held accountable for their actions. It seems reasonable to me that if these arguments of control are valid at all, then the WMF would require admins to inform the WMF of their real identity and that they be 18. Otherwise the credibility of the statements that the WMF won't allow it for legals reasons is just hot air and BS.

Anroth wrote:This place isnt /b after all.

You're right though.

Anroth wrote:2.He really is one of the more inoffensive admins

I beg to differ, sir. He is really quite stupid, and a classic "evil patroller".

Showed up August 2007, started gnoming minor changes to random articles. He tends to copy the entire article text as a block, fix it offline, then recopy it back to WP, thus inflating his stats tremendously. Discovered Twinkle March 2008 and started patrolling and abusing. Was quite clueless at first. [1]

First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence. He also stupidly tried to claim that Gavia immer, a well-known editor with a long history of good work, was a vandal. Did the same to Drmies.

Second RFA August 2009 went better, even though he was causing all kinds of trouble. Despite (or because) of all that, he was given oversight powers by Arbcom in September 2010.

Complaints about him are posted on sites other than Wikipedia, repeatedly. This is rare even for other evil patrollers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =193412492
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Beeblebrox
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =541130426
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =479421656
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t ... id=3475067
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =270153973
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... b6092a4689
http://www.facebook.com/pages/AussieLeg ... noscript=1

That's only a sample.

Feel free to explain to the rest of us why he wrote this.
Aimed directly at good content writers like Giano and Malleus who don't tolerate trolls gracefully.

He's not there to "build an encyclopedia", he's there to abuse his power.

Beeblebrox is a good example of why WP's administration needs more adult/professional supervision.

EricBarbour wrote:Feel free to explain to the rest of us why he wrote this.
Aimed directly at good content writers like Giano and Malleus who don't tolerate trolls gracefully.

What? Its entirely accurate.

Oh you can go on about how content creators should get special treatment blah blah blah. But it doesnt invalidate the above. They *do* get special treatment. The recent shit with malleus is the most blatant sign of that.

EricBarbour wrote:First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence.

Not oversighted, just deleted. He put a "suspected sockpuppet" template for Bambifan101 (T-C-L) on an IP editor's talk page with the edit summary "you little shit, stay off my talk page".

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity.

It's proposals like this which make me fully understand why the site was proposed to be blocked from being linked to.

IRWolfie- wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity.

It's proposals like this which make me fully understand why the site was proposed to be blocked from being linked to.

I think you'll find that the Index Librorum Prohibitorum is over there ->

IRWolfie- wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity.

It's proposals like this which make me fully understand why the site was proposed to be blocked from being linked to.

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss.

(Emphasis added)
Ftfy. It's only fair to take that quote in context.

mac wrote:Ftfy. It's only fair to take that quote in context.

I do assume everyone has access to the source of the quote. If you propose something distasteful, but then add "I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss", do you really think that makes it a lot better?

IRWolfie- wrote:

mac wrote:Ftfy. It's only fair to take that quote in context.

I do assume everyone has access to the source of the quote. If you propose something distasteful, but then add "I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss", do you really think that makes it a lot better?

The full quote appears to invite discussion about anonymity. The partial quote makes it look like he wants to dox someone. So, yeah, I do think that makes it a lot better.

IRWolfie- wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity.

It's proposals like this which make me fully understand why the site was proposed to be blocked from being linked to.

Don't do that partial quote shit.
This isn't wikipedia and we aren't ARBCOM.

Vigilant wrote:do that partial quote shit.

Why would you say something like that?? You should be blacklisted immediately for violating WO:OHNOYOUDIINT.

Hex wrote:

Vigilant wrote:do that partial quote shit.

Why you black violating OHNOYOUDIINT

FTFY

Hex wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence.

Not oversighted, just deleted. He put a "suspected sockpuppet" template for Bambifan101 (T-C-L) on an IP editor's talk page with the edit summary "you little shit, stay off my talk page".

Have you got a diff to prove that?

EricBarbour wrote:

Hex wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence.

Not oversighted, just deleted. He put a "suspected sockpuppet" template for Bambifan101 (T-C-L) on an IP editor's talk page with the edit summary "you little shit, stay off my talk page".

Have you got a diff to prove that?

Appears to be this one, IP's talk page deleted a few years ago.

Never had a problem with Beeblebrox myself, seems like an ok admin.

IRWolfie- wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Perhaps this site needs to destroy his anonymity.

It's proposals like this which make me fully understand why the site was proposed to be blocked from being linked to.

I was more playing the Devil's Advocate. Which is silly, since he's a member.

Welcome to Wikipediocracy.

Well, I know you have no shortage of gall, attacking one of the site administrators, using a quote out of context, at that.
Hell, I'm the one who activated your account!

I like some of your work over on the 'pedia.

Have fun here.

Tarc wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:

Hex wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence.

Not oversighted, just deleted. He put a "suspected sockpuppet" template for Bambifan101 (T-C-L) on an IP editor's talk page with the edit summary "you little shit, stay off my talk page".

Have you got a diff to prove that?

Appears to be this one, IP's talk page deleted a few years ago.

Thanks, got it.

IRWolfie- wrote:

mac wrote:Ftfy. It's only fair to take that quote in context.

I do assume everyone has access to the source of the quote. If you propose something distasteful, but then add "I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Discuss", do you really think that makes it a lot better?

Jesus, shut the fuck up. You got caught selectively quoting to change the context of the statement, and now out comes the hemming and hawing and backpedaling. Acting like this may get you barnstars in AN/I, but it doesn't really work so well outside of there.

I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

Tarc wrote:Never had a problem with Beeblebrox myself, seems like an ok admin.

He's a typical toe-the-line admin dickhead. I've never had anything but problems with him that I can recall.

EricBarbour wrote:I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

Hahahahaha.... oh wait, you are serious arnt you?

Not sure how familiar you are with both, but thats really really unlikely. If it was true, I would take my hat off for crafting such an excellent sock-troll as Kiefer Wolfowitz.

Anroth wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

Hahahahaha.... oh wait, you are serious arnt you?

Not sure how familiar you are with both, but thats really really unlikely. If it was true, I would take my hat off for crafting such an excellent sock-troll as Kiefer Wolfowitz.

The modern way is that everyone you don't like is a sock of the others you don't like, and if you're an administrator dealing with a low-profile editor you can make that stick.

To paraphrase House, everybody socks.

Anroth wrote:To paraphrase House, everybody socks.

When your day is long
And the night, the night is yours alone
When you're sure you've had enough
Of this site, well hang on

Don't let yourself go
'Cause everybody cries
And everybody socks sometimes.

EricBarbour wrote:

Tarc wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:

Hex wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:First RFA self-nominated, a total disaster, partly because of something he did -- which has now been oversighted out of existence.

Not oversighted, just deleted. He put a "suspected sockpuppet" template for Bambifan101 (T-C-L) on an IP editor's talk page with the edit summary "you little shit, stay off my talk page".

Have you got a diff to prove that?

Appears to be this one, IP's talk page deleted a few years ago.

Thanks, got it.

I can't see anything but a deleted IP user talkpage there, someone else can view the quote? The basis for the page's deletion is said to be "G6. Technical deletions. Uncontroversial." I looked at the reference for G6 and deletion of an IP user's talkpage doesn't fit into its categories. If the quote is accurate, that's an intemperate quote that would probably have worked against Beeb in his RFA and recent candidacy for ArbCom. I've seen Jimbo get worked up when his admins make comments like that.

Triptych wrote: I can't see anything but a deleted IP user talkpage there, someone else can view the quote? The basis for the page's deletion is said to be "G6. Technical deletions. Uncontroversial." I looked at the reference for G6 and deletion of an IP user's talkpage doesn't fit into its categories. If the quote is accurate, that's an intemperate quote that would probably have worked against Beeb in his RFA and recent candidacy for ArbCom. I've seen Jimbo get worked up when his admins make comments like that.

Well depressingly this is actually standard practice amongst admins. If we wanted to start a thread of 'Admind-deleted content with incorrect rationale' we would never have time to do anything else.

But yes you are right, not a G6.

Triptych wrote:If the quote is accurate, that's an intemperate quote that would probably have worked against Beeb in his RFA and recent candidacy for ArbCom.

It is, because I was quoting the deleted revision. And in his first RfA, it did.

Triptych wrote:I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

Does having the WMF know your name make you accountable? Ask Daniel Brandt.

Does Daniel Brandt knowing your name make you more accountable? Ask hive mind...

It got his WP article deleted, didn't it?

That *was* my point.

P.S. It only took 17 tries!!!

Vigilant wrote:P.S. It only took 17 tries!!!

Eighteen. Apparently one of them was oversighted. And there might be more that disappeared with no traces.

Interesting mechanism for the Wikipedia to muzzle one's critics, though. If a person who once had their bio deleted on "marginally notable BLP" grounds in the future does something notable enough to be covered by a reliable source, an argument could be made that that tips the scales back towards notability.

Hex wrote:

Triptych wrote:If the quote is accurate, that's an intemperate quote that would probably have worked against Beeb in his RFA and recent candidacy for ArbCom.

It is, because I was quoting the deleted revision. And in his first RfA, it did.

To be clear, I doubted you not an instant, it's just one of those "hmm, let me look at that" things. The deletion of Beeb's "stay off my talkpage you little shit" comment was done with incorrect policy justification, as we've established. Oversight policy refers to "strict limits to remove defamatory material, to protect privacy, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations. Revision Delete police lists six criteria: 1) Blatant copyright violations, 2) Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, 3) Purely disruptive material, 4) Oversightable information, 5) Valid deletion under [former technical modes of] deletion policy, and 6) Non-contentious housekeeping. There's a potpourri, even a cornucopia, of criteria at the "speedy deletion" policy page including the "G6 Housekeeping" that was cited incorrectly, heck it might be possible to find a rationale there though, it'd be like opening that massive Oxford library dictionary to a random page and finding a word that somehow applied, say "mendicanthropic."

Bottom line though, the deletion as stated is bogus, and as mundanely "housekeeping" cited bears the sniff of stealth, tends to help Beeb as he sought and seeks more project authority. So who did it, okay "Xeno" did, who's that? Well, his page says he's an arb, but he doesn't seem to be one presently at least. I scanned his contributions and they're a bit robotic, or perhaps better said like the utility edits of an alternate account, but there is a human-like one in December in which he apologizes for his limited activity. I scrolled back through Xeno's edits 500 at a time to get to the date where he did this one, but doh! it's not there because it was deleted, however at the time Xeno also graciously responded back to Beeb who it turns out (shocker!) requested the deletion, acknowledging it sank his RfA, but, with claimed but somehow not completely ingenuous compassion, "it would be better if it were gone so that future users of this ip won't feel slighted by it."

I think this is yet another example of the mutual backscratching and personal responsibility dodging endemic to the administrator culture, which calls itself, but is not, "the community."

I find it rather shocking, but not surprising, that administrators would scrub their edit history like this, while stolidly refusing to remove bad blocks from the block logs of mere mortals.

Anroth wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

Hahahahaha.... oh wait, you are serious arnt you?

Not sure how familiar you are with both, but thats really really unlikely. If it was true, I would take my hat off for crafting such an excellent sock-troll as Kiefer Wolfowitz.

Does having a personality make somebody a troll?

EricBarbour wrote:I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

No, they are two different people (Jack Kiefer and Jake Wolfowitz) who share the account.

I've never had a problem with their contributions. And welcome Jack, welcome Jake. Good to have you here.

Peter Damian wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:I'm starting to wonder if IRWolfie- (T-C-L) = supertroll Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L).

Actually, they're both pro-science supertrolls.

No, they are two different people (Jack Kiefer and Jake Wolfowitz) who share the account.

I've never had a problem with their contributions. And welcome Jack, welcome Jake. Good to have you here.

Indeed.

Kiefer!

Triptych wrote: Not without more. This is a watchdog site. It'll diminish its credibility every time it gets petty. I am in favor of every admin that has an access to IPs, and any one that does oversight, providing real name etc. to the lawfully responsible owners of Wikipedia. I don't care much that I don't get to read it, I just want to know it's possible to get back to it. I want admins behaving as if they might be held personally responsible for their actions and words.

Avoiding drama does make one appear more serious. Also outing Beeblebrox serves what purpose exactly? He's perfect where he is destroying Wikipedia.

I never really found Wikipedia Review to be an effective watchdog site and to be honest I'm doubtful this site can be very effective as a watchdog site as well. Too many Wikipedia lovers hoping it gets better. In the end Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales's creature, so if it gets better he benefits and I do not see how contributors get to share in those benefits aside from being given a pat on the head and words like "good boy!"

deci wrote:Also outing Beeblebrox serves what purpose exactly? He's perfect where he is destroying Wikipedia.

I wouldn't say "perfect," exactly. But for Hasten The Day! purposes, he'll do.

deci wrote: In the end Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales's creature, so if it gets better he benefits and I do not see how contributors get to share in those benefits aside from being given a pat on the head and words like "good boy!"

Actually, some have found a way: you start a parasitic project like GibraltarpediA, or a Wikimedia "chapter." Cha-ching! Sinecures for the frei kultur elect!

Cedric wrote:

deci wrote:Also outing Beeblebrox serves what purpose exactly? He's perfect where he is destroying Wikipedia.

I wouldn't say "perfect," exactly. But for Hasten The Day! purposes, he'll do.

deci wrote: In the end Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales's creature, so if it gets better he benefits and I do not see how contributors get to share in those benefits aside from being given a pat on the head and words like "good boy!"

Actually, some have found a way: you start a parasitic project like GibraltarpediA, or a Wikimedia "chapter." Cha-ching! Sinecures for the frei kultur elect!

Ah for such people I say "good for you!" But not everyone is so insightful and there are actually people who donate to Wikipedia for virtually nothing in return. Do they deserve any pity?

Cedric wrote:

deci wrote:Also outing Beeblebrox serves what purpose exactly? He's perfect where he is destroying Wikipedia.

I wouldn't say "perfect," exactly. But for Hasten The Day! purposes, he'll do.

He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Triptych wrote:He says he is from Alaska's Kenai Peninsula at his page, but I figure this is a red herring. Anyone else?

Eh, I don't see a compelling case for poking around there. I know Malleus hates him, but he seems like a decent enough guy to me. He tells people to fuck off all the time, but they almost always need to be told to fuck off anyway.