User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2023/August

Latest comment: 8 months ago by GeneralNotability in topic Smartmarty123

Wikidata weekly summary #587

Tech News: 2023-31

MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #588

Tech News: 2023-32

MediaWiki message delivery 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Firefangledfeathers
 

  Interface administrator changes

  Novem Linguae

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #589

Revoke TPA

78.180.247.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Trolling on their talk page after being blocked for block evasion. — Prodraxis {talkcontribs} (she/her) 14:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-33

MediaWiki message delivery 05:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

Wikidata weekly summary #590

Tech News: 2023-34

15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Issues related to my topic ban

Hello GeneralNotability, I'd like to discuss something related to my topic ban. Since this question directly concerns my topic ban itself and what's necessary to appeal it, I think I'm allowed to ask about it here under the exception to topic bans listed at WP:BANEX.

As I'm sure you're aware, the reason I'm topic banned is for promoting a "conspiracy theory"; the one that I described in my comment in this discussion. I mentioned there that outside of Wikipedia this "conspiracy theory" has been largely accepted, and you advised me, "If the circumstances surrounding you TBAN have changed, the correct response would have been to appeal it, not to ignore it." Some additional evidence about this came to light last month, but I've also realized there is an issue that prevents me from following the advice you gave me there. I'd like to discuss what would be the correct way forward.

Summary of new evidence

First, please be aware of this article on Substack, particularly the section titled "RationalWiki's parody content". That article is primarily about RationalWiki, but the linked section also describes how the user responsible for most of that site's parody material, the banned user Deleet, also has added similar material in Wikipedia articles, and what account here he has used for that. That article refers to Deleet by his real name, but linking to that post that is not outing because he gave his real name on his Wikipedia user page.

Substack presumably is not a RS, but ArbCom should be aware of that article because Deleet almost certainly is one of its authors, so there he is obliquely taking credit in public for his "demonstrations of how easily Wikipedia can be exploited" (that is a direct quote from the Substack post). No one aside from Deleet would know all the details described there about customs authorities searching his computer, or the advice he was given by his legal team while suing someone. These details that nobody else could know are described in the sections titled "A change of targets" and "The legal status of RationalWiki articles".

He has more overtly taken credit in this comment:

That's the only parody article I've created from this account, but both this site and Wikipedia are now loaded with similar parody material. As for what other accounts we've used here or there, that's for you to try and guess. ... As long as my WP antiracist act stays mostly convincing, everyone who knows about this experiment and brings it up in public there gets punished for promoting a "bizarre conspiracy theory".

The mention of Wikipedia editors being punished for bringing up his "experiment" in public is apparently referring to the reason I was topic banned, and the reason Gardenofaleph was indefinitely blocked. The account that posted this comment, "Kfotfo", is the original account that Deleet used to add parody material mocking leftist views on intelligence, beginning in 2018, a little over a year before this experiment spread to Wikipedia. The article created from that account (about Richard Haier) was deleted last month, but the fact that he was its creator is mentioned in this discussion.

Finally, I want to bring ArbCom's attention to this comment. If what that person is saying is correct, there are several other users aside from me who have privately contacted ArbCom about this issue, and presented additional evidence about it, including Ferahgo the Assassin and DGG. Again, I'm not arguing that post is a RS, but if those other people did indeed contact ArbCom about the same issue, ArbCom should be able to verify that from their own records. Perhaps Ferahgo could confirm that she contacted ArbCom about it, and that in response they told her it could only be addressed in a public arbitration request, yet simultaneously discouraged her from making one?

By taking credit in public for his Wikipedia "experiment", Deleet is not only mocking other people at RationalWiki; he's also mocking ArbCom. He clearly does not expect ArbCom to ever do anything about this. Whether that assumption is correct or not, I think at least my topic ban ought to be re-evaluated now that the person I accused of being responsible is gloating about it in public.

Here's the problem: my topic ban was imposed by the Wikipedia community, not by ArbCom, so my understanding of how sanctions work is that only the community has the power to remove it. But it's clear from the last comment I linked above is that a large portion of the evidence about Deleet's WP "experiment" has been submitted to ArbCom privately, including the evidence that I submitted to ArbCom in 2020. Since much this evidence is private, I don't believe making public a topic ban appeal with a full summary of the evidence would actually be possible.

Here is my most important question: is there any way to have ArbCom make a public statement, such as a finding of fact, summarizing all of what they know about this issue, including both the public and private evidence, while redacting any information (real names, private emails, etc.) that can't be posted in public? I think it's reasonable to request such a statement from ArbCom now, and also realistically speaking, it's extremely unlikely the community would accept a topic ban appeal from me unless something like what I'm suggesting could happen first. 2600:1004:B11D:E9D:C4AF:7F57:214C:519C (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted for the SmallCat dispute case

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Hello, since you have experience with this case, I was wondering if you could take a look at this SPI when you have time. Thank you. --Griboski (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Smartmarty123

Would you mind revoking TPA for this chap Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

(I personally wouldn't mind being compared to Fanny Price, but oh well.)[Joke] Firestar464 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Firestar464 I'm inclined to leave it for now, given that they haven't edited in two days. (And my appreciation to Ponyo for the decline reason) GeneralNotability (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)