I noticed a couple of interesting archivals this morning on the evidence section of MZM's Arbcom case, with the sections moved to the "arbcom wiki".

While I'm not surprised they use a private wiki (we used one on WV for the JWS stuff), I'm curious why they'd take those particular sections, they don't seem to be fully relevant to the case but might be used in some other case? Does Arbcom collect "intelligence" on wp editors?

Well, Duh …

Jon

I think it is more to do with ArbCom not being happy that the case is being used by Durova to perpetuate her feud with Greg. Noticeable are comments like "flat out statement of fact" referring to an exaggerated description of Greg's Cafe Press joke (which was very amusing, and was a genuinely amusing) and the extrapolation of that childish fun in Greg putting a picture on a variety of products that happened to be around into it now being presented as the stalking actions of some sexist creepy perv (she pretends that comments of a bunch of sycophants that she quotes are worthy evidence of a horrified impartial community). I loved her comment about being a veteran who has let much worse roll off her back - well she hasn't let this roll after how many years now?

Durova is a classic Wikipedian, talks all high and mighty and plays the thoughtful mature discussion card, but underneath she is just a silly girl with an inflated sense of self-worth playing games on a silly web site.

Well, that makes perfect sense for why they removed it, but doesn't explain why they would move it to the arbcom wiki. It's pure bile and conjecture, so it's hard to see why they would keep it.

Does make one wonder who's "file" this might go in: MZM's? Greg's? Durova's?

The more enlightened members of ArbCom probably realize that the official process that allows wannabe politicians and drive by Wikipedians to comment on anything without filters for relevance or standing is destructive to anything like resolving disputes or making decisions. This nonsense does much to give the whole thing a pillory aspect. Their private wiki probably allows them to ignore this noise to some extent. Odd that they don't address the flawed process. Probably just too ingrained in Wiki culture and they are themselves too much the politicians. This has been a long standing criticism of mine, known to many ArbCom members who come to WR. I don't expect attribution though.

While I may not be Durova's biggest fan (it irks me every time she appears somewhere and offers advice while plugging her digital restorations) and people should realize never to give your enemies or the internet at large photos of you, that prank is something a child would do; it's pathetic, not funny. It's one more example of how Kohs pretends to take the high road but is as bad as any internet troll or Wikipedian.

Well, that's where you are relying on opinion masking as fact.

Indeed, there is a phrase describing Greg's behaviour because adults do it all the time - "a childish prank". Just because a prank is childish does not exclude it from being witty or humorous, indeed sometimes the real joy of a prank like that is because of its childish nature. TV is filled with such programmes, and one thing you learn as you grow older is that having spent your childhood longing to discover maturity, you will spend your mature years trying to cast it off again. Maturity is vastly overrated.

I also think you are extremely stupid if you think that Greg has any illusions of the Cafe Press prank being anything other than it was, and I very much doubt he would be so deluded as to think it represented any high road.

Begone thou Wikipedian apologist vermin!

I don't know from Durova; I have never followed her exploits closely. But that is an excellent description of the classic Wikipedian.

Indeed! Look at this pathetic, childish prank! Another comic strip artist who pretends to take the high road but is as bad as any blue state troll or fan of Keith Olberman.

Durova should have been completely left alone during her run for the Arbitration Committee, even while she was spying on and cooking up misleading conjectures about User:!!, all conveniently communicated on a secret mailing list hosted by Wikia, Inc., with the secret headquarters and secret mailing address and secret phone number. Kohs was reprehensible when he put up that Cafe Press shop that had no sales, other than one campaign lapel pin that Kohs bought for himself as a lasting memory of the joke. Indeed, I have heard Kohs say that he would have taken down the entire Cafe Press store (not just the underwear!) if Lise Broer had simply contacted him personally and asked him to remove it. What a hypocrite!

You are SO RIGHT, BelovedFox. May I have your real name, so that I might be able to send you some chocolates as a "thank you"?

Sure, it would be much better to close the doors a bit (though hard to do since such a move would be met by screams of "Cabal! Cabal!" and an epidemic of hair pulling. However, that doesn't explain why they'd put this on the private wiki.

Come to think of it though, mentioning the move to the private wiki in the archive comment could just be a bone thrown to Durova ("don't worry, we're not ignoring you!"), which frankly isn't any better since it just encourages her to do similar things in the future.

I believe these edit summaries were politically calculated. By that I mean regardless of the underlying truth, they figured statements of "moved to arbwiki" would upset fewer people than "moved to /dev/null".

I hate to admit it, but they were probably right. Faith in invisible hands and all that.

My point is if they have no intention to consider this evidence they should say so straight out.

Now see, you should have offered to send a thong.

Obviously you're losing your touch.

There's many good reasons why voluntary associations are strongly urged to conduct disciplinary hearings in private. Wikipedia's dogged commitment to "radical transparency" adds way more heat than light to the disciplinary process (and let's be clear that Wikipedia arbitration is a disciplinary process, not a "dispute resolution" process: ArbCom does not resolve disputes). That they persist in such idiotic practices is more telling than anything else about their commitment to "all drama, all the time".

Kirill's motion resolving the BLP deletions matter was then manner in which virtually all cases should be resolved. This stupid game with weeks or even months of dramatic public sniping and posturing needs to be deleted entirely from the community's mindset. Yeah, doing so would cause some people to leave, but really they're exactly the people who you want to leave.

I wonder if the ArbCom would be interested in the fact that Durova cooperated with her "harasser" as recently as July 2009, to perform a restoration task on a photo of the harasser's father (at age 16 or 17), supplied by the harasser to Durova, in exchange for the harasser making a $10 donation to the Musella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research, at the request of Durova!

Imagine that! Broer and Kohs cooperating and getting along just fine.

And then they had to go and suppress the Episode 45 on Wikivoices. Whose fault was that?

What I'd really like to know about Broer is how she has deluded herself into thinking she looks 28? There would have to be some serious "image restoration" to get there from the photos she has posted of herself. Perhaps that could be her next restoration project...

Are you seriously comparing your prank of an internet user to political satire of the US President? (Also, frankly that wasn't a great cartoon. Sadly, I think political cartoons have suffered a bit along with the death of print newspapers, but that's a point for another day.)

Also, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? And frankly, I don't trust your word any more than I trust Brandt's.

Either Wikipedia is a big deal, or it's not, and that distinction extends to its users. Sure, you have grandstanders and every facet of the human lifeboat in that community. But does an audio file that few people would have heard anyway really matter enough to bring it up every five seconds? You have more in common with Durova than you think, Kohs...

That bit's not hard - away from a mirror my self-image got stuck at around 25. The grey pubic hairs are a bit difficult to reconcile with that though.*

*I've been around Wikipedia too long.