Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark/Evidence

Avillia, this case is about whatever Arbcom decides it's about. And Morven is a member of Arbcom. Thatcher131 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that Morven was a arbitrator and I apologize. I didn't want things to have more tension created by a arbitrator taking offense to the comment removal for some reason or another. As for "This case is about BluAardvark", some comments like Lethe's are going more into the entire situation than the specific issue of Blu; The situation is relavant, but not the topic. While I'm all for it if the scope of this case is to be expanded to include MSK and such, right now it's not, and I was hoping to keep this from turning into something similar to the ANI thread which reached 200kb. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him? How convenient for him. -lethe talk [ +] 18:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Go make a motion. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. -lethe talk [ +] 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hateful motivations
These comments were removed from the evidence page beneath the statement that anyone can add evidence. I responded to a comment that said critics of Wikipedia are widely hated:


 * Widespread hatred toward critics is evidence of what? Hatenot 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note:User:Hatenot and User:Nohate were created within two minutes of each other; this is the first post by either account.  Radio Kirk   talk to me  17:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is some astute detetive work, RadioKirk, but what is the relevance? To demonstrate your good faith? To diminish the reputation a person who edits the encyclopedia anyone can edit? The first registration didn't work for me because I mistranscribed the password, which I did again with "Hatenot", so I did it again, with a different user name. The comment I registered to submit was "Widespread hatred toward critics is evidence of what?" HateNobody 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Malber's evidence
Bit busy right now, but if anyone else would like to put the whole quote used by malber into evidence:

"Legal action will be taken against those who deliberately disrupt this website through spam denial-of-service attacks or otherwise. I'm sure Daniel Brandt would love to help us match up IPs to names (although I can probably do most or all of it myself)"

I think it would somewhat undermine his argument. --Coroebus 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That whole section is so overwrought and paranoid that it pretty much undermines itself, but knowing that about the original context is rather interesting. PurplePlatypus 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because I have personally experienced (http://www.wikipedia watch.org/hivemind.html) her using IP address information to contribute to stalking. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is unfortunate (note that you can't link to Brandt's site directly from wikipedia because he redirects to WR) but your submission does not provide evidence that WR have a policy of collecting IP addresses for stalking purposes (as the full quote reveals) nor does your link to Brandt's hivemind page demonstrate that WR was involved in compiling it. But, by all means, if you have it, feel free to post evidence that does show this. --Coroebus 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite aside from the out-of-context nature of the first quote, it seems bizarre to me that you think the second through fourth ones reflect badly on Blu Aardvark. Why should he take responsiblity for things he didn't do and had no control over? It seems to me you're criticizing him for no reason other than not having some sort of completely irrational martyr complex. PurplePlatypus 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As moderator of the site, he's resoponsible for its content. If users are organizing or compiling information on private persons for the purpose of harassment, intimidation, and blackmail then he's responsible for moderating that. He could have removed the posts, but he has chosen to let them remain. He's stated that he sees no problem with that type of activity. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere on the same page of the thread linked above, Selina says "If all else fails, we know who else could be legally to blame...", speaking of the IRC moderators based on suggestions that attacks on WR had been discussed in IRC. Can you please explain to me why IRC moderators, who have no power to delete or edit individual messages, should be held responsible for any content in their chat but forum moderators, who can easily delete or edit out personal information that might be used for stalking or offensive insults shouldn't be held responsible for the content of their fora?  Or is this quote just the gross hypocrisy it looks like?- Polo  te  t  22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What does her hypocrisy (if that is what it is) have to do with anything? I mean, who cares?  It has nothing to do with the arbitration question.  Either he can, or he can't, be held responsible for posts on a talk board he has some kind of administrative powers over - someone else's hypocrisy has bugger all to do with that question. --Coroebus 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's not real evidence of anything, especially since this arbitration case doesn't directly include Selina. I just think it's interesting that someone who's been making the exact same arguments as Blu Aardvark apparently only actually believes those arguments as far as they profit her and her friends.  It's certainly possible that Blu Aardvark is more sincere in his belief that moderators are not responsible for content, and in the absence of evidence either way I'm happy to assume he is (though I don't think his belief that he shouldn't be held responsible means he actually shouldn't be).- Polo  te  t  00:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A good laugh
So let's see: Malber's offering up selective quotations as "Evidence", the arbcom won't even officially state the scope of it, and comments criticizing the behavior of admins related to the case are removed and the page LOCKED to prevent legitimate evidence and diffs from being entered into the record just because they don't fit the "burn the witches" mentality of admin/arbcom cabal members.

So much for even the semblance of due process, this is a lynching and ought to be treated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.77.130.14 (talk • contribs) 16:59, June 1, 2006


 * Are anonymous editors allowed to participate in ArbCom cases? Do you have some evidence you'd like to present?  -lethe talk [ +] 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If you want to post those diffs and quotes here, it can get shot into the evidence page. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 17:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ArbCom has not yet officially stated the scope of the case. They'll get around to it, I'm sure. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC logs
Daniel Brandt has now published logs of the IRC, including one which covers Linuxbeak's initial "discussion" of the unblock. I don't see how anyone could have come away from it thinking there was a consensus. Only a few people commented and the topic quickly changed. It's water under the bridge now, but it underscores the inappropriateness of using IRC for anything more than chatting. -Will Beback 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Brandt can't log private messages. And by that, I mean, he can't magically know who Linuxbeak queried. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If Linuxbeak sent private messges on the matter he's never said so. His public message was an announcement (I am going to unblock them), not a question of whether anyone think's it's a good idea. -Will Beback 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Malber's evidence
Comment by Selina: (edit: I also agree with the )) Please see the topic which Malber has deliberately not linked to: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1388 There was never any call for "intimidation", as you can see I wanted this information in case I had to contact the UK police cybercrime unit or FBI regarding the planned attacks on Wikipedia Review. This was purely for self-defense purposes (as you can see by reading the topic) - Malber has a history of attacks and harassment against me and cannot be relied on to make any kind of neutral comment on this matter. He has been blocked once for personal attacks against me and then again for repeatedly vandalising my talk page.

This is not the first time he has deliberately misrepresented events either, for example on the most recent version of my talk page you can see personal attacks including calling me a homophobic (I'm bisexual...), claiming that I gave his IP to daniel brandt (a lie simply because he doesn't know how brandt found him for hivemind he blames me. Having found stuff on google with his real name I think it was basically just sloppiness on his own part so he wants a scapegoat), claims that I banned anyone who defends Wikipedia and that I banned Golbez (totally untrue), and so on.

He has shown many signs of simply being bitter and bearing a grudge against me after getting him banned from the site after he spammed the board with photographs of penises.

I have never said anything like "Wikipedia Review's purpose is to destroy Wikipedia" and I don't think any of the staff share that sentiment either. In fact it's always been very much the opposite, Wikipedia needs constructive criticism in many cases to save it from itself.