Bollocks. If you had "ample evidence", we wouldn't be being told that it didn't even convince a majority of your own colleagues, and it could have been acted on in a way that doesn't have all the hallmarks of an emergency situation (as in they were one day away from becoming an Administrator).Bully Bullshitter wrote:I can only assure you all that there is ample evidence
You sound like you're trying to overstate the certainty and downplay the rush of building the case against Icewhiz.
Eh? Well, you apper to have just tipped Icewhizz off that it wasn't anything he did publicly as Eostrix that aroused suspicions, so that would be hugely beneficial, no?Bully Bullshitter wrote:we obviously cannot share [the ample evidence] as it is both private and would only provide Icewhiz with more information as to how we were able to make this determination.
And if it is private, what would it matter what Icewhiz could do with it, you wouldn't be allowed to release regardless.
You sound like you're trying to manufacture excuses for why you can't tell people what the basis is for the block.
Uh huh. And is there a reason why you're neglecting to tell people that of the three CheckUsers you consulted, "none were willing to give it a "confirmed" ruling, and two of the three emphasized that any potential block would have to be based on behaviour". Is that private too, perhaps?Bully Bullshitter wrote:Our investigation was fairly involved, far beyond a usual checkuser investigation, and we did consult with some members of the CU team for second opinions before acting.
You appear to be trying to mask the fact that this block is based primarily on behavioural evidence or other information, rather than CheckUser data. Is this because you know, out of the three, there's only one class of evidence that Wikipedia editors are trained to never ask to see?
Uh huh. And is the name of this hero beginning with a B perhaps?Bully Bullshitter wrote:This was a very determined, carefully planned attempt to fool the community, and it nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship.
Did he doggedly pursue this issue with his friends at Wikipediocracy, perhaps?
And how does "carefully planned" and "nearly succeeded" were it not for our one brave hero, square with this idea there is "ample evidence"?
Did he have to really try hard to convince his colleagues on ArbCom? Doesn't sound right, if what they had uncovered was "ample" and the result of a thorough investigation that allegedly multiple people were involved in.
And there is an implication here that they might never have been blocked, had they not run for Admin? Strange. You are presumably seeing all the comments that allege Icewhiz was apparently such a danger that nobody should really have been thinking they could put this on the back burner until he gained the minor technical tools of Admin?
Given your recent comments on Wikipediocracy about how you [ArbCom] don't "go after" people you merely investigate what is put before you, could you clarify for the record whether or not this investigation was begun by an ArbCom member, either off their own back or as a result of a report, and when and how involved other ArbCom members were?
You appear to he wanting ArbCom to take credit for what could very well have been the diligent work of an ordinary editor, if not in whole then in part, and they only had to get you chumps involved because "private".
See above.Bully Bullshitter wrote:The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool......For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox.
There appears to be a concerted effort to give people a reason they cannot ask what this evidence is, but also to get people to believe it rests on something other than the often quote fallible investigative abilities of one or more Arbitrators. I.e. that it does at least rest in part on the reassuringly unbiased and unquestionably correct positive or or extremely likely finding that can come from a CheckUser, which we now know, doesn't exist.
Well, as we have seen, your elaborations have already been sufficient to give Icewhiz lots of clues about where he went wrong.Bully Bullshitter wrote:Icewhiz was very careful here. Obviously I can't elaborate on what gave them away, but it wasn't exactly straightforward.
You appear to be wanting people to think this investigation was more than just a routine matter, when it should hardly be a surprise to anyone that handling complex and convoluted cases is preciesly what ArbCom is for, especially involving confidentiality.
If it wasn't straightforward, and indeed if Icewhiz has been "very careful", then again, why the use of the word "ample", which implies multiple different means with which an Investigator or one of your colleagues could satisfy themselves that this is a sound block.
The phrase "gave them away" also seems to imply that somewhere here in this allegedly private evidence there is as smoking gun, an irrefutable piece of hard evidence linking Icewhiz and Eostrix, which hardly jives with the uncertainty in your own colleagues.
You appear to be trying to overstate the connection, or otherwise mask the weakness of the case, while playing up the role of whichever genius it was who allegedly cracked this code.
That's a strange template to use when it appears there wasn't any such finding among the CheckUsers you consulted.Bully Bullshitter wrote:This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Icewhiz
Again, it appears you are trying to attach an unassailable air to a block which increasingly looks like it was the result of good old fashioned and of course quite fallible gum shoeing, and by a determined pursuer at that, not a CheckUser investigation, and this was done by only a handful if not one ArbCom member at that. People who are given the CheckUser tool automatically as a matter of practicality/rank, with no requirement or expectation that they are proficient or experienced in its usage.
If only there was an independent Wikipedia criticism forum out there where Beeblebrox is a member and you could ask him about these apparent discrepancies.....Bully Bullshitter wrote:
If it were me, I'd ask him if these strange contradictions and redundancies and overall flair for the dramatic and hint at personal heroics wasn't a transparent attempt to get people to vote for him at the upcoming ArbCom election.
Are you doing all right Jake?
Been a good day for you has it? Still making you look good am I?
Be a dear and pass my concerns on to your friend, not that I want to do anything to interrupt your special times together.
Sell out piece of shit.