Do we have people in the Wikimedia community credulous enough to believe that he's posted the comprehensive list? He's been boggling people for years like its his job, why should anyone think he has stopped now? Nathan

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: Provisionally, treat that as interim, not final. I'm still working on this case and Poetlister is quite keenly aware where I'm at on it. He knows the focus of this investigation, and I've spelt out how I will progress it if I'm not personally convinced it's cleaned up and ready to be put to bed. The rest can probably be most effectively followed up by private discussion, so I probably won't say much more here. Just to say,he is dealing with people who weren't fooled first time, or second time. So we're getting on with it. How much that involves, is ultimately in his court not mine though. FT2

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Christiano Moreschi < moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk&gt; wrote: For some reason the wikiquote impostor Crum375 has not yet been renamed despite now being admitted as a bad faith creation. There are few things on Wikimedia projects which are utterly inexplicable but this is certainly one of them. -- Sam Blacketer

Another good point. It's really a syndrome of "en's younger brothers" mentality. Said syndrome is usually marked by far more relaxed discipline than on en, and considerable antipathy towards en people who dare suggest that en standards might actually be better. This mentality, as I read it, is how Poetlister got a foot in the door at WQ: how the accounts there still aren't all banned and retain most privileges, how an attempt to merely tag them as socks based on FT2's meta report got reverted, and it also explains this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#admin_abuse:_block_on_wikitionary Personally, I think some chips need to come off shoulders here. There needs to be greater cross-project cooperation, not pointless hostility for the sake of it. CM Odi profanum vulgus et arceo. _________________________________________________________________ Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/

David, Chris, please cool and let it lay. Those who are involved in the decision can see clearly what happened, and draw their own conclusions. It doesn't help anyone here to keep on about it. I'm sure they will deal with it at some time, and until then nobody will be misled by its existance. Looking at who got fooled... overall, many people, on multiple wikis, got fooled, as a community. The enwiki voices were also highly vocal in enabling, and in being willing to trustquestionable sources. It's not just "one party" or "one side" that helped this happen. We all did, and that's the only basis of understanding we can improve for the future, with. Enwiki Arbcom has learned -- the Archtransit and Poetlister cases in 2008 stand in contrast to the original Runcorn ban in 2007. Both had much more complete disclosure, to minimize risk of "smoke" and rumor. That was a direct lesson for us from that earlier case. A lesson for the wider enwiki community is, when we say X is not actually good evidence, or Y is disproven, we might actually know what we're talking about, and take it seriously rather than "politicizing" it. We shouldn't presume to tell other wiki communities (or indeed WR) what to make of the case - they're figuring out their own views on what went on and will do so without interference from others. FT2 On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:59 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: