ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
michaeldsuarez
Sucks
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:50 am

ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by michaeldsuarez » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:41 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/24/wikipedia-change-reasons-banning-editor/

Basically, in January 2016, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) banned "The Devil's Advocate" for uncovering the conflict of interests (COI) activities of a Wikipedia sysop. The Devil's Advocate didn't share his findings in public; instead, he confronted the sysop in private via Email.

The Wikipedia ArbCom later banned The Devil's Advocate, accusing him of harassment but without reveal the specifics (e.g. who he was accused of harassing). The ban came as a surprise; The Devil's Advocate wasn't aware that ArbCom was judging him and ArbCom never allowed Advocate to defend himself prior to the ban. The Devil's Advocate only learned of the rationale for his ban later.

To this day, The Devil's Advocate refuses to disclose who the COI sysop was, much to the frustration of observers and those who wish to see justice done.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by Flip Flopped » Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:57 pm

How many times has Breitbart covered TDA's cause?


User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by Flip Flopped » Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:33 am

Thanks for those links, MDS. I'll go check out who wrote them.

I wonder if Breitbart is generally open to articles that criticize the WP bureaucracy or if they would only want to print articles that have a nexus with other topics they tend to highlight. I'm wondering if TDA made this an issue their outlet wanted to cover.

User avatar
Joe Hazelton
Sucks
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:52 am
Location: 3rd Large rock from the sol

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by Joe Hazelton » Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:18 pm

Wikipedia is a blight on the internet. whats is evil about wikipedia is that, from a cursory look at Wikipedia, it appears to be legitimate but
as we all know here Wikipedia is a cesspool of hate, corruption, lies, run by secretive Jagoffs, that are psychos with bad wire and with napoleon
complexes....

Wikipedia should never never be consider to be accurate and information on it reliable in any way. Wikipedia information is like
go to the local gin mill, sitting at the bar and talking to the person next to you about advice on your medical problem. That
person could be a brilliant doctor, OR the local town drunk who wouldn't know scab from canker.

Wikipedia is a Joke and no right person should give penny one to it... The world would be a better place
if it would wink out of existence...
Wikipedia - Where Truth goes to die.
Not all thugs are Wikipediots, but all Wikipediots are thugs

User avatar
Mutineer
Sucks Fan
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:11 pm

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by Mutineer » Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:25 pm

TRANSLATION: ARB-SPEAK TO ENGLISH

(From arbitrator Euryalus' email to TDA, published at Breitbart.com.)

ARB-SPEAK: "The Committee has considered your ban appeal and declined to unban your account."

ENGLISH: One or other of us combed your editing record, and found stuff to snipe at. It might actually even just be me Euryalus saying "the Committee has considered," we surely didn't take a vote on it and most of us didn't opine at all.

ARB-SPEAK: "This is based on a review of your editing record as well as the various emails you’ve sent to the Committee since the ban was imposed. On balance, after reviewing your edits and emails we were unconvinced that you would change your tendentious approach to editing if the ban was lifted."

ENGLISH: We're not going to give you an example. We're well aware this is something entirely different than what you were banned for. We've unfairly moved the goalposts, and we don't care.

ARB-SPEAK: "You may appeal again in 12 months (ie March 2018). Emails sent to the Committee before then may not be responded to. This is also true of any emails intended for the Committee but sent to individual arbitrators."

ENGLISH: You've been othered and you'll never be unbanned. But we'd like to keep you hanging on year after year because we have sadistic tendencies. We look forward to ignoring your emails, increasing your uncertainty as to whether we even got them through use of list moderators and refusal to even acknowledge them. We look forward to denying you again next year.

ARB-SPEAK: "You also asked for clarification on a current community discussion on harassment. That discussion was not relevant to your ban appeal, and played no part in the Committee’s consideration of this issue."

ENGLISH: We banned you for the harassment we alleged, but we don't care about that anymore. We'll just blindside you now by alleging you're tendentious.

(Post edited, format only.)
I am "Modsquad" here, and participate, but I don't want you to think we can't have an angry argument.

User avatar
Flip Flopped
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:38 am

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by Flip Flopped » Tue Apr 04, 2017 2:56 am

Good translation, Mutineer. I don't know how TDA can stand communicating with ArbCom. Good for Breitbart that they are giving this some coverage.

User avatar
WWHP
Sucks
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:31 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: ArbCom refuses to unban The Devil's Advocate

Post by WWHP » Tue Apr 04, 2017 4:08 am

hi everyone - it's been a minute!

I imagine breitbart is covering this because of gamergate, not because of any genuine issue with Wikipedia broadly.

I just see this as sjw's vs the alt right culture wars playing out wherever and however they can.

online, they both suck, imho

Post Reply