User talk:28bytes/Archive 43

Born
An Arbitrator was Born, congratulations come with hopes ;) - I prepared a Christmas card but don't know if I can keep the design, the boy is in danger ;) - Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

COIN notice
Hi 28bytes. In summary of the COIN thread here, you developed the video game Duck Attack! for the Atari 2600 video game console. You have a COI with the Duck Attack! topic and need to limit edits to the Duck Attack! topic to those listed at WP:COIU. You lack a current WP:EXTERNALREL with the Digimarc and Bruce Davis (video game industry) topics, so you do not have COI with either topic. Thanks for cross reporting at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jreferee. 28bytes (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678


— cyber power Online Merry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. — cyber power Online Merry Christmas 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 Pr at yya  (Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a Fair Hearing, Please Excuse my Block Evasion
Hi 28bytes. I, Colton Cosmic, was blocked well more than a year ago, but I don't feel I ever got a fair shake, or that Wikipedia policies were observed in my case. This is a heads up that I'm going to ask you to review things, but I'm waiting to hear back from another person, Floquenbeam, that I've asked.

I followed the Arbcom elections but never looked at your statement until a few minutes ago. I'm not buttering you up, but you made good sense in almost all of that. I appreciated particularly your statement that actions should be backed up by stated reasons "you won't be left wondering why." Still, looking at your userpage though, and glancing at your recent contributions, I confess I don't quite understand why you would finish at the top of the pack in the election. Nothing objectionable, and no offense intended, but why you came out so particularly popular, I can't understand. I could understand an average finish there. I guess I need to research your contributions deeper to understand why you got all that support.

I've made personal appeals before, usually accompanied by my depiction of how I was wrongly handled. Perhaps it's best now to try not saying anything. If you agree you can examine my case as you see fit, approaching it from whatever angle you choose. Without any risk of having your viewpoint colored by all my sly words ;) and wikilawyering. I'll point out only that in a lot of places where I've been criticized, I was not allowed to defend, or my defense was actually reverted. Do not take therefore, an apparent silence on my part in the record, as an acquiescence to whatever was said about me.

The reason I block evade via IP, signing my username to each edit, is that I feel I've no other realistic avenue of appeal. In closing, this is just an heads-up. I will recontact you if Floquenbeam says "no can do." Colton Cosmic.

PS: I am also an Atari maniac. I think the 2600 has truly great games, in different genres, but the Ms. Pacman port always springs to my mind as a masterpiece. In the homebrew scene I like that puzzle game where you maneuver the yellow sports car past the block, I think it is called Jammmed.


 * Always nice to see a fellow Atari fan! I love Jammed, it's a great game. So, regarding your return to Wikipedia, the key question for you is this: are you willing to accept that Wikipedia is unfair sometimes? The first article I wrote got deleted, which I thought was extremely unfair. You believe your block was unfair. But the only plausible path for you to return editing is for you to grit your teeth, accept the situation as it is, and do what Floquenbeam and many, many others have suggested you do: work elsewhere for six months, knock off the block evasion entirely in the meantime, and then request an unblock. (Floquenbeam is not a "rules is rules" type; if he's telling you to follow the rules regarding block evasion, it's because he understands that every time you evade your block, you're turning more people against your case.) If you're willing to do that, I will personally propose unblocking you on the administrators' noticeboard once the six months is up. If you're not willing to do that, then nothing I can say or do will help you; I could unblock you, but I would be immediately reverted, which wouldn't help either of us. So consider the question: are you willing to accept that Wikipedia can be unfair, and adjust your expectations and actions accordingly? Don't answer me today, just give it some thought. In the meantime, have a happy new year. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you encourage me to reflect on your offer beyond today, but I have been blocked 19 months already, for something I didn't do, and I feel the urge to respond right away. Your offer to take my part in this at WP:AN/ANI upon six months contributing to another project and desisting all block evasion... that's not exactly what Floquenbeam said.


 * Floquenbeam said 1) wait until you can apply to BASC again (which I think I already can, its page says may reapply each six months, without any reference to block evasion) and 2) disclose my prior, privacy-compromised account to at least a single arb. He made no assurance of his support though I guess he implied it. I think Floquenbeam is okay, he reads my words and responds. His reticence stemmed from "not enough information" and deference to Arbcom's authority. I asked him to revisit the question since both of those obstacles have changed for him now.


 * What you appear to refer to is WP:OFFER, an essay that some Wikipedians go by. It doesn't fit me because it's a repentance model where the blockee shows regret for what he's done and says he's learned since then and so forth. It requires for example "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." I didn't sock, and therefore I may never honestly admit it and pledge not to do it again. So it's not applicable to me. Plus I have a lot to contribute in the next six months.


 * On first contacting you, I refrained from criticism of my blockers that might put you off. Let me briefly say it now: there is no way in creation a no-warn/no discussion/no-diffs permanent block as executed by Timotheus Canens is anything but a contemptible abuse of his administrative powers. That I was thereafter piled on by the worst of WP:AN/ANI's personalities, including Bwilkins who actually told some other blockee "may you rot in the hell that is eternal block," this isn't any knock on me. Neither is Silktork's use of "secret evidence" (he hypothesizes me to be a specific sanctioned editor, withholding even his theory from me as he turned me down at BASC, thus absolutely removing any possibility for me to defend it).


 * I run long already. You said reflect on your offer. I've reflected on similar offers before, so I'm not sure of the need. I do appreciate your considering me at all. What I'll reflect on then is coming back with a counter-offer, and hope I don't exhaust your patience and attention. Colton Cosmic.


 * I will respond to this, but it may be a couple of days. 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier. Colton, pardon my tweak to this section title. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Dan Murphy has outed me on Wikipediocracy...
...and the information he has posted (my name, the account I post with on WO) is correct. I do in fact post there as Mason. Here's the link, if you're curious. I have written two blog posts for the site, one in 2012 about the ineffectiveness of bans and the unseemliness of the "gravedancing" culture surrounding banned editors, and one in April 2013 about Wikidata.

I have also helped with other blog posts, and posted quite a bit to the forums. I don't think – at this point – I am speaking out of school to acknowledge that there is a private area where blog posts are discussed and vetted, and that I have been granted access to that area to help review them. Without getting into specifics, I have supported the publication of blog posts that I believe fairly criticize Wikipedia, and have opposed running ones that I believe are unfair criticism. I am, of course, only one voice, and sometimes my views on what's fair are shared by the other participants, sometimes not. Dan Murphy may not particularly care about my privacy, but I take the access I was granted seriously and have not (and will not) disclose specifics of what is discussed there.

The goals of some key members of Wikipediocracy are to destroy and discredit Wikipedia. I do not share those goals. The goals of other key members of Wikipediocracy are to get Wikipedia to improve by highlighting areas where Wikipedia is doing poorly. This is valuable information, and I think Wikipedia only benefits when we listen to what the critics say. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes they criticize fairly, sometimes not. Sometimes I have criticized unfairly, and I regret that.

I'll have some more to say all about this in the next couple of days. 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please just resign. Iselilja (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't "out" you with any secret info. You outed yourself. If you're trying to suggest I've betrayed a confidence (you may be; I'm unsure) I'll just preempt speculation by saying that's a flat falsehood (if that is what you're trying to suggest). Good luck to you.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your tenure on the Committee. Hopefully, you can make a difference in how this place is run. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with an ArbCom member being active on Wikipediocracy. I do think the majority of WO users want to help us improve things here - and we should be building bridges, not burning them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC) ( Oh, and both those blog posts are good, especially the first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC) )
 * I'll repeat here what I have already said on the mailing list, the problem is not that 28bytes is a WO regular, but rather that he did not disclose this fact during the election, merely replying "I read it regularly" to Carrite's question, which, while not technically a lie, is certainly a disingenuous reply. Since we are elected only because the community trust us and this fact, if disclosed, would have certainly have factored in their decision to support or oppose (which doesn't mean they would necessarily have opposed, but we'll never know now), I can only conclude that their decision to support (or oppose) was not an informed one. For that, as I've already said, I'm afraid 28bytes needs to resign. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a conundrum. If WO regular User:Carrite hadn't have asked the question, would it still have been a problem for you? I suspect that 90% of all answers held something back, even the answer that you gave the other year wouldn't have been completely fulsome. As it is the answer was perfectly valid, spelling out his views of the site, the good, the bag and ugly. So what's your real problem? John lilburne (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 28bytes having been active in blocking multiple editors critical of Wikipediocracy, while not disclosing their affiliation with the site, is another issue that's relevant here. That in itself may need to go to arbcom, if 28bytes is not willing to do the honest thing here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience most critical of WO should be banned. But that isn't the issue though is it, because no one has been banned from here for being critical of WO. They have been banned for other things entirely. Its a bit like noting that violent psychpaths are also inclined to mistreat animals. HAND. John lilburne (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that election Q&A is troublesome - it's evasive and not an example of the kind of transparency we should expect from an Arb. As I say, I have no problems at all with Arbs having WO accounts, but I don't like what is effectively dishonesty by omission. I'm disappointed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I voted for 28bytes, I still like them. I would not have voted to support if their secret account had been declared during the election. All Arbcom members should publicly declare any potentially controversial past accounts off wiki including Wikipediocracy or EncyclopediaDramatica, before getting elected. Arbcom members force the accused to reveal all sorts of personal information and if withheld make accusations of lying or cover ups, certainly this was my experience when Arbcom demanded information about my past closed accounts on Commons, and chose to out past accounts, including a privacy account declared to the Committee years earlier, without asking me. I expect the same standards to apply to Committee Members. This should not require days, access to email archives should be removed now while this is under discussion. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no! An arb-to-be has a Wikipediocracy account! The "Mason" account on Wikipediocracy was level-headed and reasonable, and I always thought this blog post was exceptionally well done, and was commented on by various admins (under known and probably unknown names) from this site. For the record, I am a checkuser and I also have a Wikipediocracy account. Have fun finding out which one is mine! >:) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, 28bytes' disingenuous reply in the election is disappointing, and it would be interesting to see him comment on why he felt he needed to do that. But I certainly hope he won't resign, I feel he's needed on arbcom. I feel it even more strongly after reading "Mason"'s blog posts. So he has turned out to have feet of clay like the rest of us? Wow, he's not perfect? Seriously, that's fine. Please stick with it, 28bytes. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Yep, on balance, I agree - 28bytes is still one of the best we've got -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm heartened by this revelation, even if it came in an awkward fashion. I've been participating in Wikipediocracy for a while, and have thought Mason one of the best of us - calm, intelligent and a critic of this project in exactly the way that it needs to be criticized. Independently of this (of course), I voted for 28bytes as arbitrator on pretty much the exact same basis. To discover that two people that I separately respected are in fact the same person is an extremely pleasant surprise. He's hardly the first arbitrator to participate over there, and I completely understand his comments about private information - it's the mirror image of members there with access to privileged information here who choose to respect the obligations of their position. His reluctance to admit the connection during the election is also entirely understandable. Even to mention Wikipediocracy here is often to invite hyperbolic and hysterical - in both senses - commentary. Both sites are the richer for this new connection. I look forward to your term on ArbCom, 28bytes. —  Scott  •  talk  13:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed to see some users I normally have quite some respect for playing the thought police. Stick with it, 28bytes. MLauba (Talk) 13:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree. I do not recall notification of contributions in Wikipediocracy being a requirement for Arbcom. Maybe I missed that. I wouldn't let that dissuade you from being on Arbcom and as you know I am not a fan of the Arbcom process. I don't really see a problem but if you still feel like you need to resign I could understand that. If it makes you feel better I stopped posting as Kumioko there as well and use a different name as well. I also use a different username on Wikia for whatever that's worth. But none of that matters because neither are affiliated to Wikimedia or Wikipedia. Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't resign. You retain my support and I look forward to your term on the Arbitration Committee. I would ask that withdraw his remarks and that other arbitrators should have no part in this discussion; regardless of their reason for commenting, it looks terrible, raises serious questions about influence and would do them no credit at all. Nick (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also semi-active in WO, as I felt Wikipedia needs constructive, valid criticism that is discussed in a non-foundation website and I always thought Mason was one of the most level-headed criticizers in the entire site. Hell, I even feel that most of the banned users there are capable of valid criticism most of the times (maybe 3-4 of them I don't support) and if I wasn't editing under my real name in that site, I would be way more active there. I publicly supported 28bytes/Mason in a WO thread regarding this, that is now hidden in the website and I will continue to support him during his ArbCom tenure. In fact, the knowledge that knowing 28bytes, Reaper Eternal above, and others I know makes me want to dedicate more time to that site, despite editing with my real name and not be afraid of giving constructive criticism. The fact that several users still think that WO people should be banned, well they are out of touch with reliability. That website does more to protect Wikipedia than any of the administrative noticeboards or Jimbo's talk page, (even if I don't agree with certain areas of WO). 28bytes, if you resign from Wikipedia, I will resign from the tools and I recommend others do so to prove a point that we don't tolerate any repression of criticism. Secret account 15:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. This is a bit of nonsense. Not that I support Wikipediocracy, but I am almost sure that even if 28bytes would have said that he edited Wikipediocracy, and that he authored these blog posts, he would have been elected anyways. He has been an extremely trusted user of this website, and the mere fact that he authored these blog posts (that were actual constructive criticism, instead of outing, or similar) is not srtong enough for a resignation. So, I ask 28bytes to not resign as an arbitrator. As Kumioko said, "notification of contributions in Wikipediocracy [is not] a requirement for ArbCom," and I don't feel betrayed by the fact that he did so. Was it relevant? Maybe. Was it relevant enough to be added to his candidacy statement? Hell, no. I'd feel betrayed if a couple of editors advocate for 28bytes to be removed from a position that he earned with 475 votes and 80.78% of support. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 16:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not outing
You title this section with the accusation "User:Dan Murphy has outed me...". Since you already identified yourself on-wiki when you belatedly owned up to undisclosed COI editing you had done in the past, and you did so on 21st December, I don't see that Murphy mentioning that identity on an external site on 29th December can be considered "outing". Equally, I don't see that linking one pseudonym with another pseudonym, when the person's real name has already been admitted on-wiki by themselves, is "outing" either. I have no idea whether Murphy cares or not, but you should perhaps reconsider the accusation of "outing". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the link you provided here, and at the link to Wikipediocracy. Your characterization of them is inaccurate. The simple facts are that the latter includes what appears to be 28bytes' real life name, and the former does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something here? 28bytes created an article on Wikipedia in which he said that a game was written by a named person - he gave the name himself. 28bytes then later created an AN section where he said that he created the article about the game which he himself wrote. That's giving, all on-wiki, his real life name. Isn't it? I don't see that there being one extra click from AN to the game article makes any difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that now. I hadn't made that extra click. You are right, and I made a mistake. But the WPO post does very directly provide a real life name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend NOT repeating the name if the user doesn't want it to be repeated. Jehochman Talk 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I personally took the section heading above as a humorous head-fake. You read the heading and think it is going to be some tirade against the ebil Dan Murphy and his Outy McOuterson activities, but then he just goes "Whoops, you caught me!".-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Update 12/29
Some explanations and an apology are in order. As Salvio and others have noted, when User:Carrite asked me my opinion on Wikipediocracy, I said that I was "a regular reader", which is true, but which omits the fact that I had also been active as a poster and had written two blog posts. Why did I decline to share that piece of information? The first reason is that I wanted to be judged based solely on the work I had done on Wikipedia. And I was judged on that work, not what I have accomplished in my professional life, or in my non-Wikipedia hobbies, or on Wikipediocracy or any other website. Is it fair of me to expect that Wikipedians judge me solely on what I have contributed to this site? I certainly thought so at the time I offered my candidacy, but now I see it's not so clear.

The second reason I chose to decline to reveal my account on WO was simply that I felt that was private. When I signed up to comment on WO back in March 2012, I deliberately chose not to register as "a voice from Wikipedia." I wanted my comments there to be considered on their own merit, without being either dismissed or taken more seriously (ha!) because I was a Wikipedia administrator. It's been a bit of a release valve; I'm sometimes very cynical about things, but I have tried very hard (and largely succeeded) to restrain my cynicism here on Wikipedia, and I appreciated the chance to vent a bit off-site as "just some guy on the internet", without the privileges or responsibilities inherent in being an editor and administrator here. Did I use the protection of anonymity responsibly? I think, largely, I did, although there were a few cases where I was unnecessarily harsh to people, and I am sorry for that.

When Wikipedians consider whom to elect to the arbitration committee, do they have the right to know what accounts candidates have on other websites, be it Wikipediocracy, Wikpedia Review, Citizendium, Conservapedia, Democratic Underground, Reddit, Facebook, Flickr, or some "adult" site? Do they have the right to know what I think about, say, the Republican Party? Maybe. I don't know. I suppose this will become somewhat of a test case regarding how undisclosed offsite affiliations are considered.

I am not thrilled (to say the least) that my offsite affiliations have been disclosed against my will, but what's done is done. At least one arbitrator for whom I have great respect, User:Salvio giuliano, has asked for my resignation, so that's something I have to seriously consider doing. Other arbitrators whom I respect have – while being understandably upset by the revelations – encouraged me to accept my seat, or at least not rush to a decision. I'm genuinely not sure what to do here. But until this is resolved one way or another, it would be unfair of me to serve as though nothing has happened, so I will not participate in any committee business until and unless the community is still confident in my ability to do so. I'm not quite sure how to gauge that, but I will figure it out with the help of other editors. If even a sizable minority has lost confidence in me due to my offsite activities, I will not serve. I ran for ArbCom because I want to help Wikipedia, and having a divisive arbitrator does not further that goal. In the meantime I will not request access to the mailing list archives, and will not participate in any active cases.

I offer a sincere apology to all editors who I have disappointed. It's clear that some of you feel misled by my decision to keep the fact that I participate on Wikipediocracy private, and I understand, and I'm sorry. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, have you ever used an advanced permission in assistance to Wikipediocracy for one of these articles, blog posts, or forum posts, or any of their 'investigations'? Have you ever looked at a deleted page, user rights history, revdeleted or oversighted diffs, checkuser data, or any other tool that an ordinary editor does not posses on behalf of Wikipediocracy?  I believe for a majority of us, that would be the determining factor here.  I'm not concerned about facebook or adult sites, but a site that is specifically targeted at Wikipedia is of relevance in an Arbcom election; especially a site that has dubious investigations by amateurs.--v/r - TP 15:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not. As far as I am aware, the WO staff did not know I was an administrator until this week. 28bytes (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We knew you were an admin, we just didn't know which one. FWIW, 28bytes is not by a long shot the only person with speaking rights there and admin buttons here (myself included), but honestly it really doesn't take a herculean effort to be grown up about it and respect the trust of both communities. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, well that solves it for me then. If you haven't used your access to private information now, I don't see why you would in the future on Arbcom.  I see no reason to quit.--v/r - TP 15:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I think Wikipediocracy has a lot of negative points but it also provides a useful place to have discussions about some of the poor aspects of Wikipedia like its toxic editing environment. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On another note: An WP:AN thread might be helpful for gauging community opinion. Your talk page doesn't get enough attention to gave a solid ground to base such a decision on.--v/r - TP 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also a discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, you staying on the committee or not is probably irrelevant from a cynical point of view (unless you have acted with a conflict of interest here (per TParis) - in which case you should resign all permissions/positions).  But really, the idea that you evidently wanted to influence Wikipedia "as someone else, who is not someone else" off-site in a public forum and somehow that is irrelevant to being on Wikipedia, while participating heavily in its governance -- indeed, to go so far as to "omit" facts in your election answer, is ridiculous and, unfortunately, corrupt reasoning. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You know what I think, 28, but I'll say it here too. You are one of the sanest people here; Mason was one of the sanest people there.  We need sane people.  So stick with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked critically at the reply to Carrite's question, and the question actually never raises the issue of whether the candidate has ever been active at Wikipediocracy. It asks his opinion, and that's what his answer was. It seems to me that if the answer had been something to the effect of it's the worst thing in the world, and you would never ever see me commenting there, then that would amount to misleading the community as to the fact that he actually is someone who comments there. But the answer given indicates a largely positive opinion of WPO and advice to editors to pay attention there. I don't want to lawyer this, and I fully recognize that a better answer would have acknowledged having written stuff there, but the extent to which 28bytes' answer is actually misleading is pretty small for something that would rise to the level of requiring resignation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can quote the question and the answer for all to see and evaluate? Your comment is interesting, though I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. Jehochman Talk 17:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link: . I got it from Salvio's comment higher up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In my ArbCom question (asked of every candidate) I didn't ask whether the candidate had a WPO account or whether they posted there. I asked their views on it. Clearly, "Mason" gave a very, ummmm, political response. Yet, it was unmistakably favorable to WPO and anyone pathologically at odds with that site either voted against him or missed the question entirely or willfully misread his answer. 28bytes was also the top vote-getter and top in net votes in the election, so a handful of WPO haters switching sides wouldn't have dropped him from the winner's stand to the also rans. Not even close. In closing, I will say this: don't be afraid of transparency. Embrace openness on the job and start chipping away at the wall of secrecy that needlessly obscures, distorts, and mutilates ArbCom as an institution. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What would make me feel a lot better is if 28bytes came out and said, "From now on I will not lie by omission. I will not manipulate other people by given them a false impression.  What I did was wrong, and I won't do it again."  If people really support 28bytes so strongly that they think this error should be forgiven, I may be in the minority, but we will see.  I think there are a lot of editors who are uncomfortable with the situation, but are keeping quiet because they don't want to get flamed the way I have been for expressing my concerns. The flames directed at me just make me more interested in digging to the bottom of this issue. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He should only do so if you came out and said, "I will no longer be an abrasive bully on other people's talk pages. I will no longer had childish meltdowns and kick my feet and hold my breath if other people don't immediately answer my loaded questions. What I did was wrong, and I won't do it again." Hell might be other people (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've stated my position below, and am done. Please stop attacking me. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You unilaterally tried to remove this elected arb from the committe noticeboard and flew around here and on Jimbo's talk, making inferences ("Sure, he got highest support because he told people what sounded best") using phrases like "a bunch of fans", "cover up the issue". ?? What kind of a reaction do you expect? Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I expect that when I have stated my position, and that I want to leave the discussion, that you will stop attacking me. Will you stop attacking me now, or do I need to ask somebody to help you stop? Jehochman Talk 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please resign
You haven't been truthful with the Wikipedia community, and you will have no standing on the Arbitration Committee. Every case where you attempt to participate will degenerate into a firestorm of criticism against you, snyde remarks, and undermining of your authority. Please just resign now and save a lot of trouble. Writing an article about your own video game as recently as 2010 was not good. Misleading the Wikipedia community about your participation in Wikipediocracy was not good either. One error, I might overlook. Two is a pattern indicating that you can't be trusted with Checkuser, Oversight and ArbCom archives access. However, I'm okay with you retaining admin access, because I believe you have good intentions and have reformed. I'm not willing to take the risk with the higher ops. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I voted for you, which makes this all the more disappointing. Bishonen's sentiments are tempting, but the big problem is that you'll be attacked for this again and again any time you try to exercise authority on the Committee. It just won't work.  Please see the future and do what's honorable sooner rather than later.  Jehochman Talk 15:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that any of the arbitrators have the authority to act by themselves. Only as a committee do they have any authority.  We grant them a wide range of authority by themselves at times because they have knowledge of private data that we do not.  But as a decision maker, their power is in their numbers.  28bytes participation in any case could not be criticized without also criticizing those who align with him on a case.  Besides, how does this differ from what we have now?  Arbitrators are already sharply criticized.--v/r - TP 15:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any individual arbitrator can dig through the archives and discover a lot of personal information. I don't want to risk those details being leaked.  Any individual arbitrator can use the Checkuser tool to dox an anonymous editor.  Any individual arbitrator can use the Oversight tool to hide or view extremely sensitive information.  I don't want that information leaked.  Jehochman Talk 15:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we looking for any old reason now ? Nick (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick, 2010 is an awfully long time to ask for someone to resign from something. I've done stupid stuff in the past, including a COI deletion that I admitted in my Reddit ADA (which I should update as I fell ill for Christmas :, and editing while ill (which cost me my adminship for a few years), but that doesn't mean I should resign because of that. Let 2010 stuff go as its not relevant to this discussion. Secret account 16:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'd be willing to forgive one incident, but not two. The earlier incident shows a pattern of using anonymity for deception.  I think we need arbitrators who model good behavior, including transparency about conflicts of interest, and honesty in all their statements. Jehochman Talk 16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 28bytes has had the capability to do all of that for ages and hasn't. We have a history to judge him on, we don't need to guess.  Is he capable of withholding the whole truth?  Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if every single person who has ever made an ANI report has withheld something.  Is he using his advanced permissions and access to damage Wikipedia and share private information?  No, I doubt it.  Besides, it doesn't take a Wikipediocracy insider to leak the Arbcom mailing list.  It has happened several times without WO's help.--v/r - TP 16:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to stop having amateurs handle that sort of information... Jehochman Talk 16:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not see how it unfolds and if it does turn out to be a disaster, then ask for 28bytes to quietly slip away from the committee ?
 * The voting argument is a poor strawman, we don't actually know who voted for who, I could claim, for example, that I didn't vote for 28bytes but would have done if I had known he was Mason on WO. I think I voted for him anyway, I know I would definitely have voted for him had I known of the WO connection.
 * Finally, I would point out that 28bytes managed the highest level of support, even the suggested loss of a few support votes and gaining a few oppose votes wouldn't have necessarily resulted in him dropping out of contention for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. I might agree it would be worthwhile resigning if he had picked up the last spot on the committee, but not when he came in first. Nick (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as he's on the Committee, there's no way I'd trust them to handle highly confidential matters. So be it if you want to have an ineffective committee.  This is not just a popularity contest.  There also ought to be ethical standards that people can't just lie their way through the election.  Sure, he got highest support because he told people what sounded best, whether or not it was true. Very nice he did that, and very nice that you'd support that sort of behavior. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't find the breach of trust to be so serious, in combination with other factors I and others have already mentioned, that it warrants his resignation. It does not mean I approve or support the behaviour undertaken. Nick (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. We can disagree on that basis. Jehochman Talk 17:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't resign

 * I've already commented up above, but the headings need balancing a bit ;-) 28bytes, I know your record well on Wikipedia, and as Floquenbeam says, you're one of the sanest and fairest we have. I've also had a look over Mason's posts on WO and the blogs, and what do you know? Sane and fair again! I've said I was disappointed by that Q&A answer and I am, but today I know more about you and I'm even more confident that you'll make an excellent Arb. So please don't resign. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boing! and hell I think we need more admins on WO and away from the OMG DRAMA boards! Secret account 16:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Boing!, and behalf of those who voted for you in the first place. Ceoil (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't resign, please. I became aware of this ridiculousness from a reverted attempt to cross out your name at the Arb noticeboard page. As I see it, the principal misconduct was the post at Wikipediocracy identifying you (yes, I know I'm going to be flamed for saying that, so I'll preemptively say that I could not possibly care less). I strongly support your continued membership on the Committee. I have a lot of respect for Salvio, too, but I think that he put his foot in his mouth here. But, here's a thought. You said that there needs to be a way to evaluate where things stand, before you resume activity on the Committee. Allow me to suggest a Request for Arbitration to the rest of the Committee, with you and the editor who named you on WPO as the parties, and with you and Salvio recused (obviously). Let's see how that plays out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a WO member, and I've recently become more active, so obviously the fact I believe you should remain on ArbCom is not surprising. Frankly, I think a lot of people are letting grudges against other people on WO cloud their judgement; it would explain the rather lame lashing out from people such as Jehochman, for example. You have not been found to be a mass-murderer, a pedophile, a rapist or a member of Al-Qaeda; you've been found to be a member of a publicly accessible website. And let's not forget that I started out as being fairly anti-WO myself. In short: the people calling for your head need to take a long look at themselves, and consider their own motivations first. Newyorkbrad has contributed to Wikipediocracy on occasion, whilst being a sitting Arb; the only difference is that he edited under his own username. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears I am not the only banned user hoping for a fair hearing, now that there is a reasonable person on arbcom, but arbcom wont change simply because there exists on the committee a single rational person. I have since removed my request for an email address. Just as there should be reasonable people on arbcom, wikipedia also needs raconteurs (ironholds' userpage claim aside), and that appears to be me. :D Anyways don't resign, pls. If you do, ArbCom will be run by the same old aspies and assorted other do-nothings (lookin at you, NYB). Good luck Mason. ;) 206.29.182.243 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Stay. Salvio is wrong. You had every right not to declare your Wikipediocracy activity. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a few things you probably shouldn't have done as an admin due to your undeclared affiliation with WO, but now that we know I expect you will take care to avoid involving yourself on arbitration matters where your involvement in WO might be an issue.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do stay as an arbitrator. While the answer to Carrite's question was inappropriately disingenuous, I'm not going to say that disqualifies you from being on Wikipedia. Are we now going to start being the thought police, where any accounts on other websites (Reddit, Wikipediocracy, StackExchange, Wikihow, and more) are required to be disclosed for public scrutiny, in case the candidate has expressed some "anti-Wikipedian" viewpoints. There's a book, whose title I just can't quite recall, that deals with that allegorically. There's a book by George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, that talks a fair bit about thoughtcrimes. Is that the society we wish to set up for ourselves? If being a member of Wikipediocracy precludes one from being a high-ranking Wikipedia member, then something is seriously, dangerously wrong with our society. That said, it's somewhat hilarious to watch the reactions of people as they realize that Wikipediocracy members do indeed pervade Wikipedia, and they're not the raving "box-cutter" lunatics that they are sometimes made out to be.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes wonder if certain people want Wikipedia to be run in a 1984-esque manner... Luke no 52  (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 20:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It only seems to be Jehochman now looking for such a harsh and unforgiving political stage. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mis-stating my position. Please stop attacking me in that manner.  The record is clear about what I think of the matter.  Let's leave it that way. Jehochman Talk 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. You are not helping, Ceoil. AGK  [•] 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Tis the season, thanks for the insight, look for it on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the hanging offence a minority are saying it is. If your conscience is still troubled, an RFC/U (like Kirill Lokshin's) will let you take stock of public opinion on this specific issue. AGK  [•] 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the horse is out of the barn, but I wish you hadn't resigned!  Montanabw (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Another option...
@28bytes: Another option is to resign now, and then simply run again next year. This will resolve the current crisis and if you win, then you will have done so legitimately and with the community's support. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Swap to the 1 year seat and stand for re-election in 2014 ? Just another idea... Nick (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should he give some attention-seekers the privilege of giving in to them? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, why. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He has been elected legitimately. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Casliber did something like that, resigning from arbcom over the User:Law drama, then running again successfully later. Overall I'm sympathetic to the arguments of both Jehochman and Bishonen: I was happy to see 28bytes elected and (still) think he can potentially do a good job as arbitrator, but the subsequently disclosed errors and deceptions are quite troubling, and I'm not too impressed with the spin he's currently engaging in.  (I'm not directly worried about 28bytes doxing someone using private arbcom info though). I was going to suggest to 28bytes that he open a self-RFC about whether to accept his current arbcom appointment, along the lines of a reconfirmation RFA.  That might be a workable alternative to resigning and running again. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Deception"? And you are...? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another option would be to file an arbitration request and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How would filing a RFAR help? AGK  [•] 21:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You guys are responsible for organizing elections. This is an election-related case. Of course if 28bytes has made his mind and wants to resign or does not want to resign RFAR would not help, but if he is undecided whether the elections were valid is it up to ArbCom to find out what procedure would validate them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The committee is not responsible for organising elections. AGK  [•] 22:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that my attempt apparently was not helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my view your solution was not correct, but making it certainly wasn't unhelpful – and I don't think you have anything to apologise for. AGK  [•] 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The RFAR option
My reasoning is somewhat different than Ymblanter's, but I earlier also raised the possibility of RFAR, and I'm really thinking about it. It would certainly be one way for 28bytes to get more feedback about what course of action he should take, something he has indicated he would like to have. We can take a look at the degree to which 28bytes' answer to Carrite's question was or was not misleading the community. (Hint: I think not seriously so.)

But it also would go into something else. I just went back and looked at the archived discussion of the recent decision about Phil Sandifer. In particular, I looked at what members of the Committee said at that time. Considering what User:Dan Murphy did in his Wikipediocracy post, there are some differences from the Sandifer case, but I'm not convinced that they are all that substantive. If you read the WPO post, it would have been easy enough to prune it to read: "Apparently recently resoundingly elected Wikipedia Arbitration committee member "28bytes" is a guy who also happens to be a longstanding poster here called "Mason"...". (It actually reads "a guy named (name) who also happens to be".) All that is gained by having included the name is the Internet phenomenon of dancing up and down in pleasure at causing someone else discomfort. In the Sandifer case, there was a bit of "followed the bread crumbs" (I'm quoting Newyorkbrad there) to put together the outing, and in this case somewhat fewer crumbs needed to be followed. But I'm not concerned that it matters. We can see at WPO how Dan Murphy felt about being asked to redact it, and it's little different than Phil Sandifer's response at the time. In no way am I questioning Dan Murphy's right to write stuff at WPO, but I'd like to find out whether or not he is still welcome here at Wikipedia after what he did. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Feedback from the arbitrators, do you mean? AGK  [•] 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you are referring to my first paragraph, which I'm pretty sure you were. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be bullied

 * And keep on lying! It sets a great example for other editors! Just say whatever is expedient to be popular and the lovers will keep on loving you! Jehochman Talk 17:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This behaviour is unbecoming, Jehochman. Nick (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * you seem upset. 206.29.182.243 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am, and wish that 28bytes would reply, rather than letting a bunch of fans cover up the issue. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 28bytes hasn't lied, he hasn't told the whole truth - there's a big difference there, Jehochman, and you need to realize that. Alternatively, go away and return when you've got a level head, rather than embarrassing yourself like this. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of lying by omission? Jehochman Talk 18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of kicking up a load of fuss over nothing, just to get a bit of attention? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jehochman you are becoming a pest and I wouldn't be surprised if some admin blocks you for disruption right now, which you are clearly doing. Don't do your Durova antics here, you already drove her away with your bullshit, don't kick another one while he's down. Secret account 18:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ho, Ho, Ho. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  Jehochman Talk 19:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Come forth, 28bytes, and explain how you weren't lying
Please allow 28bytes to reply. I don't need replies or explanations from 3rd parties. I'm open to a reasonable explanation if I have misunderstood the situation. Jehochman Talk 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You should know better as an admin than to constantly bait someone like your doing. Would hope 28 bytes would ignore you and he would be well within his rights to do so. Blethering  Scot  17:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a legitimate concern and want it to be answered. Please stop covering up and distracting.  Let 28bytes answer in his own words. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope he bans you from his talk page. You are one of the worst people here. Hell might be other people (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your acting like a spoilt brat not an admin. Back off and stop creating additional pointy sections because your not getting what you want straight away. You'll get a reply when Bytes wants to and to everyone not just to you because you stamp about loud enough. Blethering  Scot  17:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:28bytes
 * I'm waiting for an answer to my question, and do not care how many minions hurl insults at me. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please wait in silence then. Hell might be other people (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will, as long as editors don't attack me (e.g. "you're one of the worst people here") for asking a pertinent question. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously back off, your showing yourself up big time. Your actions are unbecoming of an admin and baiting someone isn't on. Ask a question and wait an answer don't create new pointy headings reply under all and attack at every opportunity, your not simply asking a question your baiting someone.  How on earth did you become an admin because your baiting is unreal and certainly not on and there is a massive difference between asking a question and what your trying to do. Blethering   Scot  18:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, he's an administrator? That's a scary thought... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeesh yourself. I guess it's okay to personally attack people if they don't agree with you, eh? Would you please let 28bytes answer the question?  I'd like to hear his explanation of how he wasn't lying by omission.  I don't care to hear excuses or attacks from 3rd parties. Jehochman Talk 18:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We heard you the first time. Care to explain why your whining is still continuing? Posting the same question another five hundred times might just make things go your way... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With edits like you could safely ignore him as he's clearly proving a WP:POINT and is WP:NOTHERE in this conversation outside of steering drama, let's close this thread shall we and let 28bytes decide. Secret account 18:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman, I have explained above why I chose not to disclose my WO account in my reply to Carrite's general question about what candidates thought about the site. You may characterize that failure to disclose however you like; your views on this are clear and I'm not going to argue semantics with you. 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation above. It doesn't go far enough, but we will have to disagree about that.  ArbCom needs less intrigue and more transparency. Thank you for responding here.  I have no further questions. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Moral support
I just saw the above.
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Now I missed the elections, and apparently much of the current drama so far.

And for transparency, though I doubt you recall it, I seem to remember being in a discussion which you were a part of where I was disappointed with the speed in which you had done some unblocks in the past, and on those grounds had I been around for this election, while I wouldn't have opposed you (other work I've seen from you has been quality), I would likely have abstained rather than supported.

And I have no idea in the current situation what's true/not true, or if any fault is to be found or whether sanction of any kind (including peer pressure as I see above on your talk page) is appropriate. (And I'd like to think that whatever the situation, the support you received of a majority of Wikipedians in the election was an indication of their trust in your decision-making ability, so I'd like to have faith in my fellow Wikipedians and believe that whatever you do (or don't do) will be indicative of justifying that faith entrusted in you.)

And further, I am torn concerning the current discussions because on one hand I am a staunch believer in the potential good Wikipedia can be and do, and a lot of what I have read there (as one might see on any complaint/venting-style blog) has not been anywhere near of the positive sort for those who would be looking to enact positive change for the better. But on the other hand, I really don't like the idea or implications of "Have you now or ever been a member of Wikipediacracy".

But the past and might-have-beens and wonderings and so forth aside...

Having seen such things in the past, and having run for arbcom myself once, and knowing how accusations and such discussions can feel, I merely wanted to offer you my empathy. This cannot be "fun" or "enjoyable" by any stretch of the definition of the terms.

So I just wanted to say that "as a fellow Wikipedian" - I wish you well. - jc37 21:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jc37. 28bytes (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to put in my two bits here too. I don't think much of a lot of the mob that is the core of That Other Site but it's plainly inimical to the spirit of Wikipedia to pillory people just for participating there. Hang in there and illegitimi non carborundum as they say. Mangoe (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)