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.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:30:22 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
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
You think. But that's not actually what I said. I said I shared it with a few trusted individuals, and that's what I did.
- Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me,
and then reviewed that block.
Fellow *admins* reviewed that block. There was also a discussion on the admin noticeboards. And the consensus was that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive, but that you should be allowed to continue editing with one account. Which, as you will no doubt fail to acknowledge, is precisely how I left matters, explicitly stating that I would quietly lift any autoblocks.
Your block was based 100% on your on-wiki behaviour, which is precisely why your arbitration case looks set to endorse the view that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive.
- 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
And? They are not the only people offering opinions, and you do not know who is and who is not on the list.
I'm no User:!!, but I've fiddled away trying to help at the encyclopedia for about 3 years, and am now indefinitely blocked.
No you;re not, you are undergoing an arbitration case which looks set to endorse the finding that your use of EIGHT separate accounts was well outside policy and community consensus. Stick to one account and steer clear of controversial subjects and you will be fine.
Your problems are entirely the result of your own actions, and absolutely not the result of some secret cabal. There is no cabal.
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.
You are applying reverse logic, reasoning form the position that because you think you did nothing wrong, and others disagree, then necessarily they are part of some grand conspiracy. This is fallacious reasoning. You are in trouble because you chose to edit war over one of the most contentious biographies currently on the project, and you chose to edit war with an arbitrator. In case you had not worked it out by now, this was jaw droppingly bad judgment.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 27, 2007 9:21 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:30:22 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
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
You think. But that's not actually what I said. I said I shared it with a few trusted individuals, and that's what I did.
- Fellow list members 'reviewed' Guy's blocking of me, reblocked me,
and then reviewed that block.
Fellow *admins* reviewed that block. There was also a discussion on the admin noticeboards. And the consensus was that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive, but that you should be allowed to continue editing with one account.
This is the point at which my remarks, and those of others on the Durova thread, on the 'echo chamber' of these lists becomes relevant: the subsequent discussion at the admin noticeboard, where some people already seemingly have their minds made up in advance of those seeing the information for the first time. This is bad structure for efficient decisionmaking if those seeing the evidence for the first time aren't really representative of opinion.
Your block was based 100% on your on-wiki behaviour, which is precisely why your arbitration case looks set to endorse the view that your use of multiple accounts was disruptive.
No you;re not, you are undergoing an arbitration case which looks set to endorse the finding that your use of EIGHT separate accounts was well outside policy and community consensus.
I had no idea that voting had begun. Lets not pre-judge that one, shall we? There are a few issues involved there which you're both glossing over.
RR
On 27/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:30:22 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
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
You think. But that's not actually what I said. I said I shared it with a few trusted individuals, and that's what I did.
Here we go again. Trusted by whom? Trusted to do what?