private musings

episode 2 - wikiversity strikes back

2010-03-18T18:34:00.001-07:00

really I'm just seeing if I can still remember how to work this blog!

I've been blocked by Jimbo on Wikiversity, and it's kicked off a bit.

Jimbo discussed closing wikiversity with the board, and deleted the project 'the ethics of breaching experiment' as 'beyond scope' for wikiversity. It's coming slowly out in the wash this one - we'll see what happens...

bored 'n busy

2009-05-13T16:38:00.000-07:00

but then, aren't we all?

flick me an email at thepmaccount@gmail.com if you want to rattle my cage about anything - otherwise, I'll head back to commenting on wiki world stuff anon... :-)

who found wikipedia?

2009-04-09T20:55:00.000-07:00

and where?

Further to the Jimbo theme of my last post, there's a continuing broo ha ha about the status of the founders of wikipedia, Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. Turns out Jimbo has been a bit 'economic with the actualite' since his change of heart a while back over Larry's role - and Larry is now sick of it to the point of making a bit of a fuss.

Larry's caught somewhat between a rock and a hard place in trying to confront Jimbo on this one, and the tension between the 'nobody cares' defense and the 'I'm definitely the founder' position is difficult to communicate.

It's a little unedifying, I reckon, but amusing to see chaps like dear old Shankers coming out of the woodwork... my tuppence on the best way forward would be for Jimbo to acknowledge that both he and Larry have played a role significant enough in the creation of Wikipedia to warrant the title 'founder' - I reckon that's a win-win for him.......

Someone is squatting on JimmyWales.net

2009-03-01T20:29:00.000-08:00

now 'ain't that a pretty image ;-)

Apparently 'Wayne Smith' (I'm only using the inverted commas because I have no idea if that's a real name, or not), a chap previously famous / notorious for registering bindiirwin.com shortly after her dad, Steve's, death - either altruistically or cynically depending on which network you get your news from..... anywhoo he's registed 'JimmyWales.net' and 'JimmyWales.org'.

Looks to me like the same chap also edited Jimmy's user page to say 'Heil Hitler' in the revision now displayed as the .org homepage. This sort of makes the jape a bit dull in my book - because otherwise the concept of using a public diff from Wikipedia as a potentially libellous homepage on an alternate domain seems sort of interesting legally / ethically etc.

Seems like Wayne's probably after some attention to me, and who am I not to provide it! - perhaps we'll see this pushed into the media somewhere somehow before too long... I don't think this under-distributed blog is the summit of Wayne's ambitions!

For much smarter comment (no doubt) - head over to Wikipedia Review, or check out Jimbo's talk page where someone (probably Wayne?) pointed it out....

arb elections + arb list 'leaks'

2009-02-07T23:28:00.000-08:00

well the elections came and went - it was fun to be involved on the periphery, but other stuff has largely distracted me since....

now the news of the day is that kelly martin, an ex-arb, and now wiki apostate, is in the process of setting up a project publishing emails from the arb list from a period a few years ago - citing public interest / general public good as the rationale for breaching the expectation of privacy..... it's an interesting one for sure.. maybe interesting enough to warrant further comment, who knows......

arbcom elections

2008-11-24T22:40:00.000-08:00

so I'm standing... really in the hope to try and get some attention for some ideas. In some ways it's hard to see wiki actually improving at the mo..... :-(

Anywhoo... I just published today my '5 big ideas' as the central planks of my campaign! I have zero chance of success in the election, but hope someone will notice what I hope are good ideas......

In other news Lar and I have a 10 buck bet on the outcome of the election - $140 for me if I'm on the money.... I think the old 'red, black, black, red' combo probably is a more reliable way to get 16 to 1 (well Lar's offered me 14....) but we'll see how it goes :-)

Vote for me, and if you don't vote for me - vote for the folk on my list!

things that go 'bump' in the night....

2008-10-30T17:38:00.000-07:00

how cool is this pic? Happy Halloween folks,

I'm hoping to be able to add a thousand or so others to Commons before too long, and am enjoying learning how.....

at some point I may write up something about recent wiki times - what I've been up to, and why I'm considering running for the arbitration committee....

chapcom, wikiversity, mentoring, and 6 unanswerable questions

2008-09-22T22:32:00.000-07:00

here's an update for my poor neglected blog.... a few of the goings on lately...

I've been asked to help out the WMF Chapters Commitee with communications - I'm pretty interested and excited about that, and am currently finding out more! (I think I 'slowpoked' them into it - by volunteering to answer emails and just generally keep focus on outstanding issues etc. etc. - still it's kinda cool, no?).

I remain under mentorship at en-wiki in the BLP area, and there was a bit of a broo ha ha with a request I made for admin.s to review long-term-blocked User:Moulton's situation, which resulted in my mentors extending the process - the arbs got involved, and I'd say it's now settling down a bit - though whether or not the path forward is clear is anyone's guess :-)

Wikiversity has been hit rather harder by growing tensions, with the community sort of half eating itself, and not a gruntle to be seen (Jimbo even popped in with a ban). It's a very 'mellow' place though (and that word has particular connotations in the wiki-verse) - and in some ways the drama there is rather more akin to an argument between church wardens when the choir have their end of year party, and someone forgot to order biscuits, as oppose to the cagematches the en-wiki goes for .....

the 6 unanswerable questions are wiki related, and after recent events, I'm rather glad I didn't post them to either en or wikiversity, for reasons I might discuss in another post.... I'll write them up here at some point - so you'll have to pop back ;-)

asking for restrictions to be lifted.....

2008-08-10T18:48:00.000-07:00

to edit BLPs or not to edit BLPs... that's the question rolling around some pages of the english wiki at the moment - and the question which has brought me back to this poor neglected blog. (are there any blog protection services? - I'm sure I'm negligent in many ways, and would probably face charges....)

So I asked arbcom if I could be allowed to edit BLPs again - and now it's sort of grown into a wiki-constitutional discussion in some places (can this be discussed at the Village Pump? AN? RfAr pages only? - is 'the community' actually empowered to make any decision? offer comment? etc. etc. - oh, and where does Jimbo fit in to all this?) - as well as a sort of open review of my editing.... or perhaps more acuarately an opportunity for people to pass comment about their impressions of what's been going on - I think some folk could do with taking a a closer look at some diff.s etc. - or just ask me a question! - I won't bite! :-)

Perhaps the discussion is now at the petering out stage (I've been told in the past that persuading three arbs to actually comment on a request is pretty good going!) - which may or may not bring us back to this point at some point in the future... we'll see how it pans out....

wikipedia, scientology, and 'anonymous'

2008-06-18T21:10:00.000-07:00

Bumping around the wiki a couple of months or so ago, I came across the whole series of articles on scientology - including several related 'featured' articles on pop culture topics, like Battlefield Earth 'the movie' (must check that out one day - can it really be worse than my personal worst film of all time 'Licence to Kill'?)

Anywhoo... to cut a long story short, I've now browsed around the subject online fairly extensively, and found some interesting stuff, in a sort of 'a few threads coming together' sort of way.... hence this post (which as ever is largely for my own edification, and as an aide-memoire).

I think it was Kelly Martin's blog (now a new look, and no wikipedia stuff) where I first read a mention of the connections between anti-scientology activists, and the english wikipedia - from memory, referring to David Gerard having done so much fighting one cult (Scientology) and now supporting another (Kelly's interpretation of Wikipedia at the time). I've also got half a memory of reading that a few more of the wiki 'old guard' were active on the anti-scientology newsgroups back in the day - can't back that up at all at the mo, so I don't know if it's received wisdom, or one of those things that someone tells you that turns out to be not so reliable..

Anywhoo... the final piece of the thread was this youtube video;

which I noticed randomly the other day, on one of my 'fairly extensive' browsing expeditions.... as you can see, the video has been removed, the user account closed, and the pages all gone from youtube's public site - the link above is to the Google cache. I saw the clip the other night (well, it was just a still picture, and an audio file) - and made a mental note to check out what it was saying - though it was a bit fishy. I got in touch with one of the named people from the audio, and sure enough, they knew nothing about it at all...

In the audio, which was purported to be a leak from a Scientology official, it was claimed that the Wikimedia foundation was financially supporting the 'anonymous' movement, and that various wiki luminaries were to be declared 'SPs' (suppressive persons) - a decleration which seems to have led to some rather obnoxious harasssment in the past from various scientology organisations. It was also claimed that Scientology will be sueing the wikimedia foundation in some way at some point for some thing (it wasn't very clear on that point!).

I thought these threads coming together was a bit of a coincidence, and that's why I'm commenting here..... if you can handle conceptual hyperbole, there really are some fascinating analagies to be drawn between Wikipedia and Scientology - which makes it all the more interesting if the two organisations become antaganistic. In some ways Wikipedia is a cultural product of 'anonymous', and as such represents a tangible target, I guess..... or not... maybe.....

anyways.... there are no doubt several books to be writ on related subjects in due course, and there's only a small chance that I'll return to blog about this before one of them is published..... cheers chaps.....

this month....

2008-06-01T22:46:00.000-07:00

I have mostly been thinking about foundation issues - you know - stuff about the elections to the board of trustees... I've been trying to record brief conversations with each candidate... I'm gonna 'publish' as many as I can complete by the 6th June - and I'm hopeful we'll get at least half done....

you know where to find me if you'd like to!

oh my word....

2008-05-14T03:48:00.000-07:00

several other non-written up thoughts cross my mind at the moment - but I'm actually enjoying use of the word 'borked' too much to bother with them - here's the distilled version;

The checkuser system is borked
The arbcom is borked
The way wikipedia handles biographies is borked
The way wikipedia improves itself may be borked, and this would be a bad thing!

If de-borking actualy equates to re-borking then, well, I guess wikipedia's just inevitably borkful. There - no post is complete without inventing a word.

might as well enjoy the ride!

(I did learn some interesting stuff this week, I just can't be bothered to write it up..... sorry... and with that I leave my poor blog alone for another little while......)

that time of the month

2008-04-21T20:24:00.000-07:00

ok - so this is a bit of a blatant filler to try and prevent momentum entirely leaving this blog... I wouldn't want to disappoint either of my readers!

I feel like there are quite a few irons in the fire at the moment about Wikipedia in general... there's the establishment of the aussie chapter (well done all!), talking with other editors, and other folk (public conversations at 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly', as well as private conversations, and planned chats too....), issues around biographies on wiki (my proposal, and many others are getting some attention), and finally one that relates to my arb case, and sanctions, which is the use of different accounts (pseudonyms) and how the wiki reacts to such behaviour (ethical concerns abound!).

Poke me for more info (or just slide it under the door of my gmail account!) - the interesting times over there continue!.....

probably see ya' in May!

tuppence more from the naughty step

2008-03-30T19:49:00.000-07:00

okey dokey - so I've finally remembered how to delete my cookies and this has restored my access to wikback.com - and I was a bit surprised to see that I have access to the 'Wikback Itself' forum (for some reason I thought access to that, and to 'Cage Match' was restricted, but I guess it's only 'The Mirror' which is - not sure why, but ours is not to question!).

There's a thread about my recent ban there, which is interesting to me (well it would be, wouldn't it!). Thanks to all the commentators there, who have seen fit to draw a little bit of attention to the situation - it is appreciated, and here's what I see happening;

Well first I'd better refute a bit of stuff that's been asserted - somewhat intemperately I find, but hey, your temper is your business, I guess.

"I have had many conversations with PM privately about the importance of this to me. I've provided examples, and guidelines, and have moved his posts to the mirror (which I've set up as lightning rod for this sort of thing). The other hosts have discussed this with him as well. And he has continued, most recently by again complaining that no one will tell him who ran checkuser on him at what times in the course of events that led up to his ban (the post at issue has been deleted)."

um... nope, not really. Leaving aside the fact that I've been trying to discuss some moderately complicated 'checkuser' issues in general terms, and am more than happy to leave 'my case' out of it; UC and I have communicated, and a few messages have bounced back and forth - but I haven't had any messages from other hosts and moderators excepting CComMack, who's been kind enough to say that he thought my posts were quite helpful on occasion... I really don't believe UC has any reason to be righteously exasperated, which is afraid how it comes across to me - in fact it's kinda misrepresentative to be honest... if I were to paint the situation as one party being calm and polite, and the other being unreasonable, we'd pick the roles differently, I think. However, if anyone is at all interested, I'm happy for UC to release all messages on this matter, because I think they tell the story pretty well.... (ping me if you want a copy of the messages I've sent... they generally go along the lines of 'thanks heaps for running the forum, and I'm afraid I still don't understand x, is y allowed? once again, thanks, PM.'

It's heartening to see that on this matter, I might not be entirely crazy (other folk seem confused too) - and hopefully I'll be unbanned soon, and allowed to comment within the rules / guidelines - I'd like that!

more chit chats, and a month on the naughty step

2008-03-30T16:56:00.000-07:00

well we've had some pretty interesting chats over at 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' in the last little while - and over the weekend I joined the folk at 'Wikipedia Weekly' for my first conversation there! - It was very similar to the 'NotThe' experience, but with the addition of the extra polish which editing (and taking a more technical approach to sound quality etc.) gives - I chatted a bit (not recorded - just friendly chat before the 'show' started....) about the possibilities of how the two projects can combine effort in the long term - and I mentioned that a kind of 'any questions' and 'any answers' approach might be interesting (check out BBC Radio 4 for more info. on these UK Political discussion shows) - time will tell.....

We're having another regular conversation this week - hopefully with some new editors popping along (which is great!) - and behind the scenes, I think we might have a pretty interesting 'special' conversation later in the week......

(oh, and I got a month's ban from wikback for posting inappropriately - I'm utterly befuddled once more, and would like to return to commenting there - do feel free to poke me about it if you're interested - I'm just confused, to be honest!)

oh the injustice of it all... and a peek behind the curtain

2008-03-13T20:07:00.000-07:00

(yet) another PM rant to kick off... my trusty readers will know that a silly comment can get you a one week ban over at wikback.com - but only in some contexts, of course... sometimes silly is allowed!! - I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm totally with Doc on this one, that a bit of admittedly self indulgent humour is a good thing... I'm not sure I'd go as far as asking people to lighten up if they find it trolling, essentially because I've already been banned for one week, and poking the boss in the tummy as he puts you on probation probably isn't a good idea!

The conclusion is obvious....

...well it is on first glance anyways - I'm currently working on a 'what's really going on' post which encapsulates my views about the truthful dynamics at play behind this, and more interestingly other major wiki currents swirling at the mo... I'm too busy / lazy / inarticulate to finish it yet - but having begun it a few days ago, I saw this post and wanted to say that that echoes with me quite strongly.... more to come, folks!

real life chats, and another ban......

2008-03-09T20:48:00.000-07:00

the path to my updating this blog is so beautifully paved, that I thought I'd take a short stroll down it again.....

Since getting back 'on-wiki' I've enjoyed starting a 'real life chat' project, which I've called 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' as a tip of the hat to the team who gave me the idea (thanks chaps!).

Click through if you're interested in hearing what I sound like, and join in with ideas / topic suggestons or anything really at the wiki page - that's what it's there for!

In other news, UC has been kind enough to help me with my ban withdrawal symptoms by booting me from wikback.com for a week for this post. If your plus is as nonned as mine, I'm sure the ban relates solely to UC's sincere intentions to ensure the smooth running of the board through his firmness, although I did once refer to him as a marble free arbitrator - or to use the expression I'm happy to support in gaining traction - arbonaught.

back once again....

2008-03-02T14:31:00.000-08:00

...and gosh these are interesting times!

No doubt inspired by these erudite scribblings, both Danny Wool and Larry Pieniazek (who is the user 'Lar' on wikipedia) have started blogs. They're both pretty involved wiki folk - Danny having worked at the Foundation Office, and Lar having a number of senior roles across various wikimedia projects. What's interesting is that they both use their blogs to offer criticism of wikimedia / wikipedia which I would consider constructive... if perhaps controversial.

Danny's blog pips Lar's at the moment for sheer fun value, because we get to read about Jimbo being somewhat of a lothario!! The whole situation makes me giggle at the absurdity - and the fact that he's pissed off his ex girlfriend / mistress to the point where she's selling his sweater on ebay is the icing on the cake!

Less absurd, though obfuscated by the titilation, is Danny's concern that foundation money may have been inappropriately spent by 'Jimbeau' (nice one, Danny!). I'd say it should be no big deal to quickly answer danny's points openly and honestly to assuage any concern - no big deal, right?

If you, like me, happen to have known a few friends and colleagues in the past who have preferred quantity over quality in their relationships, perhaps the obvious question to ask at this point is have there been any expenses at all picked up by the foundation which are more to do with Jimbo's lurve machine than the benefit of the project? Danny clearly intimates this is so... and I guess it'll come out in the wash soon enough.....

I was going to mention something about Lar's discussion of how wikimedia has some issues that need fixing from the inside, but now I can't get 'Jimbo's lurve machine' out of my head.... I'll leave you with that thought, and the sounds of Barry White......

i got seventeen days

2008-02-11T15:58:00.000-08:00

so i'm at home with ray, sitting tight.

still banned, still bad.

see ya around!

The strange webs one gets caught in with time on one's hands....

2008-01-30T19:53:00.001-08:00

Geez - what an afternoon.

Having heard of some of the stories mentioned below previously, I decided that I wanted to work out for myself what I thought had gone on. Here's my take on a famously heated, bitter and vituperative episode - which I've also posted to wikback.com.......

Welcome, Wordbomb to the wikback!

I know this is a chat forum, but having spent longer than I ever intended trying to work out what the heck's going on with Wikipedia, Overstock, Wordbomb, SlimVirgin, Pan-Am 103, and probably the Knights Templar, I've dusted of my 'NPOV' gloves, and I thought I'd post a bit of background from a hopefully neutral perspective. I confess to have ploughed through this mainly for my own clarity and edification - and I've probably got heaps of stuff wrong, so in the same spirit as your post, all should feel free to chime in;

You're Judd Bagley, alias Wordbomb, and you're banned from Wikipedia. Also, you work for Overstock.com whose CEO is Patrick Byrne.

Patrick Byrne has been fiercely critical of something called 'naked short selling', and at this point a journalist called Gary Weiss becomes involved - I think because he's either written about Patrick Byrne, or because he supports naked short selling, or says it doesn't exist (or something). Sorry to be unclear on this point.

You believe to that you've shown, amongst other things, that the editors 'Mantanmoreland' and 'Samiharris' are in fact said journalist Gary Weiss. You assert that there's a fairly straight forward abuse of 'sockpuppets' going on.

I think that's the meat of your situation, but there are a few unique side stories to this one, which are worth noting;

You report that Patrick Byrne may have met Slimvirgin in real life as a student, and recalls the interest in and personal relationship to the Pan Am 103 disaster of the woman he belives to be Slimvirgin. An amazing coincidence - but not really relavent, except......

When you were getting into troubled waters at wikipedia, you believe Slimvirgin acted unfairly and improperly, specifically you allege that you have evidence that private emails you sent to Slim were forwarded directly to Gary Weiss (I think).

I think even you would categorise your reaction to your troubles on wikipedia as aggressive; and some wikipedians assert that you have harassed / stalked / abused / 'sock'ed violently and vehemently ever since. For whatever reason, several fairly well known editors have been quite closely involved - these include;

* Jayjg, who you assert used the oversight tool inappropriately, and has used checkuser in your case
* Fred Bauder, who may have been aware of a 'sock' issue but not addressed it to your satisfaction
* David Gerard, who in dealing with what he perceived to be disruption / vandalism blocked an IP range as an 'open proxy' - it transpires that it's actually a Utah town!!
* JzG, whom you assert has used a 'sockpuppet', and who has been fairly vocally critical of you and your methods.
* Many other editors have put forward strong opinions that you are not to be trusted

Surpisingly, through the fog of the broo ha ha, I'm not sure if anyone has specifically said that your claim that Gary Weiss = Mantanmoreland = Samiharris is complete nonsense, or not - and having ruminated for a little while, I think I'm coming to the conclusion that that's really the most important question.

Thoughts?

busy doin' nothing.....

2008-01-28T15:36:00.000-08:00

ah january. so what's been going on?.....

arbcom have shooed me away, I've been chatting away at wikback, I'm hoping the CU ombudsfolk will get back to me fairly soon, and I got a little involved in a rather erm... controversial wiki.

Oh - and my user talk page was unprotected after some discussions about whether or not it was supposed to be. I did find it weird that my userpage was never protected, but my talk page was.....

other than that I remain on the naughty step, and will do for just over a month. I hope they'll let me have toilet breaks.

'checkuser' tools at wikipedia

2008-01-19T21:58:00.000-08:00

I've getting a clearer and clearer picture about the goings on in the private office labeled 'checkuser' - and it's pretty erm.. interesting stuff.

I think there's a serious problem there - with fairly rampant abuses currently passing under the community's radar. Basically, checks have been made for political reasons, and some checkusers have had no compunction sharing information which ought to be far better protected.

Prod me if you wanna know more, or witness my futile attempts to rattle a cage or two at wikback.com. I'd lay good odds for some sort of controversy prompting fairly large scale reform over this process, and would like to encourage stakeholders to address the issues before this point......

maybe someone will publish the logs?

I'd say there's a few dirty paws that need a pretty good wash for the good of all.......

wiki wheels keep on turning...

2008-01-14T14:15:00.000-08:00

This poor neglected corner of blogger has been rather ignored for the last little while - so let's have a bit of a catch up.....

I continue to post over at Wikback.com - although the Giovanni thread was first closed, and then deleted as a legal concern (fair enough, but plus ça change, no?). So Jimbo's comments have left the record - the only thing I can really remember from the conversation is that Jimbo was saying that my Sock use, and editing to 'Jonathan King' were the real problems, whilst Guy gaily contradicted him, claiming my edits to Giovanni were the only problem - like a 'bull in a china shop'. Any fule kno that I'm a much more interesting creature!

Anywhoooo - the wikback seems to be bubbling away fairly nicely - without quite reaching tipping point yet, and it'll be interesting to see how that goes.....

Mercury has popped up over there, and is chatting away - and has even put a motion before the arb.s to repeal my ban! I think Mercury would be a great involuntary mentor! (well I suppose I would be the involuntary mentoree... i kinda like that - it's got a sing song lilt!)

So my days in the wilderness continue, and the wheels keep on turning...I'm not sure if they're carrying me home to see my kin though - maybe more a kind of slow moving industrial accident....

Jimbo at wikback.com

2008-01-01T18:35:00.000-08:00

Jimbo's activities have been well and truly on my radar for the last couple of days, having made the comments referred to at the Giovanni article - they're having a wonderful effect, and the article is much better.

It is interesting though that in our brief chat over at www.wikback.com Jimbo seems to be saying that my take is inflammatory nonsense - which is both a little harsh and inaccurate in my view.

I sent my appeal in to the Arb Com recently (haven't heard back) - but I'm singularly failing at keeping my head down, which is probably foolish. The urge to try and calmly set out my positions and get my point across is strong, and I hope it doesn't bite me too painfully.....

I feel like my posts contain only mild criticisms, but important ones - at this stage I'm more confused than upset that they would be mischaracterised. I don't think they are inflammatory nonsense, obviously - but more importantly I can't really understand how Jimbo arrives as that conclusion except as an instinct to 'attack the attacker' - which has the effect of suppressing dissenting voices if applied more globally.

Hey ho - interesting times.......

well I never!

2007-12-28T21:57:00.001-08:00

Jimbo has posted at the Giovanni talk page, in a very measured and intelligent manner!

The wiki never fails to surprise, and hopefully this will now cast good light on the situation and the article will improve.... this is wonderful!

wikback.com

2007-12-28T20:45:00.001-08:00

Uninvited Company - an arbitrator and general senior type wiki person, has started a discussion forum at 'wikback.com' which I've registered at, and am giving a go.....

No doubt mention on this giant of the blogsphere will bring the registration numbers to a critical mass and the servers to a standstill.....

seriously though - why not take a look and p'raps join in.....

ding ding

2007-12-28T14:29:00.000-08:00

the article at Giovanni di Stefano, in many ways the catalyst for my ban, has been deleted and recreated again by Fred;
Questions asked immediately... more to come?
I really hope they can sort that mess out - the article is really weak in my view.
hey ho... have a good new year all!

calmer waters.....?

2007-12-17T15:27:00.000-08:00

I think there may be some cause for cautious optimism in the wiki-climate over the next little while. I think the various scandals and revelations may lead to a useful period of introspection - and it was the lack of self-governance that caused most (all?) of the wikis problems in my view.
I'm pleased to see sanity returning to the Giovanni di Stefano page, and quite like the direction of the 'Linking to External Harassment' page.
I've had some surprisingly pleasant communications with folk on all sides of the various debates, and have hope that normalcy may be restored in due course. (normalcy in wiki terms of course.... heh!)
I still think that I have been treated very poorly, and will continue to try and have my sanctions overturned as soon as possible, because I think that's the right outcome......
(i'll keep myself posted at this location of course..... !)

Wise words

2007-12-11T20:11:00.000-08:00

they're not mine;
As one of the world's ten most popular websites, Wikipedia is a big target. It is also big news. Soon the press will become more sophisticated about finding stories here - and trust me: people who know how to dig learn a lot of interesting things.
but I totally agree with them.

on again off again on again 'n off......

2007-12-10T16:31:00.000-08:00

My see saw ride on the english wiki mailing list continues..... Having been first moderated, then fairly unceremoniously booted (well, unsubscribed) by David Gerard, I sent a message to the list 'owners' (the address is public on the wiki mailing list page) asking for clarification / permission to resubscribe - having heard nothing, I just went ahead and signed up again in the usual way, and sent some short responses to the ongoing discussion.
One got through ! - and I received a couple of notes saying - ah, you're back! - but none of the others have, so I'm thinking that I might in fact be de facto banned?
I've dropped Jimbo a note because I really would like to continue useful discussion, but at the same time, if that's not possible, I would at least like to know.
What kind of posts are being restricted currently? Take a look;

>Having this kind of coordination can end up being Kafkaesque
hear hear.

I'm fully supportive of private discussions to help build informed opinions, I'm very concerned that editors seem now to wear many hats at once, as friend, confidant, admin and arbitrator, with no sense of differing propriety in each role.

Jimbo, we communicated directly with each other, and you mentioned that you would take a look at my situation - can you see how that might appear disingenuous when it becomes apparent that you were already quite well informed?

PM.

apparently the list can't allow such comment.

Secret vs. Private

2007-12-06T17:49:00.000-08:00

Can't resist a brief comment on what I think are the very very weak attempts to say 'nothing to see here' in various ways.... perhaps best summed up by;
"The very idea that there were "secret email lists" is absurd." - Jimbo

Compare and contrast with;
"The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped about this."
"They don't know this list exists"
"Foremost, please keep mum!" - Durova
'nuff said.......

playing semantic games just so clearly says more about those playing them than it does the topic in hand. Silly really.

The Register, Slashdot dot dot dot.......

2007-12-06T16:12:00.000-08:00

So the 'story' broke. Hopefully the ride will be enjoyable for those surfing it for the day or two before it washes up - it may serve ultimately to remove some of the useless heat from the situation, and maybe distill everything to the point where any outstanding issues can be seen clearly.

You'll see below that my personal consequence for passing comment was being booted by David Gerard from the mailing list as a troll, and told to 'go play' at Wikipedia Review.

Sorry David, but I don't think that was either warranted or a sensible reaction. Hey ho, I'm off to Coventry for christmas.........

Mailing List again

2007-12-05T22:37:00.001-08:00

You may have read below that I have previously been put on 'moderation' on the wikipedia mailing list, which basically means that my posts have to be approved, and may or may not get through. You may further have read that I didn't really think I was posting anything inappropriate, and was a little surprised to be 'moderated'.
I was further a little surprised, when it seemed that I had been 'un-moderated' - no one told me anything about this, so unless there was some sort of technical stuff up, when my posts just started being allowed through automatically once more, I assumed that I had 'served my time' on moderation, and was a regular Joe once again.
Now it seems that I am far from a regular;
"I've booted this troll from the list as counterproductive for working on the encylopedia. I'm sure he can have lots of fun on WR" - David Gerard.
.....and with that, David 'unsubscribed' me - I received a brief email telling me so, and now I no longer receive messages (although of course they're online, so I can keep track).

I wonder if anyone else finds this an ironic reaction to this post. Because I am bored of subtlety today, I shall highlight the source of my wry amusement;

The assessment of The Register as being quite a fan of controversy is pretty much accurate - but it's of course true of much of the mass media (and perhaps human nature? a digression.....) - leaving aside the fact that I believe the article is actually pretty fair and accurate, perhaps the more important thing to do is to quickly realise that this really is of interest to people. This is a function of both the nature of the behaviour, and the profile of Wikipedia nowadays. Two journalists have contacted me to date concerning these events, and personally, whilst it may blow over, I feel there is a possibility of the story 'going mainstream' - our (your?) ability to react calmly, sensibly, and openly could be important - I'd consider it to be.

To briefly comment about some of the replies concerning my interest / behaviour at the moment - JZ said he finds it odd that I would like to help still, having been banned. From my perspective, I find the fact that I have been banned a little odd - I still care just as much as last month if the 'Socrates' article says 'Socrates is a clown nigger' - it just really really pisses me off.

I've noticed what I consider to be an unsustainable trend to permanently label people 'trolls' or 'enemies' - it isn't the accuracy of the label which worries me, it's the permanence (I don't believe I deserve it, either). I see circular reasoning being employed to define me as a troll, then criticise me for being one. This can only ever work if such a thing (a troll) can empirically exist. btw. - I'm not interested in 'wedge' issues, or banging on unduly here - I am glad that the list I am now emailing quickly fixes the vandalism that pops up on my watchlist (and are very very helpful and pleasant about it too.....)

best,
PM.

New ethical considerations

2007-12-02T14:40:00.000-08:00

Well, now that I'm banned, I find myself considering a few new ethical questions. I've got the 'Heather Mills' page watchlisted, and noticed this morning that it's had some vandalism. Further - the IP has vandalised two other articles - this is just run of the mill stuff that you usually just fix and move on.
Of course, I can't - so I've emailed an editor I saw was online to ask them to fix it up, which hopefully will happen before too long - and it got me to thinking about how the community would wish me to react.
It feels somehow wrong to log out, change IP, and make the edits myself, not to mention the fact that I feel it would be held against me in future discussions - but wouldn't that be the best course of action for the wiki?
Further cogitation required.........

Thank god 2008 is a leap year

2007-12-02T12:43:00.000-08:00

I'll be permitted to return to editing on Feb 29th. (although not to BLPs) - I'll post some more stuff here anon......

Rubbernecking

2007-11-28T20:52:00.000-08:00

I returned to edit my userpage recently, just to accurately reflect how I'm feeling about things at the mo. Pretty good really - per the below, I'm in remarkable company, and the community seems to be hell bent on reaching rock bottom as soon as possible. Thereupon the healing begins - touch wood.......

90 days part two

2007-11-28T16:43:00.001-08:00

Another day, another surprise! - Despite my clear feelings on the current Arb processes, I've felt thus far that my treatment is at least in part a function of how unimportant, irrelevant (and unpopular) I am - I'm really no big wiki deal.
I see now that Giano is also up for a 90 day ban (and a year's ban from Wiki space - something they're not considering me for?!) - with 'shark jumping' this furious it's becoming clearer that reform will eventually occur - the Arb.s are destroying their credibility.
You couldn't make this up.

90 days

2007-11-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

looks like I'm heading for a 90 day ban - and it will come as no surprise to anyone that I consider this to be ridiculous. How can anyone seriously assert that blocks are not punitive?
Regardless I'm also interested to see if the time I've spent without my editing privileges to date will be taken into consideration?

Concerto No. 2, 2nd Mvt.

2007-11-28T01:07:00.000-08:00

I'm afraid the title of this post is somewhat oblique - buy hey, I don't suppose that matters much.
I was going to write something about the 'notable by his abscence' Raul - then I realised that I actually really feel for him - the Durova bomb dropping right before the election has put him between a rock and a hard place. I've never come across Raul before, so don't really know how he'll react, but I wouldn't blame him for recusing, because voting or expressing almost any opinion would likely cost him his spot. (on the other hand - a principled stand to defend the position of a downtrodden private muse would be simply wonderful!)

Time will tell.

(also no word from Charles and Paul - I'll be interested to see where their ideas lead......)

Not allowed on the list anymore

2007-11-27T18:07:00.000-08:00

Ah well - it seems I'm not allowed to post to the wiki mailing list any more - here's a post that hasn't passed moderation for several hours - and for your delectation (and to aid the worldwide battle against insomnia) below are all of my posts to the list ever - something in them somewhere has forced someone to 'moderate' me (means I can't post openly to the list) - I can't actually recall who did that, but I wonder if it's someone who has been otherwise involved in my case? I'll get back to you....

Here's the post that can't get through;

re : jayjg

>> Try and resolve the problem, Jay.

>I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any specifics. I'm asking for specifics.

Personal information which I had submitted privately to Guy, with a request for that privacy to be respected, was shared by him.
Arbitrators have voted in my case without disclosing discussions of my editing prior to my case.

That is unethical.

PM.

And here are all my posts ever to the list - I am really surprised to have been moderated for anything in the below, especially given the.. er... general quality of discourse therein;

Further : some of Guy's words for reflection;

In response to the post 'You can't do anything to stop me" from a user in May 2006;

:I think you'll find we can: experience indicates that in a fight between editors and admins, the admins hold all the cards. All of them. We can block you indefinitely, and we can block your IP adress, and we can lock the articles, and we can prevent you editing your talk page, and we can moderate you off the mailing list. That's what we would od if we were taking this anythign like as personally as you make out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHganesan&diff=53924473&oldid=53914775

That's exactly what Guy, and cohorts have done.

PM.
http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.com/

**************

Here's a short few points from another in the thick of it;

* I submitted private information to Guy via email, which he shared with this list despite my asking him clearly not to
* Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me, and then reviewed that block.
* List members have discussed my editing for almost a month, and as we speak are voting in my arbitration case without any on-wiki disclosure

I'm no User:!!, but I've fiddled away trying to help at the encyclopedia for about 3 years, and am now indefinitely blocked.

Full disclosure - I've edited using 8 accounts over 3 years, any many assert I've abused both SOCK policy, and BLP at Jonathan King, and Giovanni di Stefano articles.

Nothing I have done makes the three points above ok

**************

Strongly agree with William;

>Off the top of my head, I'd suggest these:
>
> * wikien-interesting:
> * wikien-forum:
> * wikien-open:

and with regard to wikien-sewer - why not leave this list open, and
allow those who to remain to do so, whilst the new channels pick up
the perhaps more useful traffic?

Also strongly endorse Steve's comments.

PM.

**************

a couple of small responses;

Re : William - I respect your judgment and will try and put things
more neutrally. I admit that I am losing some faith that a sensible
point can be made without many editors immediately flinging insults,
but that's no reason not to try......

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano Fred B has said
"Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source
for"

and has deleted the talk page containing heaps of reliable sources
(like US Court Doc.s, The Times etc.).

That concerns me.

Re : Steve...

>Looks like more clowining to me. Are you planning to contribute something
>productive to this list, or should we moderate you?
>Steve
>_______________________________________________

I don't wish to be moderated - please don't.

best,

PM

**************

Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.

The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer
mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on
talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse
of the article subject.

This presents problems.

BADSOURCES anyone?

world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and
'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>

**************

A few responses and replies;

Firstly I'd like to welcome clearly the word of the
hour.....introduced by dg in this thread, but used with some frequency
throughout the wiki on this issue.......... 'querulous' - it's a very
nice word, and I have hope that we may inspire its resurgence in
popular verbiage. It's a little bit like 'whining' but makes you sound
smarter for using it.

per dg on this point;

>Indeed. It's like JB196 complaining that a few of the accounts blocked
>as sockpuppets of his weren't in fact his. I wonder what an editor ethics
>committee would say to such a charge.

I note it took exactly three posts before I was compared to a banned
user - perhaps that's insightful, or perhaps it's part of the problem.

Per sam;

>What is this ethical committee supposed to do?

This is a valid point, and I don't have the answer beyond saying that
any such body should aim to maintain ethical behaviour on the part of
trusted community members - is this not a useful aim?

Per Fredl

>Ethics is good.

I hope you may consider the possibility therefore of a remit to uphold them.

>Running one quiet responsible account and another aggressive
>confrontive, and uncivil, account is just not viable. That's something
>you might do on a MUD.

I agree that that is unacceptable, and wholly disagree that that is
the case. Please please please at least consider the possibility that
I am a rational, calm person who has been involved with wikipedia for
a long while, though not overly intensely, and is passionate enough
about issues that I consider important to try and ensure that I have
(at least) some contribution that can be heard. This is not a MUD, and
I am not aggressive, confrontive or uncivil.

Per Relato;

hear hear.

This page in a nutshell

2007-11-26T15:48:00.001-08:00

I've tried to write up exactly how I arrived in the position I'm in, but events keep overtaking me.
Basically I have been indefinitely blocked three times, buy JzG, David Gerard, and Mercury. The blocks were reviewed and upheld by Jpgordon and Morven. (who have carefully and in a considered fashion decided to agree with themselves at arbitration. well done.)
I am currently in Arbitration, and will likely be banned indefinitely from editing BLP articles, and probably banned all together for a time period (90 days, or a year being discussed thus far, the 1 year block was a suggestion from Durova)

Here's an attempt to explain why;

Being very active criticising 'BADSITES' proposals - (I also started the current proposal at 'WP:PROBLEMLINKS')
Putting a link to his blog at the 'Robert Black' article page, and a strong consensus to retain the link emerging - many influential editors expressed a wish for it to be removed.
Asking questions about sources at 'Giovanni di Stefano' - and questioning a few people (Fred mainly) on strange behaviour such as deleting pages for merely collecting a few sources already submitted by others.
being another 'false positive' and identified as a 'WR Sleeper' by Durova et al
Responding 'improperly' to an authoritative 'slap' (ie. asking 'Why have you slapped me?) - not simply running along.

I am pleased that the material I was discussing at the Giovanni di Stefano page is being discussed. Guy, Fred and others have consistently expressed the opinion that the matter is far too difficult and complicated for mere wiki editors, whereas I believe the wiki process to be healthy, and have faith it will result in a better article.

I probably won't be able to help it of course - which is a shame.

Durover

2007-11-26T02:03:00.000-08:00

I've stepped back from participating in my Arb case just at the moment, because all it was doing was making me angry, and I'm more stupid than usual in that state, and I've been busy.
But this is quite exceptional - and deserves noting;

You have apparently misrepresented me as a bigot, as "evidence" in your current ArbCom dispute. I have not yet participated in that thread's mainspace, and was not watching it closely (I came across it by chance). You failed to ask me for clarification, or provide me any notice. Several people have pointed out how painfully ridiculous your mistake was, but you have neither retracted nor commented. AGF negates NPA, as any attempt to believe that you honestly misunderstood my comment results in an insult to your intelligence.

You have accomplished the unthinkable - making John Cleese even funnier. You have also made a serious and indefensible accusation on my character. Also, I'm one-half German, but not a bit British. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will strikethrough promptly. It would have been more gracious to provided this explanation without sarcasm, and with a little regret for the unintentional offense given. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you just suggest that I owe you an apology? For offending YOU? sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I extended this to Privatemusings for unintentional offense I had given, even though other editors complained that Privatemusings had been rude to me.[5] Differences of opinion aside, we're all still people. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It relates to this exchange from my talk page;

Privatemusings, removing the indefblocked template, the block notice, and the unblock request doesn't really make a good impression at this stage.[2] Suggest you restore them as a gesture of respect for process. Durova^Charge! 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be a result of the page deletion, and not connected to Privatemusings. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, my talk page has just been deleted yet again for reasons I assert are not the strongest, and you seem to be blaming me for creating the wrong impression as a result. I don't really know how to go about templating appropriately - but remain happy for someone to do so.

You implication that this is nefarious is odious if intended, and unnecessarily clumsy and aggressive if in error. Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looked like a result of your edit. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, no worries. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no worries indeed, have you considered that an apology is appropriate in such circumstances? You see 'no worries' tends to mean that you are no longer concerned about your mistake. That is discourteous. Privatemusings (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any discourtesy. It has not been my intention to offend. Durova^Charge! 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That goes a long way - hopefully it can be offered, not drawn, in future, but thanks Privatemusings (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova just finds it almost impossible to show contrition - and has no shame in drawing attention to exchanges such as the above as evidence that she is a careful, considered good egg.

It's just really really (really) weird?!

oh - and the thrilling news of the morning is that I'm writing a 'my case in a nutshell' piece, which may be interesting to some, and will appear presently.....

Does Wikipedia have any critics?

2007-11-25T20:14:00.000-08:00

It just occurred to me that I don't think a single recognised wikipedia 'Critic' exists. I think every single person that I can think of (form Daniel Brandt, to the Wikipedia Review crowd) has been firmly labeled a 'troll' or worse. Surely wikipedia can support healthy, critical discussion? - I realise this could well be an oversight on my part - so please do let me know if there are in fact any people out there who have published criticisms of Wikipedia, and not been called a troll.
?

All over Red Rover

2007-11-25T18:01:00.000-08:00

Looks like I am going to be banned permanently from editing 'BLPs' (biographies) on the back of my edits at Giovanni di Stefano. In fact - the motion already has enough votes, so I guess I actually am banned from editing BLPs.
I think that's a pathetic decision, and I certainly intend to ask calmly and politely for it to be reversed - particularly given the scandalous involvement of a separate mailing list where my blocks had been discussed from the outset. The arb case has been ludicrously and embarrassingly prejudiced.
So what kind of BLP editing results in a permanent ban?
Basically any mention of a fraud conviction, or questions surrounding GdS' qualifications.
Oh - and we're not talking about actually edit warring them into the article, or gross violations of POV - we're talking about not more than 10 edits over 2 weeks to an article, including posting quite a calm draft, followed by mere mention on the talk page.
Seriously.
My jaw is on the floor to consider that this has been seriously entertained (though sure, there's a great Arb Com case to quote to stifle other BLP pages.....).
The two arbs I have the most respect for (many I simply don't know anything of) have yet to pass comment. I wait for a light at the end of the tunnel.
Though I will not be surprised if it's an oncoming train.

Where we're at

2007-11-24T11:52:00.000-08:00

I am just hoping that the emergence of the 'secret mailing list' where blocks have been discussed and prep.d (not just mine) doesn't overshadow the whole process now.
I'm feeling a bit Groucho about it all to be honest - who'd want to be involved?
Well, me. Still.
I had a productive email correspondence with UninvitedCompany concerning the checkuser aspects of my case, and I note that he has returned to 'active duty' - I'm unsure as to what the effect of this may be.
I think I may write up some of the feelings, and effects of the block / deny / Arb com cycle, because they actually upset and stress you out more than you'd think - and I don't sense that admin.s handing out these punishments appreciate that. It's certainly far from a 'wiki-love' concept.

Sent a bunch of info to the Arb list

2007-11-23T23:17:00.000-08:00

Well I've just sent a bunch of private correspondence, and other evidence to the ArbCom mailing list. Probably as a corollary of feeling a bit glum about my prospects.
I've tried to show some ways in which I've tried to help wikipedia - and evidence the fact that I'm there in good faith, and really just want to return to editing.
I also made mention of all of the 'alternate accounts' that Guy and David have dragged up, because I felt the insinuations were piling on top of me really.
I'm not going to say too much, and hope that it suffices to cross my fingers that the Arb.s agree with me that there is nothing block worthy there at all.

(trys to work out crossed fingers shortcut, fails, and leaves.)

Ultimately

2007-11-23T21:37:00.000-08:00

I am resigning myself to the thoughts that I can't control the Arb Com's decision, and that I am not responsible for it.
:-(

Some proposed final decisions

2007-11-23T18:36:00.000-08:00

are in.

and I'm a little concerned about being permanently banned from editing articles about living people, and will likely post some kind of more detailed response sometime.

I'm losing a bit of energy and enthusiasm though :-(

no-one has yet mentioned my arbitration case, and in particular the request for disclosure of the possible 'sekrit list', at the Durova debacle RfC. I think it's relevant.

Bit down to be honest at the mo. hey ho.

Mercury Falling

2007-11-23T16:59:00.000-08:00

(which means it's getting cold)

The fact that I explain the subject of this post above is a little indicative of how I feel about the editor Mercury. I think she or he has been rather hung out to dry by some 'comrades' - she or he really does seem like a well meaning, nice editor, who is either pretending to be a little slow or.........

Either way, she or he is currently digging deeper and deeper into behaviour that's just not on - you know, appearing to be kinda less than entirely honest. I believe Mercury to still be playing a game that she or he shouldn't be, and unfortunately losing badly.

I really do think one of his friends (and I guess I mean Durova, if she's aware of Mercury's posting) should really have a quiet word and say - stop for a bit, I think it's time to come clean.

Filed my motion for dismissal

2007-11-22T20:14:00.001-08:00

And I'm relieved to be no where near the most active zone of wiki drama - Durova. Geez it's kicked off furiously there - and I see a RfC has now opened. It will be interesting, and revealing, to see whether Durova honours her commitment to stand down as an admin (she is 'open to recall').

Obviously she could just withdraw from that category, and say 'nah, I'm not gonna quit unless Arb Com fire me.' but I think she'll do the right thing eventually. Or perhaps the better analogy is that it's all over really - the tide is coming in, and she's gonna get wet feet.

Oh - and per the title of this post - I've put a 'speedy resolution' motion to the Arb.s - I really can't guess how it may be received, but I hope they'll at least consider it. I've got my fingers crossed.

More on the Star Chamber

2007-11-22T17:33:00.000-08:00

Ok - so when I finally got around to ploughing through the subpage talking all about Durova and her 'evidence' - I eventually found my way to Giano's talkpage, where he has posted some of it. I was genuinely shocked, and angered all over again (geez, you'd think I'd learn....) to discover Durova, in her first link, showing the assembled chosen few a diff of mine, somehow chosen to illustrate a 'playbook'.

The whole document is of course laughable (quite embarrassingly, ridiculously so) but the damage that editors like Durova do is very real - I have felt my blood boil, and been stressed out by the kind of flippant, 'oh this is all decided, and we're far too busy to explain why' attitude which, as it turns out, is based on lies and deceit.

A little while ago, I posted to the list that a wikipedia ethics committee might be in order. I didn't realise quite how badly it's needed.

The Star Chamber?

2007-11-22T14:16:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that I've posted a small question on the workshop talk page discussing any possible synergies between the Durova debacle currently raging, and my case. Both featured a 'small number of trusted admin.s' - and often referred to 'including members of the Arb Com' - who apparently reviewed and 'approved' the 'evidence'.
I think they're being somewhat hung out to dry here, because I suspect that all they really did was respond in good faith to an email from a friend (Guy, or Durova) without intending their response to be relied upon. That certainly explains their lack of comment 'on-wiki'.
Unfortunately - they are culpable, and it really really stinks for this information to remain veiled.
Right now, I can legitimately claim that there is a small, secret group of admin.s who work together to issue indefinite blocks. And that's wrong.

A couple of questions and answers

2007-11-22T14:10:00.000-08:00

Well, I had a few questions, and notes arrive via email, with some people asking for a bit more information about what it is that I've done exactly.

It's a good question. Basically the answer is that I was heavily involved with the discussions about 'BADSITES' - that is whether or not Wikipedia should have 'site bans' on linking to sites that are viewed as 'attack' sites. I disagreed with almost all aspects of that, philosophically and pragmatically. The true heart of my block lies in the irritation caused by that disagreement.

Specfically however, the two separate events which led to my banning are the editing here,
and here.

The former has all revisions still intact, for the interested, and the later has had several deletions and partial recreations - following the not terribly controversial post that you'll find in the 'truthiness' post (basically just collecting 8 sources from other editors' work).

That's it I'm afraid! Wierd, huh??

happy thanksgiving

2007-11-22T03:07:00.000-08:00

I was half minded to propose a remedy that I be unblocked and allowed to eat turkey, but I'm not sure that the process would enjoy such humor.

I may yet though...!

it's underway

2007-11-21T22:35:00.001-08:00

and the arb. is off...... Luckily Mercury's suggestion wasn't accepted, and after fairly concise, sensible comment, the arb case has been accepted.

Interesting posts which leaped off the page were;

I should add: I was only concerned with the use of multiple accounts for drama. I have not looked into PM's editing career itself. I have no problem with PM having only one account and sticking to it - but the edits will I expect be a matter for the AC to consider - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

which struck me as interesting that an indefinite blocking admin would say 'I have not looked into PM's editing...' !

I also seriously wondered if Guy had had a bit of a realisation whilst writing up the extent of the crimes and misdemeanors.. I thought this was rather...um.. weak;

Editing interests such as Michele Ferrari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Max Mosley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Jonathan King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) suggest that the reason for moving away from an account traceable to RWI was precisely to engage in editing of controversial content.

The various accounts edit overlapping subject areas. For example, Purples edited Jonathan King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Privatemusings edited Giovanni di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), King's lawyer. See [1] for one of Purples' edits to Jonathan King

In the first post, I can only guess that he believes those articles to be 'hot potatoes' - which of course they're not really, or at least not enough to imply that my motivations were somehow nefarious. In the 2nd post, I think he's trying to imply that this amounts to a violation of the 'sock' policy which says you mustn't have two accounts editing on the same pages, or pages which have a substantial connection (and it's interesting that he cherry picks an edit which may on first impressions look aggressively controversial - of course, in context, it's not). My reading was always that the no-no in the 'sock' policy was to give the impression of multiple voices in support of a particular viewpoint, or particular content. I don't really think that even Guy would think that was the case.

The new 'evidence' page makes heartening reading - first we have Guy's section, which is focused more on prose and insinuation than many actual diff.s or other evidence. I can't review it all, because some of it is now visible only to admin.s (I've made a note at a talk page on that) - but I feel fairly happy that the info. seems to me to be pretty weak.

Kendrick7 is an editor I haven't come across before this process, and his evidence is very clear and straight forward - it's really just a blow by blow of what actually happened - and when presented in that fashion, to me, the slightly silly nature of my block comes into focus. I also appreciate his sense of humour, and other contributions so far to the case.

It also gives me heart to see the early contributions from the active Arb.s - particularly the note that hopefully this case may not drag too long.

More anon.

The case has been requested

2007-11-19T20:01:00.000-08:00

and my first thought was (yet again) genuine surprise that Mercury would request that the case be rejected, and me re-blocked. To my mind, that really doesn't reflect well on her / him.

Secondly, re : Involved Parties, I hadn't really understood quite how that bit works - but so far we have the blocking admin. and Fred.

Fred's put his point across - that I have been distinctly unhelpful over a period of time - and it'll be interesting to see how that might be evaluated.

I really must try and figure out what all the subpages are really for, and how they work - but at this point I feel rather worried that Mercury's suggestion will be taken up.

tea is required.......

Involved Parties !

2007-11-19T17:54:00.000-08:00

A twofold question which has been on my mind since the realisation that an Arb Com was looking inevitable, firstly - who on earth are the involved parties?

I'm not really a subscriber to the fallacy that all admin.s who have commented on a case are 'involved' - but the trouble with working out how to apply that in my context, is that I really can't see who is involved!

This of course relates to the fundamentally vague nature of allegations. Perhaps only myself and the other editors at Giovanni di Stefano should be named - but that would only make sense on the premise that my block is solely related to my editing there, which doesn't really make sense to me. Also, it would have the strange corollary of involving DAlbury (who I respect as a rigourous but fair editor, despite our mild exchange on that talk page), and whom I don't feel is more than incredibly peripherally involved. Hmmmmm

To name almost anyone other than me as an involved party to me seems to somewhat open the floodgates.

Secondly - it will be interesting to see which Arbitrators recuse themselves. To me it is self evident that Fred should, and given that Jpgordon, and Morven have already issued judgments in my case, it's clear to me that they should step aside also. I'm not sure on the protocols of if / when / how my views on this may be heard or considered, but it will be interesting none the less.

hmmmmmmm.

Looks Like an Arb Com

2007-11-19T17:09:00.001-08:00

Various kind and wise souls on the side of angels continue to make small points on-wiki, and off wiki communications no doubt continue on all sides, but it looks as though this one is going to head to Arb Com.

I don't really have too much more to say other than the assertions which remain undiscussed on my talk page, and I'm genuinely concerned that this will not be a healthy process.

I would very much like to simply return to mundane editing, pending further discussion and resolution of the sourcing issues discussed below - I think that would be a better choice, but of course the decision is not mine. :-(

Oh well

2007-11-19T11:18:00.001-08:00

I do feel this is rather sad. My indef. block has been upheld, by many of the folk who have upheld it all along. I've left a bunch of assertions on my talk page - but can't help feeling that one aspect of the complexity of the situation (with thanks to those who have pointed this out via email) is how incredibly hard it seems to be to get the variety of people who are very very sure that I should be banned to explain clearly and concisely (well actually, to explain at all!) why.

Lots of the worst aspect of community discussion - you know, the 'ol - this has all been discussed, and loads of non specific allusion to badness. My take is that some of these editors are responding (completely honestly) from their instincts, but that the perspective on which they chose to base their instincts is very flawed, and hasn't been constructed with any rigour. I'm afraid that's simply not right.

I certainly feel that the 'guilty until proven innocent' line that I took to be nonsense coming from so many quarters has rather more truth to it than is comfortable for a healthy community.

At the risk of banging on once more - I thought I'd drag out a couple of good points (made by good people), and a couple of bad ones...first, ElinorD responding to 'would you support a unblock with caveats' and someone having said 'No.';

Neither would I. He gave an assurance in the past to edit only from one account, and broke it. His gossip page, his excessively polite goading of Essjay, his constant stirring up of drama, show that he is not, and never was, here for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia. If he wants to appeal to ArbCom, he can email them. ElinorD (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the substantive issue of 'did I make an assurance, and break it?' - Elinor is correct, and is owed an explanation. I noticed that the people at Wikipedia Review had started discussing me (just chatting about which other editors I might be really) - and I saw that someone made the connection between Privatemusings and Purples. Having read reams from sources I had no reason not to trust about the 'poison' and 'filth' that goes on at that forum, I made a fairly snap (as in not particularly thought out) decision to make, I think, 2 more posts as 'Purples' in an attempt to cast at least a little doubt on that conclusion. I accept utterly, that my decision was a poor one, for many reasons. Now Slim, responding to a proposal from NewYorkBrad to unblock (again with caveats)........

Brad, I would not support the unblocking of this user. He has caused too much controversy, used too many accounts, and continues to insist he sees nothing controversial in his edits, which suggests the same behavior will continue. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Slim continues to be an editor I respect alot - her contribution list is fearsome, and I think she does outstanding work. She also continues to make sense, because this post sums up the truth of the matter, or more specifically, the truth of her perspective, very very clearly. I have used three accounts, for reasons shared with many an admin over several weeks - these may well emerge further here. And particularly recently, I have certainly caused controversy. I absolutely don't deny these key points - and most importantly, I absolutely do see that my edits are controversial. Two broad responses; Firstly I have been genuinely suprised at how my desire to discuss sourcing has been received at 'Giovanni di Stefano' - see below for an edit that was deemed to require a page deletion - and secondly, I hope I have been very clear that my assertion is strongly that we have to have to have to at least discuss some kind of framework for how an article can be maintained and developed in that climate.

Sometimes I have felt Fred in particular to prefer to play the boss with his head in the sand....

Deciding whether a particular source is a reliable source is a matter of sound editorial judgment. Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it. Or posting about it to wiken, or to policy pages. If voluntary recognition of his limitations is not forthcoming, an indefinite ban would be appropriate. He says over and over that he doesn't understand, and I agree. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The sound editorial judgment has led to every single source mentioning a qualifications issue, or a fraud conviction, being judged utterly unreliable. That Fred refuses to see this as surprising, or unusual, or worthy of discussion is odd. That he further uses that judgment as a basis for a recommendation for an indefinite ban is chilling. And a quick analysis of Durova's contribution - this is currently the most substantive analysis (in terms of diff.s and evidence) of the block rationale;

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input.[8] So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision.[9][10][11] One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion.[12] Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the sole post to date with any diff.s - and does contain the clear asssertioon that I have been blocked for disruption, and here are examples of the disruption. I thought I'd respond to it clearly. I think it's fair to boil Durova's reasoning for my indefinite block to the diff.s she provided - [9][10][11] - and herein lies the problem, because even now, I really really really find it hard to figure out why Durova believes that behaviour warrants an indefinite block.

Hey ho. Sorry for the dull long post - I console myself with the fact that the only person I'm really boring is myself!

PM

Strange Days

2007-11-18T17:14:00.000-08:00

Well, it's been a really wierd one! - My talk page has been deleted and recreated a few times, folk commenting are getting 'be careful' messages - mind you, I'm sending 'be careful' messages to the various editors in touch via email! - It's all a bit negative, and crazy.

I was once of the opinion that all wiki business should be handled 'on-wiki' - and despite never really changing my mind, I find myself in fairly intense email correspondence with various editors. I know that I'm a little clouded through being knackered and angry and upset, but I really feel that moving away from openness is dangerous for a community - and it seems to be ironically a function of 'power users' wishing to aggressively protect themselves.

I've got a whole extra bit on this that I'll write up and post sometime.

I still remain hopeful that the dust will settle soon, and my indef block will be lifted.

...hungry now..........

Wikipedia : The limits and dangers of truthiness.

2007-11-18T11:48:00.000-08:00

At this stage, I still have hope that my Wikipedia situation can be amicably resolved, but I am keen to have a calm workspace to air my thoughts, hence this post.

I'm an interested, occasionally motivated, but fundamentally quite mundane editor over there who has now been 'indefinitely blocked' from editing several times. In my opinion, essentially for disagreeing with some powerful editors.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, and ins and outs of mine and others' behaviour, I've noticed more and more a scary tendency for 'truthiness' to play a role in both dispute resolution, and in the decision making processes of editors who should know better (the oft referred to 'cabal' - which more accurately is a fairly disparate, but very 'wiki-powerful' group of individuals).

Specifically today, there's a feeling being spread and nurtured that I have been 'trolling' the Wikipedia article page about Giovanni di Stefano - a colourful and controversial lawyer. The idea that I am being disruptive, and not just trying to get to the bottom of something is an idea that once planted, the seed grows, and quietly and insidiously my integrity is undermined.

I haven't been trolling at all, and my contributions there (as I would assert elsewhere, and everywhere) are sound. Please (please please) ask for a 'diff' or any other evidence at all should you wish to take a look at the truth, not the truthiness of the situation. For the record, here is the post which led to the article, and talk page being deleted and recreated;

The following are all from publications widely used as reliable sources throughout the wiki, for both straightforward, and controversial claims. To use a fairly common, but sensitive example, we are happy to use many of the following as a source for a conviction, or notable personal scandal. Could we please please please go through these one by one and work out if any are 'allowed'.

I'm still trying to understand if we are rejecting every single one currently, and why;

*The independent mentions a fraud conviction.

*Irish times April 20, 2006 mentions a fraud conviction

*new zealand herald mentions a fraud conviction

*Variety mentions a fraud conviction

*The US District Court mentions a fraud conviction

*The Guardian mentions qualifications issues and a fraud conviction

*The Scotsman mentions qualifications issues and a fraud conviction

*The Guardian again mention the qualifications issues and the fraud conviction.

This is of course a collation of previous editors' work - thanks to all. ~~~~

The posturing and misrepresentation of my contributions sickens me, and in this arena, truthiness causes significant damage to community morale, as well as being just plain wrong.

Finally (because let's face it, this isn't all that interesting really) - I'd say to all to tread carefully. I believe admin 'JzG' to have acted unethically in sharing privately submitted information online, I believe admin 'David Gerard' to have irresponsibly published this information online, and at this stage, I know nothing more of admin. Mercury than the fact that he appears to be a useful admin, acting in misguided good faith.

that's all folks.
PM

ps. I would support the right of any editor, in any circumstance, to post in this manner, without further ugly aspersions being cast on them whilst working 'on-wiki'. An indefinite block leaves one reeling, and to desire to have a voice is a powerful human urge from which I am not exempt. I hope you feel the same way.

Just some private musings

2007-11-15T13:00:00.000-08:00

I AM FURIOUS!

... - trying to calm down a little. This blog will just be a collection of my thoughts and observations on matters that interest me (or upset me, or anger me).

First time blogger, so this is somewhat of a test also!