User talk:28bytes

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

En.wikipedia is currently locked. Please don't do non-urgent deletions on it.[edit]

Dear 28bytes. As you may know, The English Wikipedia is currently locked up for 24 hours as a protest against SOPA and PIPA, so ordinary (non-steward) users cannot do any edits. It seems you have undeleted a version of w:I'm Not the One on that project during this time. Even if the software have allowed you to do so, please refrain from doing "normal" administration work on en.wikipedia during the blockout. Thanks, – b_jonas 14:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks, 28bytes 16:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions for you[edit]

Hi 28bytes, I've been watching the drama unfold on English Wikipedia in relation to yourself, and I have a few questions for you.

I note at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/28bytes/Questions#Question_from_Carrite that you stated:

And sometimes they're gratuitously nasty and petty, as when they used a quote from an editor's own mother to bash them.

This is obviously talking about myself, so I want to ask you why, as Mason, you posted at least once that I know on Wikipediocracy that I am a racist troll. Is this not an example of same gratuitously nasty and petty behaviour that you have accused others of engaging in.

Now, you were dishonest enough not to disclose your "insider" participation on Wikipediocracy, and it is quite astounding that people on English Wikipedia, including the Godking himself, are willing to overlook such blatant dishonesty.

So question #1...using the above as an example, if there were a case that was to go to English Wikipedia Arbcom, which involved me, would you have recused yourself? Of course, we have never interacted on English Wikipedia, so for all intents and purposes there would be no obvious need to recuse yourself. But if you read your own answer at en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/28bytes/Questions#Questions_from_Rschen7754 (#6) you stated "...I don't think any reasonable person would expect ArbCom to shrug and say "what happens off-wiki stays off-wiki." Of course, your calling me a racist on Wikipediocracy, would surely be grounds for recusal. Would it not?

Another question, I note at Steward_requests/Permissions#28bytes.40enwiki that you are asking for your advanced permissions to be removed, but I wonder if as more investigation is done, do you think there will be any examples of you abusing your actual admin rights? For example, you using your tools on an editor or article, and then going to Wikipediocracy to badmouth the editor, or make other such statements which if made on project would have prevented you from using the tools. You can be sure that people will be looking at your admin actions on English Wikipedia and will be cross-referencing things said by you on Wikipediocracy. If for any reason you think that such things may be turned up, do you think it might also be wise to hand in your admin tools as well? Russavia (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russavia. Yes, I expect I would have recused if you came before the committee. Regarding my admin tools, no, I have not misused them, ever. I did, however, turn them in yesterday, because I have decided to leave Wikipedia; you may not have seen that part. 28bytes (talk)
28bytes, thanks for your response, but it doesn't make any logical sense. Using the above as the example, you have never interacted with me in any way that I know of, so for you to recuse yourself would obviously have led to some questions as to the recusal. Your secret participation on Wikipediocracy was obviously deliberate on your part, and I doubt very much that you would have disclosed that participation at the time of a case being taken on; given that the time for that disclosure was during the Arbcom elections, and you consciously chose not to disclose at the time. The only way that could really could have determined whether you would have recused or not is if this whole debacle reared its head after you took your Arbcom seat and then took on a few cases, where given comments, etc from yourself on Wikipediocracy you would have likely had to have recused yourself. The guys at Wikipediocracy obviously missed their golden opportunity for maximum drama with their premature divulgation. Anyways, best. Russavia (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior to having my WO account "outed" publicly, I disclosed to the rest of the arbitration committee that (1) I had an account there, (2) I had been critical of editors there (I specifically mentioned you as one of the editors I had been critical of) and (3) that I would recuse in those cases. 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you advise the rest of the committee the username that you were using on WO? And given that you state you let the committee know as such, and also that you had been critical of specific editors, didn't you think that in the interests of transparency that you should have let the whole community know of this at the time of the Arbcom election? To say that you won your Arbcom seat "fair and square" shows that you obviously just don't get it.
Also, as to you saying that you never abused your admin tools, it has already been raised at en:User_talk:28bytes#Agree_with_resignation that you have been vocal on Wikipediocracy about articles and people, and then have used your admin tools on those articles. This could fit the definition of abuse of tools, in that you are not a neutral observer on those articles. This could be especially true if there is a pattern of such things. On 30 March 2013, you commented here in which you attacked myself and Giano. On 4 April 2013, you then closed the AfD at en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advice_Polack. Given your attacking comments on another site, do you think you should have closed that AfD? Russavia (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you ever get tired of whining and crying about Wikipediocracy constantly? Don't you have other things to do on that porn site of yours? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a reason we have an essay on denying recognition to trolls, especially the borderline racist ones who are banned from enwp and engage in gratuitously nasty and petty behavior. I'm of the opinion that we should just delete Russavia's comments and move on. While I declined the speedy deletion of "Advice Polack" as an attack page, upon reflection I probably should have just zapped it anyway as a biographical nightmare perpetuating a non-notable attack. Deletion of the article thus was absolutely correct, and it has nothing remotely related to Wikipediocracy in it, besides one of their members tagging it. You can drop the conspiracy theories any time now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)